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 acclama­tions [Page 2] 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 certaine [Page 3] 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, [Page 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 be­ing [Page 5] 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 that [Page 6] 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 the [Page 7] 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, [Page 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: [...], 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 know [Page 9] 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 these [Page 10] 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 opera­tion [Page 11] 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 [Page] 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 not [Page 13] 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 sees [Page 14] 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 Pro­ductive [Page 15] 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 ignorant [Page 16] 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 beside [Page 17] 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, and [Page 18] 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 purpose [Page 19] (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, [Page 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 this [Page 21] 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 the [Page 22] 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 the [Page 23] 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.