A64003:620
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…
A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certain doubts concerning predestination together with an examination thereof / written by William Twice ...A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certaine doubts concerning predestination together with an examination thereof / written by William Twisse ...
London: printed by J.D. for Andrew Crook, 1646
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Fourthly, though this be a plausible course in the judgement of man, especially of the Arminians, for the smothering of the light of Gods truth in this place, yet when it is well considered, in the proper nature of it, I presume it will be very dissonant unto common reason. For what I pray you is hardening in this place, standing in opposition to the showing of mercy, but only the denying of the grace of Faith and Repentance to them that hear the Gospel; like as to show mercy is to give the grace of Faith and Repentance, as appeareth manifestly, both by the same phrase used, Rom. 11. 30, 31. and also by this very place clearing it self? For it is such an operation whereupon it will ⟨p. 286⟩follow, that God shall have cause or occasion to complain, as appeareth by the objection moved hereupon. Now I say, to deny Faith and Repentance is not of the nature of a punishment, neither can it be said with sobriety, that man by sin doth deserve that God should deny him faith and repentance, like as it cannot be with sobriety affirmed, that man by being sick, hath deserved that the Physician should not cure him: or that man being dead, hath deserved thereby that God should not raise him from death; whereas indeed a man could not be raised from death, unless he were first dead, nor cured unless first sick, neither were there any need of Faith in Christ crucified, and of repentance, unless man were a sinner.
Fourthly, though this bee a plausible course in the judgement of man, especially of the Arminians, for the smothering of the light of Gods truth in this place, yet when it is well considered, in the proper nature of it, I presume it will bee very dissonant unto common reason. For what I pray you is hardning in this place, standing in opposition to the shewing of mercy, but onely the denying of the grace of Faith and Repentance to them that heare the Gospel; like as to shew mercy is to give the grace of Faith and Repentance, as appeareth manifestly, both by the same phrase used, Rom. 11. 30, 31. and also by this very place cleering it self? For it is such an operation whereupon it will ⟨p. 286⟩follow, that God shall have cause or occasion to complain, as appeareth by the objection moved hereupon. Now I say, to deny Faith and Repentance is not of the nature of a punishment, neither can it bee said with sobriety, that man by sin doth deserve that God should deny him faith and repentance, like as it cannot bee with sobriety affirmed, that man by being sick, hath deserved that the Physitian should not cure him: or that man being dead, hath deserved thereby that God should not raise him from death; whereas indeed a man could not bee raised from death, unlesse hee were first dead, nor cured unlesse first sick, neither were there any need of Faith in Christ crucifyed, and of repentance, unlesse man were a sinner.