venant fubfiftence in the fecond perfon from everlafting. Nor was the real exiftence of the perfons of the elect neceffary to their real union to Chrift, only that they fhould certainly exift: I call their union real, in oppofition to that which is imaginary; for furely the love of Chrift to the elect, from everlasting, was real, which is the bond of union, though their perfons, foul and body, did not really, or actually exift. He proceeds to confider the import of fome other texts of fcripture, which, he fays, we are fubject to imagine favour our fond notion of eternal union; though he considers but one, and that is 2 Tim. i. 9. Who bath faved us, and called us with an holy calling; not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Chrift Jefus, before the world began. This grace he fometimes takes for a promife of grace, fometimes for grace in the covenant itself; yea, he says, it evidently intends our calling; fo that, according to him, our calling must be before the world began. But be it what it will, whether a promife of grace, or a purpose of grace, or grace itself, it was given to us in Chrift, before the world began, and on that our argument depends: if we were in Chrift when this grace, or promife of grace, was given, we were united to him; for how we could be confidered in him, without union to him, he would do well to acquaint us.

I muft, in juftice to this author, before I conclude this head, acquaint my reader, that he has quoted "fome, what he calls plain texts of fcripture, to fhew that the facred book does moft evidently fet afide the opinion of eternal union, yea, or of union before faith: the fcriptures are, Rom. viii. 9. and xvi. 7. 2 Cor. v. 17. all which I have before taken notice of in the Letter he refers to; and all that he remarks is, that I will needs have it, that these fcriptures intend only the evidence of union with Chrift from everlasting; which fenfe he does not attempt to fet afide; only that the phrafe, If a man is in Chrift, be is a new creature, he fays, fuppofes that none but new-born fouls are united to him; whereas the meaning is, that whoever profeffes himself to be in Chrift, ought to appear to be fo: and yet, after all this, this man has the front to say ", that men are not united to Chrift until they believe, has been proved by almost innumerable feriptures and arguments; when he only produces three fcriptures, and not one argument from them. This man is refolved to carry his point at any rate, right or wrong; he fticks at nothing.

Thirdly, We are now come to a point this author discovers a great itch, and eager defire to be at, namely, the doctrine of God's love and delight in his elect before converfion. He has been two or three times nibbling at it before, and I have already expofed his folly in placing it in the Supralapfarian scheme, when it can be no other than a Sublapfarian doctrine.

are given to the elect before converfion.

66

1. In my Letter above referred to, I write concerning the invariable, unchangeable, and everlasting love of God to his elect, and give inftances of his love to them, not only in eternity, but in time, and that even while they are in an unconverted eftate, from Rom. v. 6, 8, 10. 1 John iv. 10. Ephes. ii. 4, 5. Titus iii 3-6. which this writer thinks fit to pafs by in filence. I then mention three gifts of God, which are inftances of his love to his people before converfion, not to be matched by any after it; namely, the gift of Himself, the gift of his Son, and the gift of his Spirit. This man denies that either of thefe As to the first, he says, "God never gives himself to any of the children of men until they believe*;" and suggests, that the fcripture I produce, I will be their God, and they shall be my people, proves it; being, as he thinks, a mutual covenant between God and converted people but I have fhewn already, that it is not a mutual covenant between God and others; and that the promises of it fuppofe the perfons it concerns unconverted; and, indeed, God's being the God of his people, is the first ground and foundation-bleffing of the covenant; and the reason why any covenant-bleffing, and among the rest, converfion, is bestowed upon any of the fons of men, is, because he is their covenant-God and Father; fo that, confequently, he must stand in this relation to them before converfion. Befides, if they are his people before converfion, though not openly to themfelves and others, 1 Pet. ii. 10. yet fecretly to him, Pfalm cx. 3. Matt. i. 21. he must be their God before conversion; for these two relate unto, and suppose each other. He does not deny that Christ was a gift of God's love before converfion; but fancies that I have receded from what I propofed; fince, as it is expreffed by me, he is only given for them. I answer; My propofition is, to fhew that there are fuch gifts of God before converfion, as are inftances of his love to his people then; and furely Chrift being given for them, is an inftance of God's love to them, John iii. 16. He seems to triumph upon this, and fays, "could he have proved "his propofition, he had certainly laid a ftrong, if not an improveable (I fup"pose it should be immoveable) foundation for his doctrine." Well, if this will do, I am able to prove that Chrift was given to his people in his incarnation, before he was given for them in his fufferings and death; To us a child is born, to us a son is given, Isai, ix. 6. and I hope it will be allowed, that the gift of Chrift, in his incarnation, extended not only to the believers of that age in which he was born, but to all the elect, to all the children, for whose fake he partook of flesh and blood. As to the third and last of these gifts, he judges", "that the Spirit is not given to any of the children of men till they are converted, "or at that very inftant;" and gives broad intimations, as if he thought he was

not given at all, until he is given as a comforter. The text in John xvi. 8. which my expreffions refer to, he feems to intimate, does not regard the conviction and converfion of men, but the reproving of the world. I will not contend with him about the fenfe of the text; it is enough to my purpose, if it will be but allowed, that the Spirit of God is the author of real conviction and converfion; who therefore must be confidered as fent, and given, antecedent to conviction and converfion, in order to begin, carry on, and finish the work of grace, when he finds men dead in fin, devoid of all grace, in a ftate of nature; and therefore, surely, must be a gift and instance of God's love to them, whilst in that state.

2. In order to prove that the love of God to his elect, from everlasting, is a love of complacency and delight, I obferve, that his love to his Son, as Mediator, is fuch a love; and that whereas God loves his people with the fame kind of love he loves his Son, which I prove from John xvii. 23. it must needs follow, that the love he bears to them, is a love of complacency and delight. This author thinks I have strained and forced the text I mention beyond its real meaning; and that my notion is unfairly inferred from it; he believes I know the word as is of the comparative degree, and rarely intends equality: if I do not know, I am fure he cannot tell me; it is only his ignorance of the comparative degree, that will excufe him from defigned blafphemy against the Son of God. His learned revifer and editor fhould have informed him, that as, of itfelf, is of no degree, but is according to the word to which it is joined; it is ufed in forming comparifons, and is an adverb of likeness and equality. He feems to be confcious, that it fometimes, though rarely, intends equality, and gives himself a needlefs trouble to collect together feveral texts, where it fignifies likeness: I could easily produce others, where it is expreffive of equality; fee John i. 14. and x. 15. Phil. ii. 8. 2 Cor. x. 7. However, I am content it fhould fignify likeness, and not equality, in the text mentioned; let it be a likeness of a very minute or fmall degree, I hope it will be allowed to be of the fame kind; and if this is granted, my argument ftands good; "that if God "has loved his Son with a love of complacency and delight from everlasting, "and he has loved his elect with the fame kind of love from everlafting, with "a like love, though not to the fame degree; then he must have loved them "from everlasting, with a love of complacency and delight.".

3. I go on to obferve, that Jefus Chrift loved the elect from everlasting with a love of complacency and delight, as they were prefented to him in the glass of his Father's purposes and decrees; my meaning is, as they were prefented to him in all that glory his Father defigned to bring them to; which I prove from Prov. viii. 31. and fee no reason why the Father's love should not be the same.

This man thinks", that the text in Proverbs refers to the delight Chrift had in the fore-views of his people, having his own, and his Father's beautiful image impreffed upon them; or rather, that it refers to a farther view which the Son of God took of the most perfect ftate of his members upon earth, in the kingdom-glory. And why may not the thought be carried a little farther, that Chrift was not only rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, in the fore-views of his people dwelling with him, and he with them, here on earth; but that his delights were with the fons of men, as fore-viewed by him in all that ultimate glory they are to enjoy to all eternity; and then we are agreed? Now let it be obferved, that this complacency and delight in them, was taken up from everlasting, as abundantly appears from the context; nor could any intermediate ftate, as that of nature, make any alteration in this love of delight. Chrift loved them. before they were in a ftate of nature, and while they were in it, though not as confidered as unregenerate and rebellious finners, or because they were fo; which is the vile infinuation all along made; but as the whole election of grace ftood presented to him a glorious church, without fpot or wrinkle, or any fuch thing;. juft fuch as he will present them to himself another day.

с

4. I farther observe, that God's choosing his people in Christ before the foundation of the world, is an act of love fpringing from delight in them, even as his choice of the people of Ifrael (which was an emblem of the choice of the true and spiritual Ifrael) was owing to the delight he had in them; to prove which, I cite Deut. x. 15. and add, that all the favours and bleffings God bestows upon his people in time, fuch as bringing them out of a state of nature, or out of any diftrefs or difficulty, in a word, their whole falvation, arife from his delight in them; for the proof of which, I mention Pfalm xviii. 19. and cxlix. 4. Jer. xxxii. 41. Zeph. iii. 17. This writer is of opinion, that what I have afferted, that God's choice of his people in Chrift, as an act of love fpringing from delight, requires more proof than I have produced, or than any man is able to produce. I fuppofe, he will not deny that God's eternal choice of his people in Chrift is an act of love; if he does, let him confider 2 Thefs. ii. 13. though. he may as well deny it to be an act of love, for the fame reason that he denies it fprings from delight, namely, that God has chose them to be holy, and without blame before him in love; and from thence conclude, that this early choice was not the effect of his love to them, any more than of his delight in them; but that they might be objects of his love, as of his delight, when united to his Son: But furely, if they were chofen in Chrift, they must be confidered in union with him, and must be the objects both of love and delight; fince Chrift is the beloved Son of God, in whom he always was, is, and ever will be well pleased, and.

Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 117, 118.

• Ibid. p. 18.

d Ibid. p. 119,

and with all thofe that are in him. To illuftrate this matter, I mention the choice of the people of Ifrael, as a reprefentation of the choice of the people. of God, which is owned to be thus far right: but when I affirm that this was owing to previous delight in them; it is faid, this requires more proof than Deut. x. 15. for it is not faid, that the Lord delighted in this people, and therefore he chose them; but that he delighted in their fathers to love them, and chose their feed after them. I anfwer; that the love with which the Lord Joved the people of Ifrael, was the fame love with which he loved their fathers; and therefore if he loved their fathers with a love of complacency, fo he loved them the children; which is the ground and foundation of his choofing them; fee Deut. vii. 6, 7. God's bringing his elect out of a state of nature, is owing to his great love, Ephes. ii. 4, 5. which, furely, it would not be called, was it separate from delight; and as that, fo all after-bleffings and favours fpring from the fame kind of love, for which I produce the above fcriptures. Though my design there is not to prove by them, that God loves his elect with a love of complacency and delight while in a state of nature; my readers will not be at a lofs about my defign in producing of them, nor think themselves remarkably trifled with; when they cannot but observe, that my view is apparently this, that as electing and regenerating grace fpring from God's love of delight in his people, so all the after-bleffings of grace and glory, in one continued chain, arise from the fame: whence it will appear, that God's love of complacency in his people, is invariably the fame, through every ftate, of nature, grace and glory.

5. I have obferved, that the diftinction of a love of pity and benevolence, and of complacency and delight, is made by fome popish schoolmen, and is fubverfive of the nature and perfections of God; and reprefents him fuch an one as ourselves, fubject to change; that his love, like ours, alters, and by degrees increases, and, from a love of pity and benevolence, paffes into a love of complacency and delight. This author feems displeased that this diftinétion should be ascribed to popish schoolmen, since he is apt to believe, that there is (it should be are) very few of that pretended church (of Rome, I suppose he means) fo remote from the groffeft tenets of Arminianism, as to allow of it. I can tell him there have been many in that church, more remote from Arminianifm by far, than he himself is; and should I tell him, that fome of them have been Supralapfarians, it would have equal credit with him: however, be it fo, that this distinction came from them, though he has no bigh opinion of popish notions, which, as I observed before, fupposes that he has an opinion of them, yet he shall not very willingly part with it; much good may it do him, I do not envy • Ibid. p. 124, 125.

d Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 119.

his