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…

Others it seems (though very few that I have ever bin acquainted with) take another course, and presuppose Gods purpose touching the incarnation of his Son to precede his purpose touching the permission of Adams fall; yet not so much for the former reason, as for the honour of Christ. But this will be found upon true scanning, to be as contradictions to manifest reason as the former, and that upon the same ground. For, if God did purpose the incarnation of his Son before he purposed the permission of the fall of Adam, much more did he purpose the incarnation of his Son, before he purposed to permit the sins of all men, and particularly the sins of them that crucified the Son of God, Act. 2. 36. I say much more; only to signify that this is much more evident. But this is a thing impossible upon the former ground, and upon the former rule. For, if the incarnation of the Son of God were first in intention, then it should be last in execution; and consequently Christ should first be permitted by God to be crucified, and after this he should be incarnate. 2. Again. Did God decree that his Son should take humane flesh upon him indefinitely in respect of place where, and ⟨p. 3⟩time when? Or definitely at such a time, and in the womb of the Virgin Mary? Indefinite decrees are generally thought to be nothing becoming God. If definitely, how could this be without the consideration of Adams fall? 3. If the decree of incarnation be advanced before the decree of permitting Adam to fall, why not before the decree of the creation also, and that not only of men, but of Angels? Certainly it could not be before the decree of creating Angels: For priority in intention is only of the end, in reference to the means; and certainly the creation of Angels, was no means for the incarnation of the Son of God. Now if the decree of incarnation were not before the decree of the creation of Angels, surely it was not before the decree of the creation of mankind: For the decree of the creation of Angels was in no moment before the decree of the creation of man: which I prove thus: If the creation of Angels were first in intention, it should be last in execution, and consequently man should be created before Angels.

Others it seems (though very few that I have ever bin acquainted with) take another course, and presuppose Gods purpose touching the incarnation of his Sonne to precede his purpose touching the permission of Adams fall; yet not so much for the former reason, as for the honour of Christ. But this will be found upon true scanning, to be as contradictions to manifest reason as the former, and that upon the same ground. For, if God did purpose the incarnation of his Sonne before he purposed the permission of the fall of Adam, much more did he purpose the incarnation of his Sonne, before he purposed to permit the sinnes of all men, and particularly the sins of them that crucified the Sonne of God,