Predeſtination handled and maintained &c.

THE reviving and vi­gorous Errors of theſe dayes,Generall Redemp­tion. Free will. too miſerably heard aſſerted, and maintained, from the mouthes of ſome of thoſe, who even pre­tend to greater devotion; abetted alſo with the confident ſuffrages, and earneſt acclama­tions2 of their Audients not a few, have ſomewhat prema­turely haſtned to the birth, theſe our newly conceived me­ditations; which ſhould elſe have tarried for a more elabo­rate, and exact Recenſion. Howſoever, we hope, there's none will reprehend; when he may, with us, conſider, this may prove alſo an occaſion to others more able, of appearing in this ſame defence. And ſo paſſe we to the intended mat­ter, that is, Predeſtination: touching which, for our more orderly progreſſe, we be­gin our diſcourſe from its defi­nition: which, in the ſenſe we uſe it, may thus be formed. Predeſtination then is Gods deſigning, and appointing ſe­verally, before time, a certaine3 number of perſons, to grace, and glory; and that abſolute­ly and of ſimple love to them. That this deſignation is before time, is expreſly by the Scrip­tures intimated: as, he hath choſen us in him, before the Foundation of the VVorld. Eph. 1.4. and 2 Tim. 2.9. &c. And that in the act of Predeſti­nation, God had before him, the certaine diſtinct notions, & particular repreſentations of all the Elect, i. e. of all men that are, or ever ſhall be glorified; is not onely atteſted by the Scriptures, but by Reaſon alſo. And firſt, we alledge Scriptures. Revel. 17.8. the words are theſe: And they that dwell on the Earth, ſhall wonder, whoſe Names were not written in the Booke of Life,4 from the foundation of the World. Here what have we hinted,4 Phil. 3.10. Lu. 20.13 Rev. 8. but a Regiſtrie, or Ca­talogue of the names of the E­lect? whoſe names were not writen &c. And that before time: For in the occaſionally, or accidentally intimating the negation of that priviledge as to ſome, (a thing quite beſides the Authors chiefe purpoſe) is evidently, and cleerly im­plyed, a Graunt, and Con­ceſſion thereof to ſome others. Againe, Rom. 8.29.30. Whom he foreknew he alſo did Pre­deſtinate, &c. and whom he did Predeſtinate them he alſo called &c. Here, by foreknow­ing what is intended? If the word you will have taken in its vulgar, and ordinary ſenſe, then will it follow, that all be­ing5 of God foreknowne, all likewiſe being accounted to the partnerſhip of thoſe glori­ous dignities, Sanctity, Glo­ry, &c. which ſure none of a­ny reaſon will admit. Some to this word foreknew, would have adjoyned, theſe words, [would believe] and that in a way of cauſing. Which whiles they conjecture, how unwari­ly skip they over a notable ab­ſurdity? For (by them) thoſe ſame God foreknew would of themſelves believe, he alſo makes to believe: unleſſe they'l ſay believing, or faith is not, nor any part of voca­tion, and Sanctification: nor they of it, which were even to fly from a leſſe unto a greater abſurditie. We rather con­ceive the Author by that6 word, to intend Gods eternall love in Chriſt to his Saints, reflected upon by him with re­ference, and in order to thoſe graduall inferences: which love ſo reflected on, appear'd like a Crowne, intituling thoſe that wore it, to the Royall Preheminences, Calling, San­ctity, Glory. Nor do we want other Scriptures, many, that clearly owne, and confirme out ſaid interpretation; when the undoubted ſenſe thereof doth plainly exact ſuch an under­ſtanding of the queſtioned words, as we have delivered. GOD hath not caſt of His People, whom Hee foreknew, Rom. 11.2. and Mat. 25.12. I know you not. See 3 Amos 2. with many others. 'Tis evi­dent then that knowing in the7 Scriptures Dialect, is put for loving: And as evident it is alſo, that Calling, Juſtificati­on, Glorification in the fore­ſaid place mentioned, do re­ceive limits,Act. 2. laſt v. & 13.48 and meaſure from that foreknowing, or forelo­ving: which is in the text aſ­ſur'd us, by that often repeated Relative, whom. Thoſe Hee foreknew, Hee predeſtinated, called &c. Thoſe and no others; Thoſe and no more. Which ſeeing tis ſo, then vaine and in­conſiderate is that opinion of many, who think the number, and perſons of the foreknown, were to God in the ſaid act of Predeſtination not determi­nate, nor ſeverally conſidered; but that they lay deepe ſunke in the Abyſſe of obſcuritie, and confuſion; either neceſſa­rily,8 or willingly by God ſo ſuffered to bee: So as any one has in himſelfe Free-will, and Power; by believing, to make himſelf of the number of thoſe Foreknowne. But to paſſe by this Errour of theirs, we will add to this word foreknowne, another of the ſame Apoſtles words uſ'd in the like matter & that is choſen 1 Eph. 4. an act likewiſe plac'd before all time:〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, tis in the Greeke cull'd out. Now in chuſing, or pick­ing out as it were of ſome from out of others; is had a diſcer­ing, and diſtinction, elſe 'tis no chooſing, no Election, and where chooſing is, there is alſo a taking out of ſome, a leaving of others. God then did take ſome for his Sonnes, and heirs of glory, did he not know9 them? who they would bee?Pſal. •39.15.16. how many? But he knew Davids ſubſtance yet being im­perfect, and in his booke were written all his Members, when as yet there was none of them. If you will have this to be ſpoken of Davids Perſon, even ſo it doth make much for us: If of the Elect, (as more proba­ble) then much more; yea then it amounts to no leſſe then a cleare and plenarie confirma­tion of the point we aſſert. Rom. •.11.12.13.He knew alſo Jacob and loved him yet unborne. Lu. •.15.He knew Iohn the Baptiſt,Ier. 2.5. and ſanctified him in the wombe. And Ieremiah did he know before he formed him in the belly, and before he came forth out of the wombe, he ſanctified him, and ordain­ed him a Prophet, &c. All theſe10 you'l grant God did foreknow ſeverally,See alſo 1 Gal 15. Act. 15.18. did he not alſo know the reſt? But known unto God (ſaith the Apoſtle) are all his workes from the beginning of the World.

Iohn 1.3. 1 Col. 16. Epheſ. 3.9. Act. 4.24.Again, hee formeth and ma­keth all things; witneſſe the Scri­ptures: From whence we will inferre he foreknew all things; For he does either make things raſhly, and without precogni­tion of their future Formes, or contrariwiſe:See Act. 4.28. but doubtleſſe the latter; elſe ſhall we put the Creator beneath that perfecti­on he has given his Creature: (for not man ſets himſelfe to operate, without having a pre­ſcript, or preconceiv'd type, and pattern of the work he in­tends to.) And then this prece­dencie of knowledge, to opera­tion11 in God, was before time: for a Creature it is not, but it is in God alone, and ſo God him­ſelfe, according to the School­men;^**vvhatſo­ever is in God, is God him­ſelfe. Quicquid eſt in Deo eſt ipſe Deus. And ſecondly, if this precognition was in God not eternall, then did there ſome­thing from without, occaſion and beget the ſame; (for God is one, ſimple, entire, and not mixed) and ſo it will follow, God is paſſible, imperfect; yea, the firſt Cauſe then, ſhall in a manner bee the effect of a ſe­cond; of its owne effect; and ſo there will follow a confuſi­on of Cauſes: which all are moſt abſurd. The like may be ſaid alſo of Gods love to men ſeverally, in reference to that of Ieremiah, Chap. 31. Verſ. 23. (I have loved thee with an ever­laſting love) if any would have it reſtrain'd to the future only. But an irrefragable place alſo to our purpoſe is, that in the Pſalms, Pſalm. 90. Verſ. 1. Lord thou haſt been our dwelling place in all Generations. Heb: From Genera­tion, to Genera­tion, the ſame in ſenſe.What, would hee bee their dwelling place, ſo long, and yet not know them? doubtleſſe no. Wee ſay again, if God did not ſeverally know, eternally, the perſons of thoſe he preordain'd to life eternall, 'twas either be­cauſe he would not, or becauſe he could not. That wee em­brace not the former, the admi­rable love of God to them ex­hibited, more eſpecially in the wonderfull act of Redemption. diſſwadeth: And the latter wee now come to refute by rea­ſon.

If God therefore did not13 know the preciſe number of his Saints, before the world made, and ſo upwards, then did he waite untill he ſhould be in­formed thereof, either from the events, and determinations of his own Actions, or elſe from ſome other Minde and Pow­er, and this Minde and Power is either ſubordinate to God, or co-ordinate with him: If ſub­ordinate; (as neceſſarily) then ſimply and totally ſubordinate to him, or not: if not; then ſtill muſt it be mounted into the throne of a Deitie: but if ſim­ply, and totally ſubordinate, then did it, and doth receive of God the Precepts, formes, rules, and preciſe meaſures of all its actions: And other then ſuch an Agent, (if yet even ſuch a one) no man but ſees14 God would not ordaine, to ſo great a detraction, and blemiſh, and even emulation of his di­vine Soveraignty. (we ſpeak of a Power procreative of thoſe wee call Naturall and Sub­ſtantiall Formes, as ſuch) Nor would we by any meanes admit of ſuch a Preter-divine Agent, directly over the very perſons, of men. What may be brought againſt us out of Geneſis 1.11. And God ſaid let the Earth bring forth graſſe, &c. Is limitted to things vegitative onely. The 24. verſe, where its ſaid, Let the Earth bring forth the living Creature, &c. Is declared by that which followes, viz. And God made the beſt of the, Earth. &c. We then here finde any Aſſignation, of delegation of ſuch a Pro­ductive15 Power or Faculty, as to the forme ſubſtantiall, ex­tended to man: whoſe ſupere­minent Dignity is in the ſame Chapter pointed out in the words; Let us make man, &c. Nor (as for the other member) is God to deduce ſuch a knowledge, from the events, and determinations of his own Actions: For then it may be truly to be ſaid of Him, Hee's about to do he knowes not how much: or he knowes not the quantity of his own intend­ed actions, which were doubt­leſſe abſurd. It will then alſo be true, if one ſhall ſay at the period of humane Generation, or ſome ſhort time before; Now knowes God ſomewhat of his nobleſt Creatures, which before he was ignorant16 of. Nor may our diſcourſe much ſtick at that Objection. What then (may ſome ſay) did God know before time every blade of graſſe that ſhould be? every duſt on the earth? &c. To ſtep beſides this block (which yet we could under­take to clear the way of) we anſwer: Our Treatiſe is of man; whom alone his Crea­tour would have ſublimed a­bove others, by the Impreſſe even of his own Reſemblance: not of Plants or meere Ani­malls: of Immortalls not mor­talls, and amongſt theſe, of the Saints principally: mem­bers of the Lords own myſticall body: His Children, His Saints, &c. who, what if we ſhould tell you, have a Seminall or radicall being eternal: which though (as being a thing beſide17 our ſcope) we ſhall forbeare, yet is there enough ſaid to marre the conſequence, viz. from things inanimate or ve­getative onely, to Intellectives: from mortalls, to immortalls; and all this in a certaine re­ſpect of Dignity alſo.

Againe, Whatſoever thing moſt excellent can incur into, or be deviſed by the Imagina­tion of man, That ought we to believe to be in God, in ſome equall, or eminent manner; elſe would it prove to the diſpa­ragement, and indignity of the great Creator that he ſhould have enabled his Creature to imagine that Excellency, which is not in Himſelfe; which is a­bove Himſelfe. Now this nume­rical foreknowledge is eaſily by man both immaginable, and18 comprehenſible. But Eterni­tie, Infinitude are without all doubt attributed to God: ei­ther of them is greater then the contended for preſcience of number: we grant him the former, how can we denie him the latter? So much for this point, wherein if we ſhall ſeeme to any more prolix then is needefull, let them have this anſwer. Both they that aſſent, may have now more ground ſo to do; and they that diſſent, may hereby of this their Er­rour be the more fully con­vinced. And now paſſe we to the other branch of our Defi­nition; namely, That the Predeſtination aforementioned was abſolutely, and of ſimple love.

Deſtination, or purpoſe19 (largely taken) is an act of the minde, begotten of the under­ſtanding and wil concurring, and is related to ſomthing by the Perſon to be done. But this definition haply is too large for our purpoſe, which is to treate of ſuch purpoſes, as are about things of more con­ſiderable moment, and conſe­quence. We ſhall firſt there­fore devide, and then deſcribe them in more ample, and fami­liar termes. Purpoſes then are either more perfect, or leſſe perfect; that is abſolute or conditionall. The more per­fect or abſolute are when the Perſon purpoſing, having pro­jected or cogitated ſomthing to be done, and then riſing up to a conſideration, and ponder­ing of things already hapned,20 preſent, or for the future hap­penable, (to wit) events, caſes, non-events, conditions, ſtates of things; forcible and of im­portance, as to the deſtroying, or impeding of the thing pur­poſed, doth at length ſit downe with a reſolution to do or exe­cute. The Imperfect or con­ditionall are, when the minde, projecting or imaginating ſomthing to be done, and ha­ving made enquiry and eſtima­tion of all important and forci­ble impediments, as to the exe­cution thereof, and then fin­ding ſome poſſible but uncer­taine intervention, accident, defect, or ſtate of things, or thing, that in the judgement of the Perſon purpoſing, ought to or will hinder & forbid exe­cution, drawes at length to this21 reſolution that if this or that intervene, or this or that in­tervene not, the purpoſe ſhall proceed to execution.

To prove that one word, (uncertaine) to be that onely, which gives being to the pur­poſe conditionall, as it is ſuch; and that without this uncer­tainty, the purpoſe, if it pro­ceed and abide, muſt needs be abſolute, is an eaſie taske: For why doth one yet purpoſe to do this or that, when hee's wel aſſur'd there hath been, is, or will be ſomthing that (in this particular) ought and will hin­der its accompliſhment? which cannot be. For examples ſake, A Father purpoſes to give his ſonne by will 100. l. on con­dition he pleaſe him well in the meane time. Here does the22 Father know or is he certaine, that his ſonne will ſoe pleaſe him? or is he not certaine? if he be certaine, to what then ſerves the condition? (ſith de­fault or defect in the condition muſt deſtroy the purpoſe) If he knowes he will not ſo pleaſe him, and yet ſo purpoſes, then this is no more a condition, but the purpoſe may be, notwith­ſtanding this, abſolute and prefect. Hence therefore may we with clearneſſe deduce this concluſion: That the reaſon why purpoſes are con­ditionall is, a want in fore­knowledge, or an uncertainty in the perſon purpoſing, of all ſuch things as will and ought to deſtroy the purpoſe. So that it alſo followes to be inconvenient with the23 properties of God, to purpoſe, or predeſtinate conditionally: it being a thing cleare that we ought to allow God ſuch a foreknowledge, eſpecially then too when he does intend to ſuch one; as happeneth in the caſe of purpoſes or Predeſtina­tion. Beſides this, alſo it may be minded, that where a per­ſon purpoſeth or Predeſtinate­eth to do any thing of free will, there the purpoſe parta­keth ſomthing of deſire to ex­ecution. God now is both an abſolute purpoſer, and a de­ſirous one too: then what is it can hinder him therein.