A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certain doubts concerning predestination together with an examination…A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certaine doubts concerning predestination together with an examination…

What you mean by giving Judas over to betray Christ, I know not. Gods providence operative in evil, is of an obscure nature. You speak of obduration and of giving over unto sin, but wherein it consists you explicate not. Yet by declining these phrases, you forsake the point in question: Which is not at this present, whether God gave Judas over to the betraying of Christ, but whether he decreed he should betray him, and the Priests conspire against him, and the people prefer Barabbas before him, and Pilate condemn him. Which because you not directly deny, the Question is transferred to the manner of this decree: as namely, whether it be absolute or conditional. You will have it to be conditional, to wit, upon the presupposall of Judas his covetousness. Yet this you do not in plain terms express, as indeed you seldom set down your meaning plainly, giving your self too much liberty in speaking at large, which is no way conducing to the investigation of truth, but a sore impediment rather. Having said that it is without warrant to say, that the sinful manner of Christs death was decreed by God by an unconditional decree, presupposing no condition in the creatures, which were the wicked instruments of his death. Whereas hereupon you should show upon presupposall of what condition in Judas, in the Priests, in Pilate, God decreed that Judas should betray him, the Priests deliver him to Pilate, and Pilate condemn him: you decline this, and in a new phrase tell ⟨p. 253⟩us, that it was the punishment of Judas his covetousness and hypocrisy, that God gave him up to betray Christ; and in like manner you speak of the rest. Leaving to your Reader to expiscate your direct meaning, and to explicate that which you involve. It seems your meaning is, that upon the foresight of Judas his covetousness and hypocrisy, God decreed he should betray him.

What you mean by giving Judas over to betray Christ, I know not. Gods providence operative in evill, is of an obscure nature. You speak of obduration and of giving over unto sin, but wherein it consists you explicate not. Yet by declining these phrases, you forsake the point in question: Which is not at this present, whether God gave Judas over to the betraying of Christ, but whether hee decreed hee should betray him, and the Priests conspire against him, and the people preferre Barabbas before him, and Pilate condemn him. Which because you not directly deny, the Question is transferred to the manner of this decree: as namely, whether it bee absolute or conditionall. You will have it to bee conditionall, to wit, upon the presupposall of Judas his covetousnesse. Yet this you doe not in plain terms expresse, as indeed you seldome set down your meaning plainly, giving your self too much liberty in speaking at large, which is no way conducing to the investigation of truth, but a sore impediment rather. Having said that it is without warrant to say, that the sinfull manner of Christs death was decreed by God by an unconditionall decree, presupposing no condition in the creatures, which were the wicked instruments of his death. Whereas hereupon you should shew upon presupposall of what condition in Judas, in the Priests, in Pilate, God decreed that Judas should betray him, the Priests deliver him to Pilate, and Pilate condemn him: you decline this, and in a new phrase tell