Mr Cottons Clearing Doubts Concerning Predestination, Interpretation 1 · Question 1

Mr Cottons Clearing Doubts Concerning Predestination · Interpretation 1 · Question 1

p. 1QUESTION. 1.

HOw may it appeare that there was any thought of the incarnation of the ſecond perſon, or advancement of the man Chriſt, before the preſuppoſall of the fall of man, and his owne humiliation.

God doth not propoſe one thing before another in time, all things are at once preſent with him: But the things purpoſed by God, God Anſw.doth order them one for another, and ſo is he rightly ſaid to purpoſe one thing in order before another. Now in order of things, God hath firſt purpoſed the glorifying of himſelfe, yea, and the glorifying of himſelfe in Chriſt too, before he preſuppoſed the fall of man, and humiliation of Chriſt; as may appeare, &c.

1. I will firſt take into conſideration the doubt propoſed. Here are foure things mentioned: and the Queſtion is made touching Exam.the priority of the two firſt in reſpect of the two latter, and that in the thoughts (or intention) of God. And withall I conceive the incarnation of the Sonne 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 thinke 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 onelyonly between the meanes 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. 2the aſſumption I prove thus: It belongs to the ſame Author to be the Author, as of the end, ſo of the meanes tending to the end. (All experience juſtifies this.) But God (though he be the Author of the incarnation of his Sonne, yet) could not be the Author of the fall of man, as he cannot be the Author of ſinne. 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 Sonne of God, and the permiſſion of the fall of Adam, which undoubtedly was Gods work as well as the former. Some thinke the decree of the incarnation of the Sonne of God preſuppoſeth the fall of man; or rather (to ſpeake more accurately in a ſcholaſticall diſcourſe) the conſideration of Adams fall, and conſequently (though this be not alwaies 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. 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, Act. 2. 36. I ſay much more; onelyonly to ſignifie 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 Sonne 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 hee ſhould be incarnate. 2. Againe. Did God decree that his Sonne ſhould take humane fleſh upon him indefinitely in reſpect of place where, and p. 3time when? Or definitely at ſuch a time, and in the wombe of the Virgin Mary? Indefinite decrees are generally thought to be nothing becomming 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 onelyonly of men, but of Angels? Certainly it could not be before the decree of creating Angels: For priority in intention is onelyonly of the end, in reference to the meanes; and certainly the creation of Angels, was no meanes 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. Now if the incarnation of the Sonne, were not in intention before the creation of mankind in Adam, I will here-hence manifeſtly deduce, that the ſame incarnation of the Sonne of God was not any moment of nature in intention before the permiſſion of mans fall; for certainly creation of mankind in Adam was not: as I prove thus; If Adams creation were in Gods intention before the permiſſion of his fall, then ſhould it have bin laſt in execution; that is, man ſhould be permitted to fall into ſinne, before God created him.

Thus, looke by what reaſon it may appeare, that the permiſſion of Adams fall was not in Gods intention before the incarnation of the Sonne of God; by as good reaſon doth it appeare, that the incarnation of the Sonne of God was not in Gods intention before the permiſſion of Adams fall: whence it followeth, that the incarnation of the Son of God, and the permiſſion of Adams fall, together with his creation are not ſubordinanda, to be ſubordinated in Gods intention (as if any of theſe were the end which God intended, and the reſt meanes ordained to that end) but co-ordinanda, to be co-ordinated, as joynt means tending to a further end: and that is the manifeſtation of Gods glory in a way of mercy mixt with juſtice: Which end doth equally be ſpeake all the three former as meanes tending thereunto. For, no declaration of Gods glory can be without creation, nor in the way of mercy without permiſſion p. 4of ſinne and miſery: nor of ſuch a mercy as is mixt with juſtice, without the incarnation and paſſion of the Son of God.

2. As for the order of the other two, to wit the advancement of the man Chriſt, and his humiliation, thereof we are now to ſpeake. And firſt I confeſſe willingly, that his humiliation could not be intended before his exaltation, leſt, being firſt in intention, it ſhould be laſt in execution. I will further prove that his advancement or exaltation could not be intended before his humiliation. And firſt, this may be made evident as touching his greateſt advancement, which was by incarnation; all advancement following was farre inferior unto this. Now this advancement was not intended before his humiliation; for had it bin firſt in intention, it had bin laſt in execution, and conſequently Chriſt had been firſt humbled, and afterwards his nature taken into an hypoſtaticall union with the Sonne of God. Secondly I prove, that the advancement of his humane nature after his paſſion, was not in Gods intention before his humiliation. For I have already proved that the taking of the humane nature into an hypoſtaticall union with the Son of God, was not before his humiliation: and you will not ſay that the advancement of the man Chriſt you ſpeake of, was in Gods intention before his incarnation, therefore neither was it in Gods intention before his humiliation.

What remaines then, but that all theſe, to wit, the incarnation of the Sonne of God, his humiliation in the fleſh, together with his ſucceeding advancement, are not ſub-ordinanda, to bee ſubordinated in Gods intention, (as if onewere the end, and the other meanes tending to that end) but rather Co-ordinanda, to be co-ordinated; if not as joynt meanes tending to one and the ſame end throughout, yet as different meanes tending to different ends; or partly the one, partly the other: Still holding up this truth, that no order is to be found in intention between any but ſuch as have the reference of end and meanes amongſt themſelves. As for example, The incarnation of the Son of God is a ſole and ſingle means tending to the manifeſtation of the greateſt free grace of God that ever was or can be ſhewed to the world; his humiliation reſpects both our good and his owne. As it reſpects ours; together with his incarnation, it is a meanes to manifeſt the glory of God in ſaving us in deſpight of ſinne, and that in the way of juſtice. In reſpect of his owne good, together with his advancement, p. 5it is a joynt means for manifeſting the remunerative juſtice of God, in rewarding him according to his deſerts: in conformity to that of the Apoſtle, Therefore hath God exalted him. But neither Phil. 2.Phil 2this advancement of his, is the end of his humiliation, nor either of theſe the end of his aſſumption into an hypoſtaticall union with the Sonne of God: Nor his hypoſtaticall union with the ſecond perſon in Trinity the end of any of theſe; and therfore they are to be accompted rather co-ordinate then ſubordinate in the intention of God.

2. Now I come to examine how this doubt is cleered. Here we have firſt a rule, then the accomodation of this rule. Touching the rule I acknowledge it, and I adde ſomething to the cleering of it. Granting that there is no order in Gods decrees, but ſuch as is grounded upon this, that God purpoſeth one thing for another. This one thing and another are only the end and the means; between which we ſay, in the intention of God there is onelyonly prioritas rationis, priority of reaſon; which in my judgement is well expounded thus: when ratio unius petitur à ratione alterius, the reaſon of the one is taken from the reaſon of the other; as ratio mediorum petitur à ratione ſinis, the reaſon of the means is taken from the reaſon of the end. And therefore we ſay, The end is firſt in intention, and then the meanes.

As for the accomodation of the rule, it ſeems to me to be nothing at all to the purpoſe; for the doubt propoſed was not how it might appeare that there was any thought of the glorifying of God, before the preſuppoſall of Adams fall, and of Chriſts humiliation. We willingly acknowledge the glory of God was thought on before them all, both before the incarnation, advancement of the man Chriſt, mans fall, and Chriſts humiliation: I ſay, before them all, prioritate rationis, by priority of reaſon; for, undoubtedly, both the incarnation of the Son of God, That is, the hypoſtaticall union of Chriſts manhood to the ſecond perſon in the Trinitie, and the advancement of the man Chriſt, was to the glory of God as the end thereof, as well as ought elſe. And this glory of God hath been ſpecified at leaſt in part. And as for the glorifying of himſelf in Chriſt, this ſtill denotes the glory of God as the end, though it addes withall the matter wherein it ſhines, to wit, the man Chriſt. And to prevent the errour of equivocation, that uſually lurkes under generalls. This glorifying of God in p. 6Chriſt conſiſts either in ſeverall, or in common, with the glorifying of himſelf in man alſo; to wit, in the elect, conſidered in ſeverall. I confeſſe there is a double glory of God, manifeſted in Chriſt: The one is the glory of his pure grace in conferring the greateſt good and honour that the creature is capable of, as namely in the hypoſtaticall union of the manhood of Chriſt to the ſecond perſon in the Trinitie.

Secondly the glory of Gods remunerative juſtice in the higheſt degree poſſible, both in reſpect of the reward, the greateſt that poſſibly could be deſerved (for that hypoſtaticall union could not be deſerved) and that is the gloriſication of the humane nature of Chriſt, both in reſpect of his glory abſolute, and of his glory relative, as by whom ſalvation is procured to others: as alſo in reſpect of the deſert, the greateſt I thinke that poſſibly could be, to wit, the humiliation of the Sonne of God to the death of the croſſe in way of obedience to his Fathers will. There is alſo a glory of God that appeares in Chriſt, not in ſeverall, as a ſole meanes thereof, but in common with other meanes joyntly concurring thereunto: and that is the glory of God in the way of merciemercy mixt with juſtice, in ſaving ſinners for the obedience of Chriſt. The glory of God in all theſe ſeverall wayes was in the firſt place intended by God before ought elſe, prioritate rationis, in prioritie of reaſon; and afterwards the congruous meanes to theſe ſeverall ends, as the ends them ſelves did beſpeake, were intended by him: for ratio mediorū petitur à ratione ſinis; the reaſon of the meanes is taken from the reaſon of the end. But all this is nothing to ſhew that the incarnation of the ſecond perſon, or advancement of the man Chriſt, ſhould be before the conſideration of mans fall, or Chriſts humiliation. Yet let us examine that which followeth, delivered by way of proof of that which no man, that I know, makes queſtion of.

Becauſe Chriſt was ordained before the world was, therefore before the conſideration either of Creation or Fall. For, in ſcripture Anſw. 1.phraſe, when God is ſaid to doe one thing before another, he meaneth before the exiſtence or being of it in his conſideration, as an inducement leading him unto it, as well as before the exiſtence of it by nature: As when God is ſaid to have loved Jacob rather then Eſau before they had done either good or evill. Rom. 9. 11. He meaneth before they had done it in his conſideration, as a cauſe or p. 7condition leading him to love, or hatred, as well as in actuall performance in their owne perſons.

I pray conſider, why was Chriſt ordained, and to what end, before the world was? Was he not ordained to be incarnate in Exam.the womb of the Virgin, and to be a Lambe for a burnt offering, to make ſatisfaction for ſins? And was it poſſible that this ordination could have courſe without conſideration of the creation and fall? And though this be confeſſed, yet will it not here hence follow, that the decree of creation and permiſſion of mans fall, was before the decree of the incarnation of the Sonne of God: which alone, as I conceive, caſteth ſome mens inventions upon the platforme of a new courſe. And conſequently it will not follow, that, in this caſe, the conſideration of creation and fall ſhould precede as motives to God to ſend his Sonne: For firſt, I ſay, the conſiderations hereof are not all precedent, but conjunct and concomitant, like as are the decrees. Secondly, if they did precede, yet ſhould they not precede as motives. Good or evill workes are fit motives, I confeſſe, of election and reprobation, if it were poſſible their conſiderations could precede the one or the other: But creation and fall are no fit motives of ordaining Chriſt, (for they were found in Angels as well as in men) though the conſideration of them could precede this ordination. 2. Election is as expreſly ſaid to be before the foundation of the world, as the ordination of Chriſt. And was not reprobation in oppoſition to election in the ſame moment of time and nature alſo? Doth not election connotate reprobation? But it will be ſaid that this phraſe, before the world, ſignifies not any meaſure of duration when that worke was done, but a negation of any conſideration had of the creation or fall. This ſeems a very ſtrange conſtruction; therefore it deſerves to be diſcuſſed.

3. Before Abraham was I am; would you interpret it thus: Before the conſideration of Abraham, I am? Before the Child ſhall have knowledge to eſchew the evill, and to chooſe the good, the land that thou abhorreſt ſhall be forſaken of both her Kings, is the meaning hereof, before the conſideration of the Childs knowledge to eſchew the evill and to chooſe the good?

4. Is not this a manifeſt courſe to overthrow our beſt evidence of the eternitie of election and Chriſts ordination? For what evidence p. 8doth the word of God affoord comparable to theſe? And we know that out of our ſelves ſome have riſen, denying the eternitie of Gods decrees: and ſhall we do them ſuch acceptable ſervice, as in blaſting ſuch evidences as theſe that make againſt them? Then let us goe and interpret accordingly the Apoſtle, where he ſpeakes of ſome thing promiſed foreign, and ſay the meaning is, before the conſideration of thoſe foreign, times conſiſting of many ages, or ſome thing in them, I know not what.2 Tim. 1. 9.2 Tim 1:9

5. I grant, before they had done good or evill, Rom 9. is as much as before the conſideration of any good or evill done by them. The text it ſelfe doth beſpeake this meaning. But will it follow that, becauſe before they had done good or evill, Rom. 9. is as much as before the conſideration of their good or evill workes; the text beſpeaking that ſenſe, therefore, 1 Pet. 1. 20. where Chriſt is ſaid to be ordained before the world, it is as much as to ſay, Chriſt was ordained before the conſideration of the creation and fall; the text beſpeaking no ſuch interpretation, but rather reſiſting it, by the compariſon made betwixt the ordination of Chriſt, and the declaration of Chriſt; the one ſaid to be made before the foundations of the world, the other ſaid to be made in theſe laſt times? as much as to ſay the one before all times, the other not till theſe laſt times: Times with times compared, not conſideration of the creation and fall with theſe laſt times.

6. Again, the conſideration of works, good or evill, are fit motives (as hath beene ſaid) unto election and reprobation if they could precede them; but the conſideration of the creation and fall, though preceding, yet is no fit motive to the ordination of Chriſt; wee well know they were found in Angels as well as in men. By the way, where I pray is it ſaid, that God loved Jacob rather then Eſau? I find it ſaid Rom. 9. that God loved Jacob and hated Eſau. But if you take liberty to interpret it thus, He loved Jacob rather then Eſau; why may not I as well take liberty to interpret it thus, God hated Eſau rather then Jacob? yet I confeſſe the former interpretation is made by Cornelius de lapide the Jeſuite.

God choſe us before the world in Chriſt our head, Eph. 1. 4. Therefore hee choſe Chriſt alſo to bee our head before the Anſw. 2.world was. For if we be choſen in him, it implyeth that he, as our head, was choſen before us in order, and we in him, Now if we who p. 9were choſen in Chriſt, and ſo after Chriſt in order; if wee (I ſay) were choſen before the world, and ſo before the conſideration either of creation or fall, how much more Chriſt, who was choſen before us?

In the allegation of Saint Pauls text, I find ſomething left out that pertaines to the compleating of the ſentence: for the ſentence Exam.is this, Who hath choſen us in Chriſt, that we ſhould be holy: Here the latter part of one entire ſentence is quite left out. And by your diſmembring it, the ſentence is made cauſeleſly obſcure, and ſo the fitter to ſerve for advantages. This is Arminius courſe, Exam. Pag. 31. Apoſtolus ait, nos in Chriſto electos eſſe; The Apoſtle ſaith, we are elected in Chriſt. And as ſomething in the text is left out: ſo ſomething beſides the text is put in, God choſe us before the world in Chriſt our head. This likewiſe Arminius inſiſts on, Exam. Pag. 158. And marke I pray you how he works upon each; To be elect in Chriſt, is with him, to be elect being in Chriſt: for, nos in Chriſto, with him is, nos exiſtentes in Chriſto. And ſeeing we are not in Chriſt but by faith, hereupon he makes the object of election to be fideles, the faithfull; or in Chriſtum credentes, ſuch as believe in Chriſt. We anſwer: firſt, We may take as great libertie to interpret it, for explication ſake, by ſupplying a participle of the future tenſe, thus, elegit nos futuros in Chriſto, he choſe us hereafter to be in Chriſt: (like as it followes, who hath predeſtinated us to be adopted. Now we are adopted by faith, Gal. 3. 26.) as he takes liberty to ſupply a participle of the preſent tenſe, eſſpecially, conſidering that when we were elect, to wit, before the foundation of the world, we were not at all, and conſequently were not fideles, believers. Secondly wee anſwer, that the compleat ſentence, conſidered at full, doth manifeſt in what ſenſe this phraſe [in Chriſt] is taken. He choſe us in Chriſt, that we ſhould be holy: This ſhewes to what wee were choſen, to wit, to obtaine holineſſe, and how; to wit, in Chriſt, that is, for Chriſts ſake; Like as v. 3. 'tis ſaid, God hath bleſſed us with all ſpirituall bleſſings in Heavenly things in Chriſt Jeſus: that is, for Chriſt his ſake. And like as 1. Theſ. 5. 9. 'tis ſaid, God hath ordained us to obtaine ſalvation thorough Jeſus Chriſt: So here in a conformable expoſition, when it is ſaid, God hath choſen us in Chriſt, that wee ſhould bee holy; a faire meaning may be this, God hath ordained us to obtaine holineſſe through Jeſus Chriſt; eſpecially conſidering that p. 10grace is called ſalvation 2. Tim. 1. 9. as well as glory; And thus Arminius himſelfe falls upon Exam. Pag. 31. Apoſtolus inquit, nos in Chriſto electos eſſe tanquam in mediatore, cujus ſanguine nobis ſalus parta eſt. And thus the danger is fairely avoided of making Chriſt the cauſe of our election quoad actum eligentis, which not one of our Divines, that I know, maintains, ſave Rolloc. But Arminius, I confeſſe, labours for it tooth and naile, to no other end, but that ſo he may ſomewhat plauſibly bring in faith alſo, if not as a cauſe, yet as a pre-requiſite at leaſt of our election. And yet for all the noyſe he makes in this kind, calling Chriſt the foundation of our election, nevertheleſſe the iſſue is to confeſſe that all comes to this, that Chriſt is therefore the foundation of our election becauſe he is the meritorious cauſe bonorum electione praeparatorum, of good things which are prepared by election; ſuch as he ſpecifies to bee grace and glory, as appeares both in his publique and private diſputations. Now, if in this ſenſe we are ſaid to be elect in Chriſt, that we ſhould be holy, then it is cleare, we are not elect in Chriſt tanquam in capite; for, ratio capitis non eſt ratio cauſae meritoriae, as Arminius himſelfe acknowledgeth, Exam. Pag. 3. Apoſtolus inquit nos electos eſſe in Chriſto tanquam in mediatore, cujus ſanguine nobis ſalus parta eſt & vita: there a way hath cauſa meritoria, his courſe. And then he addes, & ut in capite, ex quo iſta bona ad nos derivantur. So that ratio capitis with him is ratio cauſae efficientis; not moraliter, but phyſicè: and therein he ſaith truth. Secondly, obſerve what he marks out of this, that we are all elect in Chriſt, tanquam in capite, for here-hence he will deduce, that we are elect in Chriſt tanquam mortuo & reſuſcitato, becauſe Chriſt was not made the head of his Church till after his reſurrection, building as it ſeemes upon that we read Epheſ. 1. 20. Which hee wrought in Chriſt, when he raiſed him from the dead, and ſet him at his right-hand in heavenly places. 21. Farre above all principalities and powers, and every name that is named, not in this world only, but alſo in that that is to come: 22. And hath made all things ſubject under his feet, and hath given him over all things to be the head of the Church. But theſe diſcourſes, if I be not deceived, have taken their originall from a ſaying of Auſtin, namely that Chriſtus eſt praedeſtinatorum caput, Chriſt is the head of the predeſtinate. Therefore I have taken paints to conſider the doctrine of Arminius hereabouts, conſiſting of three members. Firſt, Chriſt p. 11is the head of the elect or predeſtinate. Secondly, our election made in Chriſt, is made in him as in our head. Thirdly, Chriſt is not our head but as he is dead, and raiſed; which, becauſe it is much pertinent to the preſent purpoſe, I will not ſpare to ſet downe, though in another dialect: Ratio illa altera de Chriſto conſiderato ut capite his membris, niti videtur &c. See my vindicia gratiae Dei, lib. 2. crim. 24. digreſs. 10. Pag. 74. col. 2. lin. 50. which was not ſet forth when I wrote this, but ſince it is.

2. But be it granted that we are choſen in Chriſt as our head; it followes not here-hence, that Chriſt Jeſus was choſen in order before us. He was ordained to be a Lambe for a burnt offering to ſave us, and we were ordained to obtain ſalvation through him. What colour is here, why the former ordination ſhould be conceived to go before the latter, and not rather the contrary; ſeeing our ſalvation is plainly intimated to be rather the end of his miſſion, incarnation and paſſion, then his miſſion, incarnation and paſſion to bee the end of our ſalvation? So Joh. 3. 16. God ſo loved the world that he gave his only begotten Sonne; where the love of God to us men is deſigned as a motive with God for the giving of his Sonne; yet I doe not maintaine any ſuch order, I have other reaſons to overthrow that, and to bring both theſe ordinations to be co-ordinate, and not ſubordinate in the intentions of God. And indeed, as I have ſaid, if the incarnation of the Son of God were in Gods intention, before the permiſſion of the ſins of the world, it would follow, that the permiſſion of the ſinnes of the world, even in crucifying Chriſt, ſhould be firſt in execution, that is, Chriſt ſhould be crucified before he was incarnate.

Chriſt is ſaid in all things to have a preheminence, and God is ſaid to diſpoſe and carry his Counſels and waies towards the Church, Anſw. 3.that it might appeare, Chriſt in all things to have the preheminence. God dealeth with us according to the Image of his dealing with him. Col. 1. 18. Rom. 8. 29.Col 1:18Rom 8:29And therfore in the Counſell of God, Chriſt had the preheminence to be firſt purpoſed, and the elect in him, and both them, and the other creatures for him, that ſo he might bee the firſt borne among many brethren. Its accounted ſomewhat a monſtrous and unnaturall conception, the feet to be conceived in the wombe before the head: ſo were it alike unmeet and prepoſterous courſe, the members of Chriſt to be firſt thought upon, and conceived in the wombe of the Counſell of Gods predeſtination, before the head Chriſt. If God p. 12ſhould have had no thought of the advancement of Chriſt man to the fellowſhip of the ſecond perſon to become man, till upon the preſuppoſall of the fall of Adam; then were we not created for Chriſt, but Chriſt for us, contrary to that of the Apoſtle; And ſo Chriſt Col. 1. 16.Col 1:16ſhall be brought into the world, as it were, ens per accidens, a thing by accident, upon occaſion of the fall.

When once we have conceived an opinion, we are very prone to take hold of every thing that carrieth any ſhew of favouring it, howſoever Exam.it proves in the iſſue. Be it that he hath a preheminence in all things and a priority; but will you extend this to ſuch things as are not capable of priority? Is it not confeſt that God doth not purpoſe one thing before another in time? Is not the predeſtination of Chriſt, and of the elect all one act in God? onelyonly as God ordereth one thing for another, ſo God purpoſeth one thing for another. Now which hath the preheminence in Gods predeſtination, whether that which is purpoſed for another, or that for which another thing is purpoſed? I preſume you will ſay, that for which another thing is purpoſed. why, then cōſider, whether the ſalvation of the elect be purpoſed for the incarnation & paſſion of the Son of God, or the incarnation & paſſion of the Son of God purpoſed for the ſalvation of Gods elect.

2. The preheminence the Apoſtle ſpeaks of is the preheminence of Chriſts perſon, not of the priority of predeſtination. Now the preheminence of a perſon alwaies preſuppoſeth the being of a perſon; for, to ſay a thing had a preheminence before it had any being, is a ſtrange phraſe, and contradictions. Therefore preheminence of any perſon is not to be looked for in predeſtination, which is rather in ordaining to preheminence, then containing preheminence: for we commonly ſay, that Praedeſtinatio nihil ponit in praedeſtinato, Predeſtination puts nothing in the perſon predeſtinated.

3. But come we nearer to the Apoſtle, Col. 1. 18. that he might have the preheminence foreign this foreign is indefinite, and may be applyed two waies, as Calvin obſervs; vel in, omnes creaturas, vel in omni re, either over all creatures, or in every thing. You take it as in omni re, in every thing, and indeed ſo the Engliſh tranſlation renders it; but if we find in ſcripture it ſelf this indefinite foreign, or that which is equivalent thereunto defined, and that in ſpeaking of the preheminence of Chriſt, why ſhould we not comply with ſcripture in the accommodation of it in this place? Now, in the other place alledged, Rom. 8. 29. its defined not to things but to perſons, p. 13that Chriſt might be the firſt begotten foreign, that is, among many brethren; why may we not then in like ſort render it here, that he might have the preheminence among all the children of God? So Luke 1. 28. Bleſſed art thou among women: So foreign, Inter omnes: So Piſcator, Ex cujus ſententiae collatione pateſcit, illud foreign recte hic redditum eſſe, inter omnes. Phraſis graeca eſt, ne quis putet vertendum eſſe, in omnibus, ſcilicet rebus; and Beza, Miminerimus de Chriſti in eccleſia regno coepiſſe ab hoc verſiculo diſserere, quod nemo negabit qui verba ipſa vel leviſſimè conſiderarit, ac proinde vniverſali particula non aliud comprehendi quam omnes omnium temporum fideles. And ſo Anſelme alſo, Chriſtus primus eſt reſurgentium, ut in omnibus ſanctis, tam prioribus quam ſequentibus, teneat primatum dignitatis, potentiae, ſanctitatis. And Lyra, ut ſic in omnibus primatum tenens, non ſolum reſpectu hominum, ſed etiam omnium Angelorum.

4. But let it run in the neuter gender, of all things, as Beza confeſſeth it may be ſo taken, poteſt quidem hoc accipi neutro genere, quum in proximo verſiculo ſcribat; yet what meaning doth he make of it but this, vera eſt (ſaith he) haec univerſalis ſententia, Chriſtum inter omnia ſine ulla exceptione eminere? making it ſignifie ſtill preheminence above or amongſt all things, but not in all things.

5. Taking it as in all things, Ambroſe interprets it thus, ut ſemper in omni vita ſit primus & Princeps: in gratia & gloria (ſaith Aquinas:) In geneſi & reſurrectione, (ſaith Cajetan:) Tam in viſibilibus quam in inviſibilibus creaturis, (ſaith Hierome.) Some practicall Divines extend it farre, interpreting it according to our Engliſh tranſlation; as, firſt in time, firſt in order, firſt in the dignitie of the perſon, firſt in degree, firſt in government, firſt in acceptation with God, firſt effectively as the cauſe of all the reſpect, order, and excellency in others, none extending it to predeſtination.

6. Nay, conſider whether the text it ſelfe be not againſt it, He is the head of the body of the Church, the beginning, the firſt begotten of the dead, that in all things he might have the preheminence. Now conſider, was Chriſt made the head of the body of the Church; was he the firſt begotten of the dead, to this end, that he might have the preheminence in predeſtination?

When it is ſaid, that the other creatures were for him, that ſo he might be the firſt borne among many brethren; I find want of p. 14convenient proportion: for what did the being of other creatures for him further his primacie or elderſhip amongſt many brethren?

It is true, all things were for him: but take the reſt along with this; all things are created by him and for him: which clearly hath reference to his Godhead, one with the Father and holy Ghoſt, as Rom. 11. From him, and by him, and for him are all things: and Heb. 2. 10.

It is, I confeſſe, Maiſter Baynes his conceit, that it is as unmeete and prepoſterous for the members of Chriſt to be firſt thought upon in the wombe of Gods counſell in predeſtination, as it is accompted monſtrous and unnaturall for the feete to be conceived in the wombe before the head. And is it not as unnaturall to have the feete brought forth before the head? Yet we know many thouſands of Chriſts members were brought forth, both into the world of nature, and into the world of grace, before the man Chriſt. Yet am not I of their mindes that thinke that any was elect before the predeſtination of Chriſt. I ſay with Aquinas, ſi conſideretur praedeſtinatio Chriſti & noſtra, quantum ad actum praedeſtinantis, ſic una non eſt cauſa alterius, quia idem non eſt cauſa ſui ipſius; ſed eodem actu divino praedeſtinatus eſt Chriſtus & nos: ergo praedeſtinatio Chriſti non eſt cauſa noſtrae praedeſtinationis. Si verò conſideretur quoad effectum & terminum, cum effectus noſtrae praedeſtinationis ſit gratia, & gloria, & adoptio ſiliorum; ſic dicendum, quod utra que praedeſtinatio Chriſti cauſa eſt praedeſtinationis noſtrae & efficiens & exemplaris. And I hope 'tis nothing unmeet that God ſhould at once thinke of Chriſt and his elect; as at once he thought of Angels & wormes; eſpecially conſidering that Chriſt and his elect are correlatives; as he the head and they his myſticall body. Nay at once God did from everlaſting both know himſelfe, and know all things in himſelfe. Yet I am perſwaded the chiefeſt motive to deviſe a prioritie of Chriſts predeſtination before others, was only this conceite, that if it be not prior, it muſt needs be poſterior. But I have endeavoured in briefe to ſhew here (as elſewhere more at large) that the predeſtination of Chriſt is neither prior nor poſterior to the predeſtination of the elect. And indeed moſt are ſo puſled about deviſing a right place for the predeſtination of Chriſt amongſt the decrees of God, that uſually that is left quite out, becauſe they know not where to finde a fit place for it: and all becauſe they preſume he muſt be predeſtinate either p. 15before the decree of creation and premiſſion of ſinne, or after; neither of which can hold water, but they are both equally removed from the truth.

Where we are ſaid to be created for Chriſt, it is joyntly ſaid, we were created by Chriſt, which undoubtedly proceeds of Chriſt as God. And if Adam had not fallen, but the world of mankind ſtood in integrity, what glory had redounded to the man Chriſt more by our creation, then by the creation of Angels?

Though God had decreed the advancement of the man Chriſt upon preſuppoſall of Adams fall (which yet I hold to be impoſſible) yet this had not hinderd but we had been created for Chriſt, and that divers wayes: 1. To reape benefit by him after our fall. 2. To be of the number of thoſe over whom the man Chriſt ſhould one day rule, if not in grace (for thouſands were out of that ſtate before Chriſt man had any being) yet in glory. 3. As alſo to glorifie him both in this world (though this is verified of thoſe only who were brought forth after his incarnation, for Chriſt man had no being before, and conſequently could not be glorified before) and in the world to come. Yet it cannot be denyed, but that Chriſt alſo was both incarnate, and lived, and died for us and for our ſalvation, though that of the Apoſtle which you mention is nothing to this purpoſe, as ſpoken of Chriſt God, and not of Chriſt man.

Undoubtedly, Chriſt came into the world upon the occaſion of mans fall, for he came into the world as a Phyſitian, and to call ſinners unto repentance; which had beene meerely in vaine, had not ſinne entred into the world by Adam.

It doth not follow, that if we were not created for Chriſt, but Chriſt for us, then Chriſt ſhould be brought into the world as Ens per accidens; for the heavens and the earth, together with the fights of the one, and herbes and trees of the other, and bruit beaſts, were created for man and not man for them; yet neither of them all were brought forth as Ens per accidens: yet, had they beene brought forth per accidens, never-a-whit the more had they been Entia per accidens; Entia per ſe may be brought forth per accidens: to be Ens per accidens is one thing, and to be brought forth per accidens is another thing.

It had been more tolerable to argue thus; If Chriſt had been brought forth into the world only upon occaſion of Adams fall, then he had beene brought forth per accidens; yet no truth had p. 16beene found in it; for upon occaſions wiſe-men doe work, and proceed deliberately and with counſell, not temerariouſly; only man, not forſeeing the events of things, doth many times (upon emergent occaſions which himſelfe could not foreſee) alter his former counſels, and caſt himſelfe upon new deliberations. It is otherwiſe with God, as who infallibly foreſeeth all things, and not only fore-ſeeth them, but ordaineth they ſhall come to paſſe as well as he ordaineth cauſes and effects. For, not the things themſelves are ordained by God, but alſo the very order of them; ſome to bee effects, ſome cauſes, ſome occaſions. And ſo the very fall of Adam was both fore-ſeen and fore-ordained by God to come to paſſe; but how? Not as good things which he ordaineth to come to paſſe, ipſo faciente, himſelfe working them; but as all evill things which are ordained alſo to come to paſſe, but Deo tantummodo permittente qua mala ſunt, God only permitting them as they are evill; according to that of Auſtin, Non aliquid fit niſi Omnipotens fieri velit, vel ſinando ut fiat, vel ipſe faciendo. Enchirid. 95. And according to the 11. article of Ireland, God did from all eternitie ordain whatſoever in time ſhould come to paſſe.

That which is firſt in the intention of every agent, is laſt in execution. Now the glory of Chriſt is laſt in execution (ſave onelyonly the Anſw. 4.glory of the Father;) And therefore ſurely it was Gods firſt and chiefeſt intendment, after the glorifying of himſelfe, to glorifie Chriſt, before the conſideration of glorifying us, either in the firſt or ſecond Adam, Pſal. 2. 9, 10, 11. It is true, in fulnes of time Christ was first humbled, that he might be glorified; but yet in Gods counſell (wherein the end in order is firſt purpo ed, before the meanes leading to that end) the glorious advancement of Chriſt was first purpoſed, before the preſuppoſall of his humiliation, which made way for it. The Apoſtle deſcribing the ſubordination of things one to another, in the order wherein God hath ſet them; the world to be for the Church, and the Church for Chriſt, and Chriſt for God; he thereby gives us to underſtand, God firſt intended his glory, for which are all things, and then Chriſts, for whom the Church is, and then the Church, for which the world is, and then the world laſt of all.

Here we have an argument, and a place of ſcripture wherewith it is backt: I will conſider them ſeverally.Exam. 1.

1. As for the argument; that is grounded upon ſuch a rule as p. 17I deſire no better direction for the right ordering of Gods decrees, which is the matter wee have in hand; but in the proſecuting of the argument in hand, upon this rule, I find no ſoundnes, no truth, neither in the matter nor in the method. For firſt, though the rule be propoſed only of two, the firſt and laſt; yet in the exemplification there is mention made of three, as if the rule did not only extend to firſt and laſt; but alſo to former and latter, how many wayes ſoever they are in ſubordination; that looke what ſubordination they have in execution, the contrary ſubordination they ſhould have in intention; which will be found contrary to all reaſon: As for example, the laſt of the good of man is his glory, but how? Both of body and ſoule in the reſurrection. But before this there was a glory of the ſoule in departure from the body, or a bleſſed condition of it, accordingly as they are called the ſpirits of juſt men perfected, Heb. 12. and they enjoy Chriſts preſence, 2 Cor. 5. Now ſhall we ſay, that in Gods intention was the glory of body and ſoule, jointly firſt, and ſecondly the glory of the ſoule in departure from the body? Come we to the ſtate of grace, there we have in execution, firſt effectuall calling unto faith, and repentance, after this perſeverance finall in both; ſhall we therefore ſay, God did firſt intend to give them perſeverance in faith and repentance, and then intend to give them faith and repentance? Or that God did firſt intend to give them repentance, ſecondly intend to permit them to ſinne? After this manner, I confeſſe, Piſcator had ſometimes ordered Gods decrees, wherein upon due examination I have ſcarce found one member ſound: But ſee the iſſue of it; upon latter thoughts he fell quite off from this order, and embraced the contrary in every particular, and ſo recompenced his extream raſhneſſe with extream looſneſſe. And no marveile, for truth alone is ſtable; as for error, it is a ſlippery thing, there is no ſtabilitie in it. Secondly here is nothing but miſerable confuſion throughout: Firſt in the word glory; for the glory of the Father is delivered in one ſenſe, our glory in another ſenſe. And as for the glory of Chriſt, in what ſenſe that is delivered, is utterly uncertaine; as whether in conformitie to the glory of the Father, or in conformitie to our glory, or in conformitie to both, which will be ſo much the more equivocall: by that which goes before, it may ſeeme to be ſpoken in conformitie to the glory of God the Father; as when it is often inculcated, that all things were made for him: by that which commeth p. 18after, it may ſeeme to be ſpoken in conformitie to our glory; as when it is ſaid, the glorious advancement of Chriſt was firſt purpoſed. Againe, the glory of God the Father is in very great varietie; and therefore it behooved to be ſpecified in what kind the glory of God herein ſpecified is to be underſtood: as I will ſhew in the firſt place, when I come to oppoſe it particularly.

Secondly the glory of Chriſt is very ambiguous, both in reſpect of his perſon, as whether it be ſpoken of him in reſpect of his Godhead, or of his manhood; and it is nothing ſitt theſe ſhould be confounded: as alſo in reſpect of the word glory it ſelfe; for it is to be doubted (as before I ſaid) whether it be ſpoken in conformitie to the glory of the Father, or in conformitie to our glory. And out of ſuch a maſſe of confuſion what ſatisfaction can be expected in any diſtinct and particular truth? 3. I ſee no reaſon why the glory of Chriſt only ſhould be conſidered as the meanes of advancing the glory of God the Father. I conceive the glory of God is as much ſeen in the abaſing of his Sonne, as in his exaltation; and if this very abaſing of himſelfe be called his glory, as indeed it may; for even on the croſſe he ſpoyled principalities and powers, and made a ſhew of them openly, and triumphed over them, Col. 2. then this diſcourſe ſhall labour with a new aequivocation. In like ſort, Is nothing but our glory a fit meanes to advance the glory of Chriſt, and of God? Is not God glorified as well in the martyrdome of his Saints? This is my confidence (ſaith Paul) that God ſhall be glorified in my body, whether by life or by death, Philip. 1. yea and Chriſt alſo; Even when we beare about us the dying of the Lord Jeſus, that the life of Jeſus might alſo be made manifeſt in our bodies. 2 Cor. 4. 10 If our glory alſo be extended unto martyrdome, this is a very ſore aequivocation, eſpecially conſidering how the ſcripture doth diſtinguiſh them: firſt to ſuffer, then to enter into glory, Luk. 24. 26. and if we ſuffer with him, we ſhall alſo reigne with him, 2 Tim. 2. 12. 4. But as it lyeth, let us diſcuſſe it as well as we can. Therfore I ſay, firſt, Gods glory is not onelyonly laſt in execution, but firſt alſo; even from the very firſt creation, even then when the ſtars of the morning prayſed him, and all the Sonnes of God rejoyced, Job 38. 7. And I will deale plainely, and ſhew what glory of his was manifeſted herein, to wit, the glory of his power, Revel. 4. 11. Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour, and power, for thou haſt created all p. 19things, and for thy wills ſake they have beene and are created. Yea and his wiſdome alſo, Pſal. 130. 5. which by his wiſdome made the heavens. Jeremiah puts them both together, He hath made the earth by his power, and eſtabliſhed the World by his wiſdome, and hath ſtretched out the heavens by his diſcretion. And as in the creation, ſo the ſame glory of God doth ſend forth 'its beames in the preſervation and governance of all things. In the meaneſt creatures we behold the glory of God; neither are we able to comprehend the wiſdome of God therein; every thing therein, as in a Bee or ſilke-worme, coming to paſſe by courſe of nature; yet who is able to give a reaſon of it? I thinke, if Solomon had continued to this day, and his wiſdome with him, yet had he not beene able to finde it out; for although the ſpirit of man be as the lampe of God, Verſ. 10, 27.which ſearcheth all inwardneſſe, and God hath ſet the world in mans heart, yet is he not able to finde out the worke that he hath Eccleſ. 3. 11.Eccl 3:11wrought from the beginning to the end. I behold the flowers of my garden, in great varietie of colours; yet wonder at their uniformitie; each ſingle one hath five leaves, each moſt uniforme in the colour, in the ſhape, riſing, and ſpreading, and indented alike in their edges; all together make a moſt comely proportion of the whole round in forme, only indented in the edges, which is as bonelace to ſet it forth, ſome of one colour throughout the pageant, ſpeckled, having ſtrakes like lines, ſo direct and proportionable in all, that it repreſents unto me ſome curious Mathematicall circle cut thorough with lines, the matter of many curious demonſtrations. And what a curious ſpeculation would it appeare to repreſent the cauſes of all this varietie? In the meane time, our contemplation is broken off, and loſeth it ſelfe, and turnes into admiration at the wiſdome of God, which confounds us in the contemplation of a flower, which is worn in the breaſt at morning, and troden under foot at night. But to returne, you will ſay, Another kind of glory is ſeene in the advancement of Chriſt; but then you ſhould have ſpecified it: which had you done, I doubt not but it would have afforded good matter to have wrought upon in the inveſtigation of truth. 2. As the glorifying of God the Father was the very firſt, even from the creation, before either Chriſt man was, or we; ſo I ſay, it is not ſo laſt, as if it ſhould be after Chriſts glory, and our glory ſhall ceaſe to be; for certainly, the glory of Chriſt, and the glory of the elect ſhall continue for ever; p. 20and the glory of God cannot continue any longer then for ever.

3. Come wee to the conſideration of the glory of Chriſt: There is a glory of Chriſt which he receiveth from man, and there is a glory of Chriſt which hee receiveth from God: That glory which hee receiveth from man, he hath received in greateſt part long before wee were born; for it is the Fathers pleaſure, That all men ſhould honour the Sonne, as they honour the Father, Joh. 5. 23. There is the Rule: here followeth the Example; Worthy is the Lambe that was killed to receive power, and riches, and wiſdome, and ſtrength, and honour, and glory, and praiſe. And all the creatures which are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and in the ſea, and all that are in them, heard I, ſaying, Praiſe, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that ſitteth upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb for evermore, Revel. 5. 12, 13.

As for the glory which he receives from his Father, that he hath already received above 1500. yeers agoe. I have overcome, and am ſate with my Father in his Throne, Revel. 3. If God be glorified in him, God ſhall alſo glorifie him in himſelfe, and ſhall ſtraight-way glorifie him, Joh. 13. 32. So that every way the glory of Chriſt, is afore ours, not after ours; for when the elect are once glorified, their glory ſhall continue for the time to come as long as Chriſts glory: but for the time paſt, certainely, Chriſts glory and his advancement, you here ſpeak of, (noting thereby what you meane by Chriſts glory in this place) was long before ours. Whereas you ſay, that Chriſt, as man, was first humbled, before hee was glorified; if we conſider the greateſt advancement of Chriſt, it is untrue; for his greateſt advancement was the aſſuming of his nature into an hypoſtaticall union with the Sonne of God, and this was afore his humiliation in the ſenſe you ſpeake of, to wit, in humbling himſelfe to the death, even to the death of the Croſſe: though I willingly confeſſe, the humiliation of the Godhead went joyntly along with the advancement of the manhood, even to this hypoſtaticall union. You ſay, His advancement was purpoſed before his humiliation. I deny it: You will ſay, that was the meanes tending to his advancement, as the end (for ſo I take your meaning to be, leaving the conſideration of the phraſe mentioned of making way; which if it be delivered in any other ſenſe then to ſignifie the meanes of his advancement, will make your cauſe worſe, and nothing better.) p. 21For now I deny that Chriſts humiliation was the meanes of Chriſts advancement; and I prove it: Thoſe only are to bee accounted meanes to ſuch an end, quorum ratio petitur a ratione finis deſignati, that is, the means are onelyonly ſuch as the nature of the end, duly conſidered, doth beſpeake: But the advancement of Chriſt doth not beſpeake any ſuch meanes; for, undoubtedly, God could advance Chriſt without any ſuch humiliation: nay, having taken his manhood into an hypoſtaticall union with his Son, even in this reſpect his advancement was far more requiſite, than in reſpect of his humiliation. You will ſay, God purpoſed to advance him no other way then this. I grant it: and if you conſider it well, you ſhall find the reaſon of it, by conſidering the right ends hereof in the counſell of God: And theſe are different; one was in reſpect of others, to wit, that he might be a fit Saviour of Gods elect: not that their ſalvation was the end of his humiliation; but the glory of God, in a certain kind, the end of both, to wit, both of his humiliation and our ſalvation; namely, the glory of his free grace, in the way of mercy mixt with juſtice. This end required ſatisfaction, as without which it could not be procured. But here, I confeſſe, the advancement of Chriſt hath no place: but in another conſideration it ſhall find place, and that as a joynt meanes together with his humiliation; for another kind of glory would God the Father manifeſt in Chriſt: (And, indeed, the Nation of mankind is as a glaſſe, wherein a very complete body of Gods glory doth appear, in very great variety:) and that was, the manifeſtation of his glory in the way of remunerative juſtice, in the higheſt degree remunerating obedience: I ſay, in the higheſt degree, both in reſpect of the reward deſerved, and alſo in reſpect of the deſert it ſelfe: the reward being the ſitting in the Throne of his Father, and to have all judgment committed unto the Sonne; the deſert being the obedience of the Son of God, one and the ſame God with his Father, humbling himſelfe to death, even to the death of the croſſe, for the ſalvation of Gods elect. But perhaps you may further ſay, It is not neceſſary that the means ſhould bee only ſuch as the end doth naturally require; For, God could have brought man to ſalvation the ſame way he brought Angels, without faith and repentance; yea, hee could have made them, and immediatly have tranſlated them into glory: yet wee commonly ſay, Faith and Repentance are the means of ſalvation. I anſwer, granting not onelyonly that wee commonly p. 22ſay ſo, but that wee truly ſay ſo, in reſpect of our ſelves; namely, that as ſalvation is the ſcope and end wee aime at, ſo faith and repentance are the onelyonly meanes to bring us thereunto; but in reſpect of God it is utterly untrue; for neither is our ſalvation the end of Gods actions, but his owne glory: Hee made all things for himſelfe, Prov. 16. 4. And if it were his end, hee could have brought it about divers other wayes beſides this: but in that hee brings it to paſſe this way, there is good reaſon for it, as wee ſhall well perceive, if wee take the end of God aright, namely, to manifeſt his glory in doing good to man in the higheſt degree, and that in the way of mercy mixt with juſtice. This end doth neceſſarily require a permiſſion of ſin; again, it doth require ſatisfaction, as by the death of Chriſt; and thirdly, it doth require faith and repentance, that ſo hee may doe him good, by way of reward; and laſtly, a glorious ſalvation, which is the doing of him good in the higheſt degree. And as mans ſalvation is not the end of Gods actions, ſo neither is the glory of Chriſt, as hee is man, the end of Gods actions; for ſuch a glory inherent can but bee a created glory, and no created thing can be the end of Gods actions; but onelyonly God himſelfe: For, as he is the chiefe efficient of all, ſo muſt hee bee the ſupreme end of all: and as hee is moſt lovely, and moſt good; ſo muſt hee neceſſarily love that moſt which is moſt lovely, even himſelfe, and aime at his owne glory in all.

2 Now I come to the Apoſtles Text, wherewith this Argument is backt, 1 Cor. 3. 22, 23. All are yours, and yee Christs, and Christ Gods: that is, ſay you, The world for the Church, and the Church for Christ, and Christ for God: thereby giving us to underſtand, That God firſt intended his glory, for which are all things; and then Chriſt, for whom the Church is; and then the Church, for which the world is; and then the world laſt of all. But, I pray you, conſider whether this Interpretation, and Collection thereupon, be not more ſuperficiary than ſound: Firſt, when he ſaith, All are yours, is the world only to be underſtood by all? Is not the world expreſly named but as a member of this univerſall? Are not Paul, Apollos, and Cephas alſo joyned with it; together with life, and death, and things preſent, and things to come, and joyntly comprehended under the word all? Verſe 21. Let no man rejoyce in men, for all things are yours, Verſe 22. Whether it be Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death; whether p. 23they be things preſent, or things to come, even all are yours, 23. And yee Chriſts, and Chriſt Gods. As he was perſwaded, Rom. 8. 38. That neither death, nor life, nor Angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things preſent, nor things to come, 39. Nor heighth, nor depth, nor any other creature, ſhould bee able to ſeparate us from the love of God, which is in Chriſt Jeſus our Lord; and therefore wee need not feare them: So here he goes further, and tells us, that all are put, as it were, in ſubjection unto us, to worke for our good; and therefore wee ſhould not rejoyce in them, but rather in Chriſt, and in God, who hath wrought this, and ordered all this for our good, through the merits of Chriſt: not only Apoſtles and Paſtours, but even the very Angels alſo, who pitch their tent about us, and have charge given them, to keep us in all our wayes; and all of them are ſent forth for the good of them that are heires of ſalvation: Yet this ſubjection is onelyonly of a ſpirituall and gracious nature, nothing prejudicing their advancement above them whom they thus ſerve in love; and that for this their ſervice performed for Gods ſake, to whom rather they are in ſubjection then unto us; yet ſo farre in ſubjection to worke our good, that it becomes us not to rejoyce in any of them, but rather in God, who hath thus ordered them for our good, and Chriſt for whoſe ſake they are thus ordered: An Argument, like to that the Lord uſeth, Deut. 4. 19. Take heed leſt thou lift up thine eyes to heaven, and when thou ſeest the ſunne, and the moon, and the ſtarres, with all the host of heaven, ſhouldst bee driven to worſhip them, and ſerve them. Now marke the reaſon whereupon the Lord dehorts them from this, which the Lord thy God hath diſtributed to all people under the whole heaven: as much as to ſay, God hath made them to doe you ſervice, therefore doe not you make them your gods: So Paſtours, and Apoſtles, and Angels, are made by God to doe us ſervice, therefore ſet not us make them our gods. Thus wee ſee plainly by All, in this place, not the world only, but the Church of God is ſignified; every one of them being made to doe ſervice unto the Church, that is, one unto another; For, are they not all members of one body, though ſome performe more honourable ſervice then others? like as in a naturall botly, ſome members are more honourable, and for more honourable uſes than others. Unleſſe wee thus underſtand it, wee ſhall exclude the Apoſtles out of the Church. And when it is ſaid, We are Christs, this ſeemeth p. 24not to admit the ſame ſenſe with the former; for, undoubtedly, Chriſt is as much for our good as any, nay more then all the world, the Apoſtles, and Angels, and all; for unto us hee was born, unto us hee was given, Eſa. 9. 6. given by the Father, Joh. 3. 16. given by himſelfe, and that for us, Tit. 2. 14. Gal. 2. 20. and that to dye for our ſinnes, and riſe againe for our juſtification, Rom. 4. and, to redeeme us from all iniquity, and to purge us a peculiar people unto himſelfe, zealous of good works, Tit. 2. 14. and that by his bloud, 1 Joh. 1. 7. Revel. 1. 5. Wee are therefore his, not ſo much in reſpect of any good wee bring to him, but in reſpect that hee hath bought us; And ſo we are Gods too, as, Who ſent his Son to redeem us unto God his Father, Revel. 5. 9. Yee are bought with a price, therefore glorifie God in your bodies, and in your ſpirits, for yee are Gods, 1 Cor. 6. 20. And Chriſt is Gods in ſpeciall manner; as touching his Godhead, the naturall Sonne of God; as touching his Manhood aſſamed into an hypoſtaticall union with his naturall Sonne: in both, the Chiefe Servant of God, for the work of mediation and redemption, for Gods elect, given by the Father unto him, that he might beſtow eternall life upon them, Joh. 17. 2. according to the good pleaſure of his Father, Mar. 10. 40. Thus I have been bold to deliver my judgement touching the Interpretation of this place, without conſulting any Interpreter; onelyonly the native genius of the Text it ſelfe ſeemed to afford ſufficient light, and evidence, to diſcerne the meaning thereof; which I willingly ſubmit to the judgement of any.

It is no part of my meaning to diſpute, much leſſe to determine, whether Chriſt ſhould have been incarnate, if Adam had never Anſw.fallen: I conceive it a queſtion no leſſe frivolous, then curious. The purpoſe of glorifying Christ, though it preſuppoſe not the creation or fall of man, as making way for ſuch an intention in God, yet doth it enforce the creation and fall of Adam, as making way for this purpoſe.

Nothing, uſually, doth cauſe more perturbation and hinderance in the inquiſition of truth, than incommodious expreſſions: The Exam.purpoſe of glorifying Christ (ſay you) preſuppoſeth not the creation and fall. No marvell, for the creation and fall are things temporall; but Gods purpoſes are eternall. Again, ſuch a purpoſe (you ſay) doth not make way to any ſuch intention: This phraſe, ſuch intention, is ſpoken in reference to the creation and fall; as if they p. 25were intentions, which indeed they are not; but rather executions of intentions: it ſhould run thus, As making way for the intentions of ſuch things in God. Purpoſe and Intention ſignifying the ſame, it is good to keep our ſelves in one ſentence to the uſe of one of them, leſt wee expoſe our Readers to diſtraction, poſſibly ſuſpecting they may have different ſignifications. Your meaning, queſtionleſſe, is this, Gods intention of glorifying Christ doth not preſuppoſe the intention of creation or fall of Adam: And I am of your mind in this. But your meaning containes two things more, whereof the firſt is this, Gods intention of the creation and fall, doth preſuppoſe his intention of glorifying Christ: The ſecond is this, Gods intention of glorifying Christ, doth inferre the intention of creation and fall of Adam. As in both theſe I differ from you, ſo I will endeavour to diſprove your opinion in both. And firſt, I prove that the intention of glorifying Chriſt, was not before the intention of creation, and permiſſion of Adams fall. For although this may ſeeme plauſible, for as much as thus the glorifying of Chriſt, as it is firſt in intention, ſo alſo ſhall it be moſt congruouſly laſt in execution; yet according to this very rule, the iſſue will fall more foule then you are aware of; For, to begin with the Creation; if the glorifying of Chriſt were before creation, then alſo was it much more before the generation of all mankind: but this will appeare to be moſt untrue, by the ſame rule; for, if in compariſon of the glorifying of Chriſt, with the generation of all mankind, the glorifying of Chriſt was firſt in intention, then accordingly it ſhould bee laſt in execution, which is moſt untrue; for that of the Apoſtle, Heb. 9. 2. Wee ſee Jeſus crowned with glory and honour, was delivered above 1500. years agoe, and yet the generation of all mankind is not in execution. Again, if the glorifying of Chriſt were firſt in intention, then was it the end, and the generation of all mankind ſhould be as the meanes tending to the furthering of that end; but what, I pray, doth the generation of a little child of mine tend to the furtherance of the glory of Chriſt, wherewith hee was crowned above 1500. years agoe? Come we to the permiſſion of Adams fall: I ſay, the glorifying of Chriſt was not in intention before this, though it ſeems never ſo plauſible in reſpect of congruity in execution; for, by reaſon of incongruity, in the very ſame kind, I diſprove it thus; If the glorifying of Chriſt were in Gods intention before the permiſſion of Adams fall, then p. 26much more was it before the permiſſion of other mens ſinnes in Gods intention; but this is moſt untrue, upon the very ſame ground: For, if in compariſon between the glorifying of Chriſt, and the permiſſion of all mens ſinnes to the end of the world, the glorifying of Chriſt were firſt in Gods intention, then ſhould it be laſt in execution; which is moſt untrue: for the glorifying of Chriſt was accompliſhed above 1500. years agoe, as hath been ſhewed; but the permiſſion of all mens ſinnes, to the end of the world, is not yet in execution. Again, if the glorifying of Chriſt were firſt in intention, then ſhould it have rationem finis, and the permiſſion of all mens ſinnes, to the end of the world, ſhould be a congruous meanes to that end: but to averre this were moſt unreaſonable; for what furtherance doth my ſinnes this day and houre afford to the glorifying of the Sonne of God, which was accompliſhed 1500. years agoe? If it be replyed, that this glorifying of Chriſt is ſpoken in reference to a glory of Chriſt which is yet to come, to wit, the kingdome of Chriſt which wee look for, 2 Tim. 4. 1. I anſwer, there is no reaſon why it ſhould have any particular reference unto that; for as much as that glory ſhall have an end: For that kingdome ſhall continue but for a while; Hee must raigne till hee hath put all his enemies under his feet, 1 Cor. 15. 25. And, When all things ſhall be ſubdued unto him, then ſhall the Sonne himſelfe bee ſubject to him that did ſubdue all things under him, that God may be all in all, Verſe 28. Againe, if the glorifying of Chriſt were in Gods intention before the permiſſion of Adams fall, then were it before the permiſſion of reprobates to fall in Adam, as well as of Gods elect, and conſequently before the permiſſion of all ſinnes of the reprobates, unto the end of the world, and before their generations; and all theſe ſhould be firſt in execution, as means tending to the furthering and promotion of the glory of Chriſt Secondly, I deny that the intention of glorifying Chriſt doth inferre either the creation of Adam or his fall; yet, by the way, I am glad to ſee you acknowledge, that the intention of the end doth inferre the intention of congruous meanes: But ſeeing, by that I have already ſhewed, it muſt inferre as well the generation of all mankind, to the end of the world; therefore, I pray, what colour of reaſon can bee deviſed, why it ſhould inferre the generation of ſuch a number of men as ſhall be, preciſely, rather then more or leſſe? So in reſpect of permiſſion of Adams fall, I have already p. 27proved, that the glorifying of Chriſt muſt be before the permiſſion of mens ſins, to the end of the world, as well as of Adams fall, and conſequently inferre that as well as the other: And what colour of reaſon can be given, why it ſhould preciſely inferre the permiſſion of juſt ſo many mens ſinnes, and juſt ſo many ſinnes of ſuch men as ſhall bee to the end of the world, neither more nor leſſe? Againe, if the intention of glorifying Chriſt doth inferre Adams fall, then ſeeing by denying the Conſequents the Antecedent muſt bee as juſtly denyed, it followeth manifeſtly, that if Adam had not ſinned, Chriſt had not been glorified, and conſequently, had not been advanced to an hypoſtaticall union with the ſecond perſon in Trinity: And yet to make queſtion thereof, you profeſſe to bee no leſſe frivolous than curious. I confeſſe, it is rather frivolous than curious to draw that into queſtion, the negative whereof doth evidently follow upon that which is poſitively received. Againe, others, of the ſame opinion with you, are driven to take notice of this Queſtion, for to derive this opinion of yours from a more ancient originall than Mr. Baynes upon the …p…ſtle to the Epheſians, Petrus Alphonſus Mendoza, a Spaniard, maintaines the ſame; A Doctor of the Chaire in the Univerſity of Salamanca, not of Moſes Chaire, nor of Pauls Chaire, no nor Auſtins Chaire, nor of Aquinas Chaire, but of Scotus Chaire; whoſe opinion is to be ſeen in his firſt Theologicall Controverſie, printed 42. years agoe; and what his opinion was, appears by theſe concluſions:

1. Omnium quae Deus ab aeterno in mente ſua facere excogitavit, primum fuit, unio hypoſtatica verbi divini: Secundum, praedeſtinatio omnium electorum: Tertium, naturae rerum conditio. Ac proinde priora ſunt ſupernaturalia quam naturalia, & ordo naturae praeſupponit ordinem gratiae.

2. Nullius futuri praeſcientia praeſupponitur in mente Dei ad praedeſtinationem, ſed omnia ex ipſa ſequuntur: atque adeò nihil prorſus ab aeterno decrevit Deus facere, vel in tempore facit, nihil permittit, ſive intendit, ſive naturale, ſive ſupernaturale, ſive res ſit magni ponderis, ſive minimi & fere nullius, quod non inde perveniat, ſitque effectus & medium praedeſtinationis electorum & Chriſti. Atque adeò omnia cadunt ſub ordine divinae praedestinationis, tanquam media ad Christi & ſanctorum gloriam ordinata.

p. 283. Non est aliqua alia providentia in Deo antecedens praedeſtinationem, ex qua, ſcil. providentia, proveniant res naturales & quidam alij effectus ſupernaturales; ſed unica est duntaxat providentia, ipſaque est praedestinatio, ex qua omnia in univerſum nullo prorſus excepto, habent ſequi. Atque adeò juxta hanc concluſionem totum univerſum ut complectitur, naturalia & ſupernaturalia, bora & mala, ſubſtantias & accidentia, & omnes in univerſum modos eſſendi & operandi, non ſolùm in generall, ſed in ſpecie & individuo, ſunt conſideranda, tanquam unicam objectum total divinae praedestinationis, ita ut nihil omnino ſit quod ſubterfugiat illius objecti latitudinem, & quod non cadat ſub actu illo praedestinationis.

4. Si electorum praedestinatio futura non eſſet, nihil eſſet omnino in rerum natura. Itaque ſtatuo tanquam certum, quod niſi Christus futurus eſſet in mundo, nulla fuiſſet à Deo facta electorum praedestinatio, non existente autem praedestinatione, ex cujus vi ſecuta ſunt omnia, non eſſet coelum, non terra, non reliqua elementa, non viventia, non homines, non Angeli, non peccata, non daemones, non reprobi, & demùm, ut uno totum verbo abſolvam, ſolus Deus eſſet, & nihil aliud eſſet à Deo, neque naturale neque ſupernaturale, neque bonum neque malum; loquimur ſecundum communem rerum legem & ordinem, & juxta eos ſines quos probabiliter ſuſpicamur Deum habuiſſe in creaturarum conditione. Nam nequaquam intendimus divinae potentiae majestatem ſic noſtrae imbecillitatis captui alligare, ut negemus potuiſſe Deum quae ſua est abſoluta potentia, naturam rerum independenter à gratia & gloria, & gratiam independenter à Christo Domino facere & ordinare.

Then hee proceeds to ſhew, how many, ſeeming to favour this opinion of his, yet take quite contrary courſes in the maintenance thereof, ſuch as tend rather to the deſtruction of it; and they are in number five.

Hence hee proceeds to the juſtification of his owne Tenet: and his firſt confirmation is derived from that of Paul, 1 Cor. 3. 13. All are yours, and yee are Christs, and Christ is Gods. Ecce ubi (ſaith hee) qua ratione Chriſtus dicitur eſſe Dei, & praedeſtinati dicuntur eſſe ipſius Chriſti; eadem ratione omnia naturalia, ſive praeſentia, ſive futura, ſive vita, ſive mors, dicuntur eſſe praedeſtinatorum: Sed ſic eſt, quod ideò dicitur Chriſtus eſſe Dei, & p. 29electi dicuntur eſſe Chriſti, quia Deus eſt finis Chriſti, & Chriſtus electorum, id eſt, quia Chriſtus ordinatur in Deum tanquam in finem, & electi in Chriſtum tanquam in finem: & niſi eſſet ille primus finis, id eſt, Deus, vel manifeſtatio gloriae Dei, non eſſet Chriſtus; & niſi eſſet Chriſtus, non eſſent electi: ergo omnino eadem ratione creature ideò dicuntur eſſe electorum, quia ſunt propter electos, & electi ſunt fines earum; & ſic niſi eſſent futuri electi, non eſſent naturae creaturarum, &c.

His ſecond proofe is taken from that Epheſ. 1. 4. Elegit nos in ipſo ante mundi conſtitutionem. Loquitur vero de Chriſto homine, viz. de Chriſto capite, ut expreſſe ibi dicit Hieronymus, & ex contextu apertiſſimè liquet. Certè, aut ego fallor, aut D. Paulus non id tantum intendit, quod, viz. nos Deus in Chriſto elegerit ante veram & realem mundi conſtitutionem, quae fuit abhinc ſex mille annis in tempore facta. Quod enim nos in Chriſto elegiſſet ante illam temporariam rerum creationem, non erit quid magnum & tanto calamo dignum; Sic enim etiam boves & lapides elegit: i. Decrevit & praevidit ante temporariam rerum creationem, quand…quid…m priuſquam in tempore quidquam faceret, jam illud ante mundi conſtitutionem & ab aeterno excogitaverat ac decreverat ut faceret; aliquid ergo altius & divinius Paulus intendit, nempe, quod in ſua Deus aeternitate cum excogitavit de conſtituendo mundo, jam prius ordine rationis excogitaverat de electione electorum, jam (inquam) Chriſtum intenderat & praeviderat, & in ipſo praedeſtinatos elegerat.

Other places hee drawes to the ſame purpoſe, and concludes with the Argument of Scot, which in his judgement is ratio efficaciſſima; Omnis ordinatè volens prius vult finem, & ex mediis ea prius quae ſunt fini propinquiora: Sed Chriſtus & praedeſtinati, ac proinde omnia ſupernaturalia ſunt fini, id eſt, manifeſtationi divinae bonitatis, propinquiora quam omnia naturalia, ergo prius quam naturalia volita ſunt à Deo ſupernaturalia, & his prius manifeſtatio ipſa divinae bonitatis, quam confideramus ut horum omnium finem, &c.

And withall, hee ſhewes that himſelfe is not alone in this opinion, but that the ſame is maintained by Jacobus Naclantus, upon the 1. Ch. of Eph. in a digreſſion, Quo ordine & ratione de rebus definitum fuerit apud Deum. Albertus Pigh. lib. 8. de lib. Arb. cap. 3. & lib. 1. in initio. Ambroſius Catarinus lib. 1. de eximia p. 30Praedeſt. Chriſti. Petrus Galatinus lib. 7. de Arcanis Cathol. veritatis, à cap. 3. ad 9.

But withall, hee obſerves a doubt, the ſolution whereof muſt not bee pretermitted; that is, whether this opinion can be maintained according to the doctrine of Aquinas; for, ſaith he, pag. 16. S. Thomas exiſtimat, minimè Chriſti praedeſtinationem futuram ſi homo non reccaſſet. Ex quo fieri videtur conſequens, prius viſum à Deo fuiſſe peccatum, & volitam ejus permiſſionem, quam volita fuiſſet incarnatio Verbi: atque adeò non apparet quomodo in via Thomiſtarum ſtare poſſit, quod primum omnium decretorum Dei fuerit incarnatio ſeu praedeſtinatio Verbi, ſi jam praeceſſit peccati viſio atque permiſſio. Si verò priuſquam peccatum videretur fuit Chriſtus praedeſtinatus, jam ergo etiam non exiſtente peccato, Chriſtus, qui ante viſum peccatum praedestinatus fuerat, veniret: Quod directè pugnat cum doctrina S. Thomae.

By the way, I obſerve a vaine ſuppoſition to bee the ground of all this perturbation, and conflictation of contrary opinions, in this Argument: And the preſuppoſition is this, That the decree of Chriſts incarnation and of our predeſtination, as alſo of creation, and of the permiſſion of ſinne, cannot bee coordinate and ſimultanea, but muſt needs bee ſubordinate and one before another. And ſo hee carrieth himſelfe in the confirmation of the priority of thoſe decrees which hee fancieth to be before the other, as chiefly to oppoſe the priority of the others. And this I account a very vain ſuppoſition, (though, I confeſſe, for many years I was carried away with the common error, and therewithall ſtill found my ſelfe in a brake or labyrinth, without hope of extricating my ſelfe) as I have here proved in part, but elſewhere more at large. But as for the ſolution of the doubt propoſed, his anſwer is this, Prius Deum voluiſſe unionem hypostaticam & incarnationem Verbi, quam vellet permittere peccatum, & quam vellet condere naturam hominis & totius univerſi. But I have already demonſtrated the falſity of this. But hee proceeds, Quia tamen non est volita incarnatio ſine peccato, imo dependenter est volita à permiſſione peccati, & à natura rerum tanquam à mediis; idcirco non ſequitur, futurum eſſe Christum ſi peccatum non eſſet, aut ſi univerſum non eſſet. Two things he conſtitutes media tendentia ad incarnationem Chriſti; and indeed, if the incarnation of Chriſt were firſt in intention, as the end, all other things intended after, muſt bee intended as p. 31meanes: But I have already ſhewed how abſurdly the creation of mankind is conſtituted as a meanes of Chriſts incarnation: and is it not ſtrange, that the making of every worme, or a gnat, ſhould be a meanes tending to the incarnation of Chriſt? In like ſort, I have ſhewed the abſurdity of conceiving the permiſſion of ſinne to be a meanes of Chriſts glorification, much more of his incarnation.

Hee proceeds to remove ſome other rubs out of the way, but in ſuch a vaine manner, that it were the waſting of time to make relation thereof; neither can I well give account for proceeding ſo fatre as I have done, onelyonly I deſired to ſhew the Authours of this opinion, which here I confute: And I have entertained ſometimes a thought of taking occaſion to diſcuſſe this whole diſſertation of Alphonſus; but more neceſſary buſineſſes have hitherunto taken up my meditations.

And I hope that which I have here delivered may ſuffice to the cutting off of the very ſinewes of that diſcourſe: if not, I ſhall not be averſe from taking further paines, as I ſhall ſee cauſe, and opportunity, and God ſhall inable me.

Much leſſe is it my meaning to diſparage, or under-value the Anſw.love of God toward the elect, in that I ſet forth Christ as not first thought upon by God for the elect ſake; for though I doe not preferre his love to us before the love of Christ, yet is the love of God to us unſpeakable and glorious; not only in preferring us before the world of other men, and the rest of the creatures, but alſo in thinking upon us in Christ, upon whom Christ ſhould ſhew forth the riches of his gracious love and tender mercy.1 Tim. 1. 16. Exam.1 Tim 1:16

I confeſſe, there is no colour of diſparaging Gods love to us by giving the precedency of Gods love to Chriſt, eſpecially when both are acknowledged to be eternall, and to be toward both the man Chriſt and us, before wee or the world had a being; moſt of all, when in the iſſue the priority ſeems to be for us, rather then for Chriſt: for it is confeſt, that priority in Gods decrees conſiſts onelyonly in purpoſing one thing for another. And again, it is without queſtion, that all priority in this caſe is on the part of that for which another thing is purpoſed. Now albeit wee are Chriſts ſervants, and hee our Lord; yet, undoubtedly, Chriſt was ordained rather for our good, then wee for his good: yet I doe not hence collect, that our predeſtination was before Chriſts; much leſſe, that Gods p. 32love was leſſe towards him then towards us; but I willingly acknowledge, that albeit thouſands had taſted of Gods love, both in the way of nature, and grace, and glory, before Chriſt-man had any being at all; yet was the love of God to the manhood of Chriſt infinitely beyond his love towards us, meaſuring the love of God by the effects thereof: and that in two reſpects; firſt, for as much as the fruit of Gods love to him was the taking of his humane nature into an hypoſtaticall union with the Sonne of God: ſecondly, in making him the Captain of our ſalvation, Heb. 2. 10.

Leaſt of all is it my meaning to extenuate the heinous nature of ſinne, by ſetting forth the purpoſe of God, concerning the incarnation Anſw.of Chriſt, before the conſideration of the fall of Adam: It is enough to make ſinne out of meaſure ſinfull, that God in his wiſedome ſaw no meanes ſo ſit, as by the ſinne and fall of Adam, to make way for the humiliation of Chriſt, and thereby for the manifeſtation of his juſtice, and riches of his mercy, and both in Chriſt; although we grant, ſo far as to conceive, that God had never thought of humbling the Godhead, or advancing the manhood of Chriſt, but upon conſideration of ſin fore-ſeen.

Ex magnitudine remedii, magnitudinem cognoſce periculi, ſaith Bernard; this hath place, in what order ſoever Chriſt was ordained Exam.a Sacrifice for ſinne; neither is there any colour of remitting ought of the heinouſneſſe of ſin, by the priority or poſteriority of Chriſts predeſtination, in compariſon to Gods decree, concerning the permiſſion of ſinne. Sinne, and the heinouſneſſe thereof is amplified according to the quality of the tranſgreſſion, in reference to Gods law, ſo honourable a rule of mans perfection, and to Gods deſerts at our hands, and plentifull motives from conſideration both of rewards and puniſhments, wherewith it is eſtadliſhed. It is a common and juſt aggravation of ſinne, that it cauſed the Son of God to be humbled; but to aggravate it in making way for Chriſts humiliation, is a very odde conceit, in my judgement. Neither doe I comprehend, how the manifeſtation of juſtice in puniſhing ſinne, or of mercy in pardoning it, doth aggravate the heinouſneſſe of ſin: This, I ſay, I comprehend not.