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…

1. I will first take into consideration the doubt proposed. Here are four things mentioned: and the Question is made touching ¹the priority of the two first in respect of the two latter, and that in the thoughts (or intention) of God. And withal I conceive the incarnation of the Son of God is considered in reference to the fall of man. And the advancement of the man Christ in reference to his humiliation. Of the Priority of each in respect of his correlative proceeds the doubt. I think good to consider them apart. As touching the first couple, the incarnation of the Son of God, and the fall of man: I should answer at the first dash, that there is no order between them at all: My reason is this, All order in intention hath course only between the means and the end: But between these two there is no such reference as between the means and the end. The proposition is without question; ⟨p. 2⟩the assumption I prove thus: It belongs to the same Author to be the Author, as of the end, so of the means tending to the end. (All experience justifies this.) But God (though he be the Author of the incarnation of his Son, yet) could not be the Author of the fall of man, as he cannot be the Author of sin. But it is not sit so weighty a question should be strangled unius verbi praejudicio, with the prejudice of one word; therefore let the question proceed (with a little alteration) in comparison of the incarnation of the Son of God, and the permission of the fall of Adam, which undoubtedly was Gods work as well as the former. Some think the decree of the incarnation of the Son of God presupposeth the fall of man; or rather (to speak more accurately in a scholastical discourse) the consideration of Adams fall, and consequently (though this be not always considered) the decree of God to permit Adams fall. This order, though very generally received; yet it is contrary to manifest reason, according to the rule in this Treatise mentioned, and which I take to be most sound. For, if the permission of Adams fall were first in intention, then it should be last in execution, and consequently the Son of God should be first incarnate, and after this Adam should be permitted to fall.

1. I will first take into consideration the doubt proposed. Here are foure things mentioned: and the Question is made touching ¹