AN ANTIDOTE AGAINST ANTINOMIANISME. The first Dosis. The unjustifiablenesse of justification before faith. Prescribed and administered in a soft Answer: 

I. To seven Arguments.  
II. To the solutions of five Objections.  
III. To the novel distinction of God's reconciliation to man, without man's reconciliation to God.   Penned plainly, for the undeceiving of the  Christian; and mildly, for the regaining of our mistaken brother H. D. by D. H.  
London, Printed for G. B. and R. W.   

SEVEN ARGUMENTS to prove, 
[a]  that in order of working, God doth justify his Elect, before they do actually believe. With some Answers to the Objections that some make against the same. For the confirmation of those that do truly believe, 
[b]  lest they should attribute any part of the Office of Christ to the act of their believing.  Ezekiel 16.2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 
[c]  
Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations.  
And say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem, Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan, thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.  
And as for thy nativity, in the day that thou wast borne, thy navel was not cut, neither waist thou washed in water to supple thee, thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all.  
None eye pitied thee, to do any of these things unto thee, but thou wast cast into the open field, to the loathing of thy person, in the day that thou wast borne.  
And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live: yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.  
Printed in the year 1643.   

An answer to the Title.  
In Order of Working God doth justify his Elect, 
[a]  before they do actually believe.] So you.  
1. Here you do more than seem, you do express yourself, to mean justification in act or actual justification, not justification merely in God's decree: For God's decree to justify is not a working justification, so you fly off from that extreme of making a precedency of justification before faith in God's decree, where indeed the decree of faith, is as old, as the decree of justification; yet in your dispute you oft fall on again upon this extreme.  
2. Here you seem (but you do but seem) to wave the other extreme, of holding a precedency in time of justification before faith, you seem only to hold a precedency in order of nature, because you say in order of working; but you only seem: For if only the difference be in order of nature, this doth not infer a necessity that they should be severed in time, not an hour, not a quarter of an hour. But more is intended, namely, that a man may be justified many years before he believe, so in the 1. Argum: which is most false; yea we cannot say that in order of working in the same moment, when whole Christ is brought to the soul, that justification goes before faith, if there be any precedency of one before another.  
For, 1. Actual justification is by union with Christ, granted in 2. Argum. ad Phil. 3.9. Now the very instant of union is of Christ's being in us, by spirit of faith, Ephes. 3.17. 1 joh. 3. ult. joh. 1.12. you confess the spirit unites in 2. Argum. [e].  
2. If faith hath any thing to do in justification, it is an instrument, but the tool is before the work, in order of nature.  
3. Though the King purposeth to pardon a felon, yet he doth not actually pardon, and pronounce discharged, till he accept and plead that pardon.  
4. The order of working set down Rom. 8.30. is, Whom he predestinated, them he called, whom he called, them he justified; if effectual calling includes not faith, it is not effectual, but only that which may be in hypocrites; but 2 Pet. 1.3. it's plain, calling is to glory and virtue.  
It is a part of the office of Christ to give gifts and graces, 
[b]  and so that of believing, to them whom he saves. john 1.16.17. And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace: For the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by jesus Christ. john 17.19. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified, Ephes. 4.7.8. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ: How proves he that? From an act of his Mediatorship, namely his ascension; Wherefore he saith when he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.  
Ezek. 16.2.3.4.5.6. To this we answer, 
[c]  that all that text doth not hold out, that God justified Jerusalem one minute before he restored her to spiritual life & holiness. For when he passed by, he said, Live. And when he said, Live, he entered into Covenant with her and washed her, v. 8.9. Christ's name and nature is not barely to save us in our fins, but from our sins, Matth. 1.21. to be as a jesus, a Saviour, so to be Immanuel, God with us, Matth. 21.23. Now this of God being with us, is applied not merely to God's decree, but to the execution of his decree of calling, justifying and glorifying, Rom. 8.30.31.  

Seven Arguments to prove that in order of working God doth justify his Elect, before they do actually believe. With some Answers to the Objections that some make against the same.  
THis Proposition being contradicted, we are justified before God, before the act of our believing: This is the Proposition which I do now undertake to vindicate, by the affistance of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose honour is not a little concerned in it. 
[b]  I will first of all lay down seven Arguments for the confirmation of the Truth; and then I will answer unto five Objections, brought by some against it.  

An answer to the Preface.  
I had thought by that touch you give upon universal Gratians (as you call them) in the 5. 
[a]  Argum. * that you had been an opposite to the universal Redemptionists, the Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, and Arminians. But I find your doctrine in this point to be very consonant and near of kin to theirs.  
Herein you agree with them; 
So ●sher delivers their sense.  who do thus say, that the benefit of Christ's satisfaction is to be extended so fare, as that God for his part is actually reconciled unto men, and doth really discharge men from their sins, before they believe.  
You differ in this only, that they say to all men God is so reconciled and gives a discharge, before faith comes; you say he is reconciled to all the Elect and dischargeth them before faith comes.  
To deny this proposition in the sense you mean it, That we are justified before God, before (you mean in time) the act of our believing, doth nothing derogate from the honour of the Father or his Son. 
[b]  Forth Father hath committed all the business of the Church to Christ, Matth. 11.27, 28. 1 Cor. 15. sends us to be advised & guided by Christ, Mat. 17.5. And Christ is honoured in that he must find the price of our redemption & find an hand for us to receive it. So that the salvation and the application by faith, is all of the gift of Christ, and of the power of Christ. Ephes. 2.8. By grace are ye saved through faith, (see Gods favour and Saints faith conjoined) and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, who works to will and to do, Phil. 2.13.  The Proposition: We are justified before God, before the act of our believing.  

Argument. I.  
LEt me speak for those that are not able to speak for themselves; I mean the little Babes, to whom belongs the Kingdom of God; I argue thus: Infants do not believe: 
[a]  But Infants are justified: Therefore some that do not believe, are justified. Which if it be granted, it will follow, that some are justified before they believe. That infants are justified, need no proof *; That infants believe not, must be proved, 
[b]  (although the Church of England hath long since put it out of doubt) First, Faith cometh by hearing, Rom. 10.17. How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? shall we say, that infants in the Womb hear the Word? Secondly, Faith is a Knowledge, as some say; a Persuasion, as others; a Trust, as others: But Infants are capable neither of Trust, Persuasion, or Knowledge; therefore Infants are not capable of Faith. But some have said, that infants hear the Word of God, believe in God, and love God, in an unknown way; 
[c]  as sometimes John Baptist sprang in his Mother's Womb for joy, at the salutation of the Blessed Virgin: But Saint Augustine did answer long ago not more wittily then truly, That this was done by a singular Miracle. Neither doth this conclude, other infants to believe any more, 
[d]  than we may conclude, all Asses to be good Counsellors, because we read, that Balaams' Ass spoke more wisely than her Master.   

An Answer to Argument I.  * Yea if you would hold that infants are justified before they believe, you had need exceedingly to prove that they are so justified, for we know no Scripture for it. 
Justified infants do believe. 
[a]  Such an infant may be filled with the holy Spirit, Luk. 1.15. And where is the Spirit, there are its fruits; one of which is faith, Gal. 5. The inbeing of grace no way depends upon the growing of the body: we know a reasonable spirit is the subject of grace, and without respect to age. The Angels were full of grace as soon as made. Grace doth but perfect reason: The soul of an infant is full of reason; Ergo, why not capable of grace, that doth not hurt, but help reason? how more capable is the soul of a man asleep of faith, than the soul of an elect waking child? Yet, 1. God hath appeared to men in dreams, why not to a waking child, revealing Christ unto it? 2. The habit of faith saves, else a believer dying in his sleep, cannot be saved; All infused habits depend not on organical knowledge that enters by sense. 3. Godly men in their deepest sleep have oft the most rational and divine notions: Ergo a child may, awake; smiles are the property of reason: they will smile.  
Infants do not believe, 
[b]  because Rom. 10.17. Answer, that is spoken de Adultis, of ripe in years; for there is mention of confession and supplication: The expression is affirmative, not negative: By this argument, because it is said the spirit is given by hearing, 2 Cor. 3. Ergo, it could not be given to john Baptist without hearing.  
This confirms that spoken afore, 
[c]  that john was filled with the holy Spirit from the womb: now manifesting an apprehension of Christ, by that motion the body was organised unto, namely leaping in the mother's womb.  
For that of Augustine: 1. If men are to be urged in this point, than the whole stream of all sound Divines run to this effect: We are elected before all time: Created in the beginning of time: Justified in the fullness of time: Glorified after all time: That the first is the decree, the other the execution.  
2. Augustine's speech must be interpreted, that he means by miraculum, mirandum, or else his speech is false, (as in many things he mistook) for a miracle is Mutatio naturae rei: of the water into wine: Moses rod into a Serpent. Now john in the womb was not altered in nature.  
1. 
[d]  It is not said that the Ass' soul was capable of humane reason and speech: The voice or fitness of speech was created in his mouth. But it is said john's soul was filled with the holy Ghost. This infusion of the holy Spirit, in regard of Gods acting, is the same with his infusion of the Spirit into all other believers; though the subject not like to all other believers in regard of body. But the Lord did not make the ass speak as he makes man to speak. He makes man speak, by the natural instruments of speech. And speaks reason from a reasonable soul. But the ass' speech was created above the power of nature.  
And for that speech that john's condition doth no more conclude that other infants do believe any more, than we may conclude all asses to be good counsellors, because we read that Balaams' ass spoke more wisely than his Master: We answer, 1. This will conclude, that as all asses would so speak, if God did work alike in them by creation; so all infants would believe if God did work alike in them by infusion, as he did in john. Yea,  
2. We can conclude more a fortiori; If God doth put the spirit of faith (for so it is called 2 Cor. 4.) into john, whom he intended should live to be a man to see Christ and hear of him, if not hear him; how much more will he put the spirit of faith into elect infants that shall never grow up to manhood, but die in their childhood?  
3. We can conclude that some one hath had faith in infancy. But you can give us on instance of any one that hath been justified in infancy without faith; I say no instance of example. As for your Arguments, we will answer to them in order.  
4. It seems more infants than john have had saving grace in their infancy, Mar. 10. Else how were they pronounced blessed, and that to them did belong the Kingdom of heaven; and were actually blessed of Christ?   

Argument II.  
HE that is in Christ, is justified: But we must be in Christ, before we can believe: 
[a] [b] [c]  Therefore we must be justified, before we can believe. The Major is plain, the Minor is proved, that we must be in Christ before we can believe: To believe, is a fruit of the Spirit, Gal. 5. But we must be in Christ, before we can bear fruit; Therefore we must be in Christ, before we can believe, Joh. 15.4. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the Vine, 
[d]  no more can ye, except ye abide in me. Secondly, if Faith be a good fruit, it is required, that men must be good Trees, before they can bring it forth; otherwise, Grapes should be gathered of Thorns, and Figs of Thisiles, Matth. 12.33. If you will, 
[e]  the Argument may be this: He that hath the Spirit of Christ hath Christ; But we have the Spirit before we believe; Therefore we have Christ before we believe.   

An answer to Argument II.  
1. THe Argument is false in the form. For, 1. 
[a]  The conclusion is universal, (i) that all justified persons are justified before they believe; which must not be in an argument in the third figure. For though expressly the proposition is but indefinite, yet you supposing it to be In re necessariâ, you yield it to be universal. For if the conclusion in this figure may be universal, than I may infer many falsehoods. As thus, Every man is rational; every man is a living creature; Ergo, every living creature is rational. For the the Minor term must be the subject of the conclusion, and the Mayor term the predicat. So by such a kind of argument as this I would infer: All effectually called are saved: All effectually called do sin; Ergo, all that sin are saved.  
2. There is another fault in the form of the argument, which much concludes against you, which is this. The Minor term as we said, must be the subject of the conclusion, the Mayor term, the predicat; now believing is the Minor term, and justification is the Mayor; and then the argument will according to rule be thus,  
He that is in Christ is justified: we must be in Christ before we believe: Ergo we must believe, before we can be justified.  
I answer artificially to Syllogisms because you pretend art, and use Syllogisms.  
2. The argument is false in the matter, namely in the Minor proposition: 
[b]  If by the word before you understand time, that we must be a certain time in Christ, before we believe. For that cannot be: But in the same moment, that we be actually in Christ, Christ is actually in us, Rom. 8.1. to the end of verse 10. For Christ to be actually in us, or we in him, is an union; union is the uniting of two into one, Ephes. 2.13.14.15. Ergo, we cannot be in him to be one with him, but he must be in us, one with us: Take up all the comparisons of this union, they will import as much: As marriage; Is not marriage a mutual consent? Is the man married to the woman, and not the woman to the man? They twain shall be one flesh, can this be true of one, and not of the other? Hath Christ our nature? Have not we his? Are we not (as the Apostle speaks) jointly one spirit? 1 Cor. 6.17. Or of a Vine and branches. If the Vine be united to the branches, are not the branches to the Vine? Or of a body and members. If the body be united to the members, are not the members to it?  
Let any reasonable man under heaven tell me, nakedly, particularly, and plainly, how actually we (I speak of true Christians) are in Christ, or Christ in us, either Physically or morally, call it what you will, but all is under the operation and notion of the Spirit of faith. 1. Physically, is there any thing of Christ in us? This can be no other than the spirit of Faith: The habit of the graces of the Spirit, one of which is faith, Ephes. 3.17. For Christ himself is in heaven. Are we any how peculiarly as true Christians in Christ? This can be nothing else, but the actings of our faith carrying & casting of our confidence, hope & expectation and desires & love upon him, Heb. 6.18.19. Most plainly, Eph. 3.17, 18. we have both Christ being in us, & we in him by faith.  
2. Morally, if the Lord imputes Christ's righteousness to me a true Christian, my sins unto him, as 2 Cor. 5. ult. and so reputes me justified actually in him, he doth all this under the notion of faith, Rom. 4.3. If any say, But we are eternally justified in God's election or purpose: We reply, just so, as we eternally believe in God's purpose. For he hath purposed eternally both equally. He that eternally purposed to justify, did eternally purpose to justify by Faith. Though the purpose itself be not for any foreseen merit of faith. Now if purpose of justifying, be actual justifying, than purpose is no purpose; or if actual justifying be a purpose, than act is no more act. For while purpose is, there is no act, whiles act is, it is no more a purpose. As we see in all humane things: we purpose till we go a journey, when we go it, we no longer purpose, but go it. So in divine things, Ephes. 3.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.  
The proof of this Minor is, 
[c]  to believe is a fruit of the Spirit, etc. Here is supposed that either the Spirit must be in us a time, before it brings for the fruit of faith; (for in your argument you intent a difference of time) or that the Spirit or grace of faith must have long previous changes and preparations, before it can act any thing: As sap in a stock of a tree. But for the 1. The Spirit in the essence being God, cannot be said at any time to be out of any man, good or bad. It were contrary to its infiniteness to be excluded out of any thing, or any nothing. It must needs fill all things, as it must needs be God. If by the Spirit you mean the creating act of the Spirit, that whiles it is every where, it create in this or that man, the habit of saving graces, it doth it just then when Christ comes. For you say Christ and Spirit in a saving manner comes together. So [e]. For the 2. The Spirit needs no previous antecedent change or preparations: If an angelical Spirit is full of understanding, and act as soon as it is created; then the Spirit eternally God, is eternally all act. For the third: Faith itself is the fruit of the Spirit, as all the habits of graces are, by which the Spirit is said to be in Saints; so that as soon as faith is in a Saint, there is a fruit. And faith being above reason and senss, 2 Cor. 5. it acts without being beholding to reason or sense. So that all this Argument proves no before of time.  
You further prove the Minor: Secondly, (say you) if faith be a good fruit, it is required that men must be good trees, before they can bring it forth.  
Answ. I do entreat you, 
[d]  and all ingenuous men to consider whether this be a safe expression, to say either that men bring forth faith, when as but now you said, it was a fruit of the Spirit, or that men can be good before they have faith, when as faith is that which makes the difference between good men and bad men, regenerate and unregenerate, Act. 15.9. And therefore so commonly are good men in the new Testament called by the name of believers: So that as soon as faith comes in, the tree is good, it is made a vine, a fig tree, and so brings forth true grapes and figs: If men have not faith, let them have what goodness they can, all is naught, Heb. 11.6. Which place we shall further vindicate, when we come to your reply to it.  
For your last Argument: He that hath the Spirit of Christ, hath Christ, etc. 1. It is false in the form, just as your 1. Argument noted with [a]  
For 1. as that, so this, is all universails (as you intent it) in the third figure. 
[e]  2. As in that the conclusion according to rule, was to be inverted, so this: So that the right conclusion is this: Therefore we believe before we have Christ. For the Mayor term must be the predicat in the conclusion. And this conclusion is true, not only according to form, upon your premises, but according to matter in order of nature: For when Christ comes to give himself in marriage to us, he gives us the hand of faith to take him by the hand of his saving power; the sun is seen by its own light, and quickening life; so Christ is received by the power of his own light and life of grace.  
2. This argument in the Mayor or 1. Proposition clasheth against the proof of the Minor, or 2. Proposition in the beginning of the 2. Argument, noted with [b]. For there you say, we must be in Christ before we believe. To believe is a fruit of the Spirit, etc. whence it follows by your Argument, that we must in your sense have Christ before we have the Spirit, or else the Spirit must be in us a barren Spirit without its fruits, or idle without working, which may not be imagined.  
Yet here you make the having of the Spirit to be the proof, if not the cause, that we have Christ. For you make having the Spirit to be the Medius Terminus, the sinew of your argument, which you know in point of art includes sometimes the cause, sometimes the sign.  
Therefore of necessity you must yield yourself mistaken in one of these assertions, unless you will close with us, that Christ, and the saving work of the Spirit, and faith, and consequently justification, come unto and into a man all at the same time.   

Argument III.  
ALL the Elect of God are justified before God; 
[a]  But some of the Elect of God do not yet believe: therefore some that do not believe, are justified before God, and so by consequence, before they believe. 
[b]  The major is proved: They that cannot be charged with any thing, are justified; But none of the Elect of God can be charged with any thing: Therefore the Elect are justified. The minor is proved: Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect? It is God that justifies: Who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again, Rom. 8.33. He risen again for our justification, Rom. 4.23.   

An Answer to Argument III.  
ALl the Elect of God are justified before God. 
[a]  This is an ambiguous proposition: Therefore we must pump out your meaning. If you mean all the elect are justified before God, that is, in God's thoughts, ever since they were elected, than you may as well say that all the elect do believe before God, in God's thoughts ever since they were elected, for both are equally within the eternal decree of God. And so you gain not before of time of justification before faith.  
If you mean that after the elect are borne before they are new borne, by faith, they are justified before God, that is, in God's thoughts or opinion: You may say as well, so the elect after they are borne before new borne by faith, are before God, in God's opinion, children of the devil, of the world, and of wrath, even as others. So evidently, Ephes. 2.1, 2, 3. to end of ver. 8. And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein in times past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air (observe) the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; among whom also we all had our conversation in times passed in the lusts of the flesh, (observe now) and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others. Till when was there no difference between them and others? Till grace came, and faith came, and put them into Christ, ver. 4.5, 6, 7, 8. The whole Chapter is to the same effect, ver. 12. to end of 18. They are without God, without Christ, till they be in Christ, till Christ preached peace unto them and gave them his Spirit, and then they come nigh and have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Heed also, 1 Cor. 6 9.10, 11. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicatours, etc. And such were some of you. Till when? Till now that ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified. See he puts now sanctification before justification, that men may not conceive that they can be one minute severed. All this while God thinks what he speaks, (for he cannot lie) therefore before conversion we are no more actually justified, than we are actually uniustified.  
If you say, in God's predestination we are eternally justified; we say as truly, in God's predestination we are eternally fallen in Adam. For both are equally eternally fore-ordained, or else somewhat comes to pass that God did not foreknow, or could not hinder, which would argue ignorance and impotency in God; which to say were blasphemy.  
To the Minor proposition of the argument to prove that all the elect are justified before God, (before faith comes, 
[b]  for it is your meaning all along this dispute) And to the proof that the elect cannot be charged with any thing: for which you allege, Rom. 8.33. We answer, 1. That whiles they are merely elected before justification by faith, they stand charged with many things. God himself chargeth them with many heavy things, as but now you heard out of Ephe. 2. As 2 Cor. 13.3, 4. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Paul saith to them in whom Christ was mighty, that they were refuse unless Christ by faith were in them. They were but dross till the substance Christ by faith were in them.  
2. That the text you allege is clearly against you, look on it well and submit: Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? Why Saint Paul? Because it is (saith he) God that justifieth: what justification Paul do you mean? a justification mental in God, or a justification actual received by the believer? He shows us he means an actual justification received and applied by the believer. For ver. 30. it is a justification, following uncation according to God's purpose; that is as effectual as ever he purposed to call: And ver. 34. such a justification as hath Christ's death and resurrection and intercession and strengthening in tribulations accompanying it.   

Argument IU.  
THey that have their sins taken away, are justified; 
[a]  But the elect have their sins taken away before they believe: Ergo, the elect are justified before they believe. The mayor is proved: Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgteen, and whose sin is covered, Rom. 4.7. The minor; That the Elect have their sins taken away before they believe, 
[b]  is proved Joh. 1.29. Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world; and Esay 35. ●. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all; and 1 Pet. 2.24 Himself bore our sins in his own body on the Tree; and Rom. 6.6. Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed. Did Christ take away sin, or not? Did he bear them? Did he destroy the body of sin? If you say, 
[c]  No; how will you escape the Sword of the Spirit? If you say, Yea; I desire no more.   

An Answer to Argument IU.  
YOu say, 
[a]  they that have their sins taken away are justified; you prove it Rom. 4.7. Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven, and whose sin is covered. By this you intent to prove a man is justified before he believes. But your own expressions and allegations are against that. 
1. Expression.  For sins are not taken away (which is a Physical act) by God's mere mental thoughts of justifying; but when he pronounceth the blessing of justification he saith withal, in whose heart is no guile, Psal. 32.1, 2. which is the place the Apostle quotes, Rom. 4. See real actual justification take our sins from us, and our hearts from our sins. 
2. Allegation.  And with the same breath almost with which the Apostle saith, Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven, he saith also, To him that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, is his faith counted for righteousness, Rom. 4.5, 6, 7.  
You go about to prove that the elects sins are taken away before they believe, 
[b]  by that, Isa. 53.8. 1 Pet. 2.24. Eph. 1.29. What do you intent by these general places? would you by the two first places have it that Christ takes away the sins of all the Jews, contrary to Rom. 11.7. etc. or by the third place, that Christ takes away the sins of the whole world? contrary to Rom. 8.30. yet either you must take them in that false general sense, or else they make nothing to prove justification before faith. That place you allege out of Rom. 6.6. is flat against you. For if sin be not destroyed, till crucified, than not till mortified. For crucifying signifies mortifieation, which is a part of sanctification, Gal. 5.22, 23, 24. And the body of sin signifies not the guilt, but the filth and power, Rom. 7. And therefore this place supposeth justification by faith, even as faith is mentioned to precede that crucifying, in the place last alleged.  
Yet in the close you seem to triumph, 
[c]  as if you had sheerly carried away the gerland upon the horns of an unanswerable Dilemma. Saying, if we say Christ did take away sin, did bear them, did destroy the body of sin, you desire no more. Thus you. We answer; Christ doth take away sin, doth bear the sins of men, but for whom? only for the elect. And when doth he take away sin, and make his bearing to lighten men? Even when comes that justification by faith, that, as you say, brings with it a crucifying of the body of sin; when comes that justification, mentioned Rom. 5.1, 2, 3, 4.   

Argument V.  
WE were made sinners in the first Adam, before we had done good or evil; 
[a]  Therefore we are made righteous in the second Adam, before we have done good or evil. This consequence is proved, Rom. 5.18, 19 As by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life: for as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. If you shall place the Emphasis of this Text, in All, and many, you will cause the hearts of the * universal Gratians to leap for joy; which (I believe) you would not willingly do. Therefore you must be forced to place the Emphasis in As, and So: As we sinned all in the loins of the first Adam; So were we all made righteous in the loins of the second Adam: The Lord Christ. And this agreeth with the ministry of Reconciliation; 
[b]  to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, 2 Cor. 5.19. Truly, this Argument was of so great force, 
[c]  that it did wring out of Cardinal Bellarmine this confession, as the Apostle teacheth, Rom. 5. That Christ may be put on, without a proper act of our soul: I confess, I differ from the Cardinal, in his means of putting on Christ; yet this his confession I acknowledge to be true.   

An Answer to Argument V.  
IT is plain by the place you allege, Rom. 5. 
[c]  That you mean not a making of us sinners in the first Adam, by God's bare decree accounting us so. And if you do not so mean, but mean that we are actually accounted sinners in the first Adam, since we came from his loins, before we had done good or evil: I admire how you dare affirm a thing so contrary to Scripture: For the Apostle most evidently affirmeth in that Rom. 5. That though all that are come of Adam, have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, ver. 14. that is, have not sinned actually in their particular persons, as infants not any sin, nor any men that particular sin of Adam, yet ver. 12. it is said expressy that death passed over all men, for that all have sinned, or the Greek will bear it, In whom all have sinned. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The former part of the verse favours this reading in these words: As by one man sin entered into the world. Then concludes all have sinned. Which how can it be true of infants in their conception, as Psal. 51. unless they be said to sin in Adam?  
But however we read, the same conclusion will necessarily follow, that all; children and all; in the womb, even Jacob and Esau, have sinned originally in the common nature at first existing in that public father of mankind: I say originally; As true as we have our bodies from our Grandfathers, so from the first Adam we had all the same corrupt senses and appetite in him: though actually in our own persons we sinned not that sin, nor do infants (as Jacob and Esau) actually sin, as persons of ripe years when (as the Law speaks) they are capaces doli; can do evil, and give a seeming reason for it.  
So then, in brief, our answer is: That Adam's sin is imputed to all, because all did originally commit it: All our natures were at and in the committing of it; which natures we lineally derive from him. And that you say, we are made sinners in the first Adam, simply and absolutely, before we have done evil, the Scripture saith no such thing, but the contrary, that in him we are all sinners. Therefore, to retort the Argument upon you, we are not made righteous in the second Adam, till we partake of his nature; that is, his Divine nature, as 2 Pet. 1.4. which is that by which we escape corruption through lust. A part of which is faith; after reckoned up, and commended to them, to whom Peter writes, in verse 5. immediately following.  
To that you urge out of 2 Cor. 
[b]  5.19. I answer, the Scripture is no friend to universal redemption: And then what will follow on your behalf? Surely no more will follow, or can follow but this, that in God's ordinary way of Gospel's administration, God is in Christ, reconciling them of the world to himself, that are persuaded by him to believe and receive the word of reconciliation: So evidently, immediately before and after that 19 verse.  
Yet you say, 
[c]  This Argument did so wring Cardinal Bellarmine, that he confessed Christ may be put on without a proper act of our soul. Surely then, the saddle was closer, and harder put on him by some other, than you have tackied it: or he was more artificially wracked, than you here stretch him.  
But I am willing to imagine the urmost, you would, or could make of this Argument: It may be you have this in your thoughts, that, as in Adam, children are accounted sinners, though they cannot act sin, so, in Christ, children may be accounted righteous, though they cannot act faith.  
To which I answer: As there is a natural habit of corruption in infants, that makes a foundation of a just relation of Adam's sin to them; (For where there is no habitual corruption of nature, there is no imputation of Adam's sin, as we see in Christ's conception and humane nature: He was not accounted a sinner in himself, but is for them that are saved by him; but in himself he was, and accounted most holy) So there is habitual faith in elect infants dying in their infancy, through which they are accounted righteous in Christ; as we have reasoned to the 1. Argument.  
But that I am loath to wade too deep that little ones should not follow, more might be said: If it might be said in some sense Christ can be apprehended without a proper act of our soul, that is, as it is a mere peculiar act of our soul; yet not without an act of God's grace in that soul: Till that be put into the soul, no more is done in any particular elect person then what was done in the eternal election, which the Scripture calls a purpose, Rom. 9 And a purpose is not the practice of the thing purposed; and of that act of grace the soul of the youngest elect infant is in a fair capacity. For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intelligere, the naked act of understanding depends not on the organs of the senses; 
So the Artists that handle of the nature of the reasonable soul.  no nor doth the representing of an intelligible object to the understanding depend upon the senses, when God will in the dark, or in a dream represent as in a vision of the mind, the species or images of some spiritual thing that sense never apprehended. How much less doth the acts of grace in this act of understanding depend upon the body or senses? So that though the body be a child, great may be the actings of the gratiated soul.   

Argument VI.  
Where there is full satisfaction made, and the party offended accepting that satisfaction, and contented to rest in it, there must needs follow perfect remission of sins; But in Christ crucified (before we believed) was full satisfaction made, and God was contented to rest in that satisfaction: Therefore there will follow perfect remission of sins, etc. First, 
[a]  that there was full satisfaction made in Christ, is proved Heb. 10.11, 12, 13, 14. verse. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. But the second, that God is therewith contented to rest in that satisfaction, we have the witness of the Father, Matth. 3.17. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Acquiesco, saith Beza. See Esay 53.11. He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.   

An Answer to Argument VI.  
YOur sixth Argument, as you prove it, will answer itself: That Heb. 10.11, 
[a]  12, 13, 14. shows expressly, that though Christ did make ready the satisfaction for the common nature of men, before they knew of it, that after should believe: yet it is not brought home, and made available, to any particular person, but to the sanctified. The sanctified ones, for ever in all ages, and for eternity, have the satisfaction, not only prepared, but perfected to them. See you Pareus, etc. on the place, whether I deal not clearly with the place.  
That place also Matth. 3.17, is for us against you. It is, in whom, not with whom. So that it imports that he is only well pleased with all he studes in Christ: Else he doth not acquiescere rest pleased, but is earnest till somewhat else be done, 2 Cor. 5.20. This interpretation is as old as Augustine's time; whom I name because you named him. But look to the Scripture, which to show that God is well pleased, only with those that are actual in Christ, adds to this speech, Matth. 17.5. Hear ye him, to draw men into Christ, that with them God may be well pleased. Till men be actually in Christ, God is not well pleased with them though they be elect. See a notable place, Rom. 9.25. I will call them my people, which were not my people, and her beloved which was not beloved; who were they? Them whom he had called, ver. 24.   

Argument VII.  
IF we are not justified in his sight before we believe, 
[a]  then are we unjust sinners, workers of iniquity; then doth the Lord hate us, for he hateth all the workers of iniquity, Psal. 5. You know what absurdity will follow, if you say, we must believe before God can love us: But it God hate us to day, 
[b]  and love us to morrow, let Arminius with his disciples hear this, and wonder, why they should be blamed that say: we may be loved to day and hated to morrow; Children of God to day, and of the Devil to morrow: when they who would seem their greatest Adversaries, will not spare to say; we may be hated to day, and loved to morrow; the children of the Devil to day, and of God to morrow. But that God loved us first, before we believed, when we were enemies, in our blood etc. is so plain, that I will not willingly so dishonour you, as once to conceive that you will deny it.  
Here is an end of the seven Arguments, which (if need had required) might have been seventy. Now I will answer the Objections.   

An Answer to Argument VII.  
IF we are not justified in his sight before we believe, 
[a]  than we are unjust, sinners, workers of iniquity: Answer. So we are, As we have showed out of Ephes. 2.2. Where we are said to walk after the course of the world, to be guided by the Spirit that ruleth in the children of disobedience, and to be children of wrath as well as others, till we be in Christ by faith. v. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. So 1 Cor. 6.9.10.11.  
But than saith the objection: If we be workers of iniquity, God hates us, Psalm. 5.  
1. Answ. We know no middle between God's love and hate. And the text saith plainly, that till they be called, they are, in regard of actual love, a people not beloved, Rom. 9.24.25. ☞ Some reply that this is meant of the Gentiles.  
To which, 1. We reply, that that is all one; In the Gentiles we see those that were not beloved afore the call, are beloved after.  
2. That the text names Jew's and Gentiles, and brings that of Hos. to prove it, with which if we go on to end of 3. chap. of Hos. it is fully proved: Chapters are of late invention.  
Besides that 9 of Rom. we allege that Ezekiell 16.8. It was a time of love.  
This text is urged against us, but you may see it is for us. For it should seem it was not the time of love till God passed by her, and spread his skirt over her, the righteousness and excellency of Christ.  
In order of nature, she lay in her blood before justified and loved. But in order of time, at the same time, yea minute of time, she was in her blood, was justified and loved. At the same time, the soul is created in man. But in order of nature, the understanding acts before the will.  
And whereas it is said, Esau have I hated, not Jacob: But jacob have I loved. This the Apostle applies peremptorily to Election and reprobation: Now Election is every where in Scripture called a purpose. If any where it be called a love, we must be forced to join both together, unless we will set the Scriptures together by the ears, and say; It is a purpose of love: Now a purpose is not an act, nor an act a purpose; God's decree is not the execution, nor the execution the decreeing.  
2. Answ. Isay 1.13. Your incense is abomination to me, the calling of Assemblies, I cannot away with it, it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting, your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth, etc. And all because their hands were full of blood.  
But ver. 18. Come now let us reason together; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.  
See here is as much said of hating those that should be pardoned, ver. 25. as of Sodom and Gomorrah, ver. 10. God cannot hate the essence of the Devil, being his creature, but only his manners. So of the justified before justified, as we have showed.  
Answ. 
[b]  What absurdity can be conceived by one principled with Divinity? For though man could fall in the first Adam; yet he cannot fall from the second Adam, being once in him: For the gifts and calling of God, 
Rom. 11.  are without repentance. We can perfectly sinne being out of Christ, and so deserve to be hated. But we being in Christ, have a perfect righteousness in him, that saves them to the utmost, that is, for ever, that come to God by him, seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them, Heb. 7.25. So that as he breaks the power of corrupt nature, that it cannot sinne perfectly with a full will, Rom. 7. so he perfectly pardons all sin, that there is no condemnation. Rom. 8.1.    


Objection 1.  
We are justified by Faith; therefore not before Faith.  

Answer.  
First, it should have concluded, not before the act of believing. 
[a]   
Secondly, I deny the consequence, and say, we may be justified both by it, and yet before, in a different sense.  
This Proposition, We are justified by Faith, is very ambiguous. He was not a Fool, who (an hundred years since) said, that this Proposition was one of those things hard to be understood; which they that are unlearned and unstable, wrist, as they do other Scriptures, to their own destruction, 2 Pet. 3.16. I would our Age had not proved it true, that the misunderstanding of this Proposition hath turned upside down the Doctrine of Justification amongst pudling preachers.  
There is in this Proposition two words ambiguous and doubtful:  
The first (Justified) which sometimes in Scriptures signifieth to be reputed, reckonned, or accounted Just; as, It is God that justifieth. Sometimes it is taken for to be declared, or manifested to be Just: as, By works a man is justified, James 2.24. If you take Justified in the first sense, we say, we are not reputed or reckoned Just by the act of believing. If you take justified in the second sense, I say, we are justified (that is, declared to be Just) by believing: Faith manifesting to our consciences, that we are Just before God: By Faith we understand, that God hath freely justified us in his Son.  
Another word ambiguous in this Proposition, is (Faith) which is diversely taken: sometimes for the act of Faith, or believing; and sometimes for the object of Faith, the thing believed: as, Faith was reckoned unto him for righteousness, Rom 4. that is, the object of faith: So that it is all one as if he had said, God or Christ was reckoned to him for righteousness. If we understand the act of Faith, than I say, as before, we are not reckoned Just by the act of our faith: if by faith we understand the object of our faith; then I say, we are reckoned or reputed Just by God, in, by, or through Christ Jesus, our Faith.   

An answer to your reply to the 1. Objection.  
We are justified by faith, therefore not before faith. Your Answer is: 1. That the conclusion should be, not before the act of believing. We reply, the conclusion should not have more terms in it, than the premises.  
2. That if a man hath the habit of faith, he cannot but be actually in Christ. For it is part of Christ.  
2. You answer: That you deny the consequence. We reply: That which is said to be done by an instrument, infers it is not done without the instrument.  
3. You reply that a man may be justified by faith, and yet be justified before faith in a different sense, distinguishing of the reputation of one just, and the manifestation of one just. And of Fides quâ & fides quam, of faith and its object.  
What is all this to the purpose, when your own former replies do intimaredly confess that you took the Argument to mean justification itself, not the manifestation, and faith the quality, not the object? For the Apostle doth not mean, Rom. 5.1. that Christ is the instrumental cause, but the meritorious cause: And faith the instrument. And the text means justifying, not bare manifesting of justification.    

Objection 2.  
He that believeth not, is condemned already, John 3.18.  

Answer.  
This is all one with; He that believeth not shall be damned: 
[a]  which you must understand of final unbelief, which I grant to be a note of Damnation.   

An Answer to your Reply to Objection 2.  
This you say must be understood of final unbelief. 
[a]  As if a man were not in state of damnation till the last.  
We reply; 1. What then meaneth the terms: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is condemned already? 2. How do you answer to the Antithesis? He that believeth is not condemned: that is, is actually out of state of damnation by faith: Ergo, without faith is actually in state of damnation. 3, What say you to the reason? he is said to be in state of condemnation for his past infidelity, because he hath not believed.    

Objection 3.  
Without Faith it is impossible to please God: therefore we cannot be justified without it.  

Answer.  
I deny the consequence; and I perceive so will you also, when you please: 
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f]  For you will affirm, a justified person may displease God, and then why is it not possible for a man to displease God, and yet be justified? To please God, is so to do those things which God approves in us to be well done, which we cannot do, without Faith. That this is the meaning of the Apostle, is plain by his reason: For he that cometh unto God, must be 〈◊〉, etc. We cannot come unto God, before we believe, but cannot God come unto us before we believe? Now Justification is God's act upon a sinner, not a sinner's act upon God.  
This also answereth the fourth Objection: Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin.   

An Answer to your Reply to Objection 3.  
[You deny the consequence] Before we reply, 
[a]  note the meaning of the word please, it imports to be well pleasing or acceptable.  
1. So the Greeks take the word; So Basil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Abel the first that is said to be acceptable to God was a shepherd. So Bud. renders it: See you more instances in Greek Authors.  
2. It's spoken in this 5. ver. not of doing, but of receiving: God translated him, for before his translation he had this Testimony that he pleased God, which must be meant that he was well pleasing to God by faith in Christ, (which is the Apostles scope, ver. 1. ver. 39) or else you will make his do the cause of his translation.  
3. This 6. ver. shows that the word please must signify to be accepted of God through faith in Christ, because it is added, we must believe that God is, there is his essence, or that he is Jehovah; And that he is a rewarder of them that seek him; there is his attribute of mercy to them that come to him by faith in Christ. For without faith no acceptable seeking him, Rom. 10.  
4. This Epistle being written in Hebrew, the Hebrew renders the word please, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a delight to him.  
5. Either this must be the meaning, that he that pleaseth God, pleaseth God by faith in Christ, or else the Apostles Argument drawn from Enoch to prove the Excellency of faith, which is the main business of this chap. comes to nothing, for this is the Apostles Argument. He that pleaseth God hath faith: Enoch pleased God; therefore he had faith, and so by faith went to heaven.  
Now to answer to your reply, you deny the consequence. 1. We answer by proving the consequence. He only that is justified pleaseth, or is well pleasing to God. This you yield in your 6. Argument, therefore if a man be not justified by faith, he cannot please God: This inference is the Apostles in this 11. of Hebr. 5.6. compared with Rom. 5.1. For saith the Apostle, being justified by faith we have peace with God. And by faith Enoch pleased God, as sure as Abel did. But saith he, without faith it is impossible to please God. Observe and observe the word impossible, and see how it can be possible for a man to be wellpleasing to God without faith.  
2. We answer, though one justified by faith may do some displeasing act, as Thomas did in doubting of Christ's resurrection, yet a man justified by faith cannot be displeasing to God in his person: God may chasten the corruption, yet love the person, Revel. 3.19. We hate wantonness and whip it, but we love the child. Faith brings in our Sonship, 1 John 12.  
To your reason for denial of the consequence, 
[b]  we reply thus. That you seem to infer that because one justified may displease God in some action, therefore he may a time be without faith and displease God in all his actions, and yet be justified: which inference is very much to be blamed, both for the consequent, and consequence.  
To your definition of pleasing God in action, 
[c]  I demand, whether God can approve of a greater thing without faith, namely our persons, (being as you say justified before faith comes) but cannot approve of a less thing, namely our actions without faith? which seems strange.  
By faith our persons are united to Christ, Ephes. 3.17. And our actions are but by a natural dependence united to us. Therefore the person, is 1. Accepted by faith, then 2. Our actions are accepted, because our persons; the Apostle saith, by faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice: How? saith the text Gen. 4. God had respect to Abel, and his offering.  
To your reason, 
[d]  that pleasing God in action must be the only meaning of the Apostle, I answer: That from the effect the Apostle proves how a man must have faith to be wellpleasing to God in his person, that so he may be wellpleasing in his practice.  
To your demand, whether God cannot come to us before we believe? 
[e]  I answer; his making us to believe is coming in and dwelling with us, Eph. 3. Before that, God doth but only purpose his coming, Ephes. 1.  
To your close, that Justification is an act of God upon a sinner, 
[f]  not a sinner's act upon God; we answer, that Gods putting faith into a man, and by it a man into Christ, is as well an act of God in justifying him, as Gods reputing him just in Christ, imputing his sins to Christ, and Christ's righteousness to him.    

Objection 5.  
We are by nature the children of wrath, etc.  

Answer.  
This were of some force, 
[a]  if you could prove us altogether in the estate of nature as well in Gods account as in our esteem, and so quite exempred from grace until we believe: which you cannot do, for the Apostle witnesseth the contrary, 2 Tim. 1.9. 
[b]  According to his own purpose and grace given us before the world began: If grace were given before the world began, surely before ever we believed.  
God is Alpha and Omega: therefore what he promiseth shall come to pass to his, 
[c]  is done with him, Rev. 21.6. For his works were finished from the foundation of the world, 
[d]  Heb. 4.3. And so I rest,  
A Servant of jesus Christ to live and die. H. D.   

An Answer to your Answer to the 5. Objection.  
We reply, when God speaketh those texts, Ephes. 2.1, 2, 3. and 1 Cor. 
[a]  6.9, 10, 11. (I pray turn to them and consider them) sure God speaks as he thinks. And if God doth not think mankind children of wrath before faith comes, sure they will not think themselves so.  
To that place of 2 Tim. 1.9. we say, 
[b]  that the place is express of God's gracious purpose. For otherwise then in purpose Christ himself cannot be said there to be given to us before the world began.  
To that Revel. 
[c]  21.6. God is Alpha and Omega, therefore what he promiseth shall come to pass is done with him; we answer, all that ever any learned have made of that, or you can make is, that the thing spoken of there, was as certain to be done in process of time, as if it had been then done, when it was spoken. But the certainty of a thing to be, doth not put the thing into a present being. 
Gen. 3.  God's promise of Christ in the beginning of time, doth not actually give Christ, till the fullness of time.  
Yet if you will have a notion in your head of God's actual doing in himself, that which is yet but in his promise and purpose; we retort; then so is it also in his threats. For the same expression as you allege out of Revel. 21.6. by way of promise of a mercy, is used by the same Saint John, Rev. by way of threat. So that if according to your position Gods promising to justify, be an actual justifying of a man with him, than Gods threatening to condemn, John 3.18. is an actual condemning of a man with him. So that a man in this way, is as much condemned as justified, before faith comes, and so you have gained nothing.  
Christ himself speaks of Gods justifying him from the imputation of the sins of men to him, in the future tense or time, Isay 50.8, 9 He is near that justifieth me, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  or, as the Hebrew will very well bear it: The justifier of me is near who will contend with me, etc. Behold the Lord will help me, who is he that shall condemn me? See by the opposite term condemn, the word help signifies justifying according to the title of the father in 8. ver. The justifier. So that if Christ was justified in time from sin merely imputed, then much more is a man justified by Christ from sin inherent.  
Or else on the other side if according to your sense God's promise of justifying be in God a justifying of a man, than Gods promise of giving faith is in him a giving of faith to a man, and so faith is come as soon as justification, justification hath not got the start of faith.  
To that Heb. 
[d]  4.3. we say, that it is expressly meant as it is explained, ver. 4. of Gods resting on the seventh day in the beginning of the world; and therefore cannot be understood of Gods finishing his works, before the world was made: Gods purposes are not works, Gods works are done in time, those of the creation in six days, those of his providence, 6000. years, but God's purposes were before all time from all eternity.  
But of the nature of God's purposes and decrees, and the Objection about its unchangeableness in our answer to some passages in your Sermons entitled, Grace, mercy and peace; containing God's reconciliation to man, man reconciliation to God.     

An Answer to several passages in your Book, called Grace, mercy, and peace; containing (as you say) 1. God's reconciliation to man: 2. Man's reconciliation to God.  
Delivered (as I conceive by the division of your book) in two Sermons: The 1. Concerning Gods reconciliation to man: The 2. Concerning man's reconciliation to God.  

Sermon I.  
PAg. 1. You say, I will show how God comes to be reconciled to men; bear with the term reconciled, although improperly spoken of him that was never an enemy: So you.  
Answ. 1. If God were never an enemy, why say you, I will show you how God comes to be reconciled? How can there be any going or coming of his love to man, if he never an enemy to him?  
Answ. 2. Reconciliation and enmity are relatives; as a father and a son; take away the relation of a father, and the relation of a son is gone, and so on the contrary. So if you deny that there was ever any enmity between God and man, you must needs utterly deny all reconciliation between God and man. Re signifies (as you know) again, Con signifies together, 
“ Of Cico  ciliation to call or move to. How is there a moving to, where there was never any removing? How a together of those that were never asunder? How an again, unless there had been once an oneness or an agreement, which had been broken to pieces, and now is made up again (as the 
* of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 permuto, Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Commutatio, thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, commutatio, contractus, Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A contracting again.  Greek word bears us out in all this) and so there is reconciliation? But whiles I am speaking these things, I know you are gone for an appeal from the bar of reason (in matters of faith) to the tribunal of Scripture. I go with you, for that is nothing else but a better, a divine reason.  
Say you that God was never an enemy to the Elect; and you make the fall of Adam (in whom the Elect are included) a fiction, you make the story of the Gospel touching Christ suffering a fable, as that Pope did, that said blasphemously, How much have we gotten by that fable of the Gospel! you make Christ's passion (if you grant he did suffer for the sins of the elect) to be a very vanity, a more than needs.  
You overthrew the nature of God, 
Hab. 1.13.  whose purity cannot endure any sin as sin, in whomsoever it is, but reproves it sharply all along the Scriptures in all his Elect.  
And you deny many Scriptures that testify that God was at enmity with his Elect as well as they with him till they were believers, Ephes. 2.2.3. As they are said to walk as the worldly children of disobedience, so in regard of God they are said to be children of wrath. All spoken of the Elect, for they were now truly converted. Weigh the place, weigh also that Isay 63.10.11. Therefore he was turned to be their enemy, than he remembered the days of old, etc. That is, to have mercy on them.  
Object. Nor is it available for you to say that Christ died to reconcile us to God, not God to us.  
Answ. For if that had been all the business, God might have reconciled our stubborn natures into a love of him by the mere sanctification of his Spirit, without the sufferings of Christ, as at first he made the blank and worthless nature of Angels and Adam holy of innocent without the merits of a Saviour. 
Till conversion comes, God is as well at enmity with the Elect, as the Elect with him.  Yea indeed had not God's enmity against Eve concurred with Eves enmity against him, it is a question whether Eve (the mother of all the Elect) had fallen when she did: We speak of the means and execution of the decree.  
For if while Eve was talking with Satan, God had not upon displeasure (though justly) withdrawn himself and left Eve to herself, she had not in all likelihood then have eaten of the forbidden fruit.  
And so since, had not God taken displeasure at the sins of Elect, he had not suffered the doctrine of the Law so many hundreds of years to tyrannize and terrify them in so many ages so much before their conversion, before the fullness of the Gospel was revealed, as he hath done. And why doth God defer the Call of so many Elect till the 6.9. and 11. hour of the day (and doth not call all at the 3.) but for this as one main reason, to show his enmity against sin in all men? And why when he gins to call, doth he suffer them to lie so long brined oft times in hellish terror, as we know some by woeful experience lie long so, notwithstanding the holding forth Christ never so much to them? one reason must needs be God's enmity against sin, and so to chase men from it. Not to enlarge by way of discourse. The text is most evident that God doth walk in an enmity against the sins of his Elect till conversion, Levit. 26.40, 41, 42. If they shall confess their iniquity, etc. with their trespass which they have trespassed against me, and that also they have walkea contrary unto me, and that also I have walked contrary unto them (mark that) and have brought them into the land of their enemies, if then their uncircumcised hearts (mark that) he humbled, and then they accept of the punishment of their iniquity, (observe that too) Then will I remember my Covenant, etc.  
You go on in that, 1. Pag. 10. I will show you how God comes to be reconciled to men; 2. How we come to be reconciled unto God.  
Answer. Here you make these two reconciliations, not only two distinct things, but do also conceive them to be two several and divided, and separated things, so that God to an elect person may be a long time, if not from all eternity, actually reconciled, before that elect person be actually reconciled to God. This appears plainly by your own words in this first Sermon. pag. 21, 22, 23. where you thus lay open yourself; For us to say, or think that Christ purchased the love of his father for us, is that which I am confident the Redeemer of the world will not challenge unto himself, but say (as in another case) It is not mine to give, but it was given to them, to whom it is given before the foundation of the world was laid. God's love was before the gift of his Son. Did God love Paul with as great love when that he persecuted the Church, as when he preached the Gospel? I will answer boldly, He did. So you.  
I will at this present only reply to the distinction itself, answering the other passages in order after, as I shall trace you page after page.  
I say then, That actually, God cannot be said to be reconciled to man, whiles a man is not reconciled to him. The word 
* Reconciliatio. q. d. Re-conciere. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sign. contractum vicissitudinarium. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in compositione signif. habitudinem & maiorem significationem.  Reconciliation, both in English, Latin and Greek (which is the word the holy Ghost useth) signifies emphatically and fully, A making two several persons to be at one again, that were fallen at odds. Two are not Reconciled, whiles one stands out. Galat. 3.19, 20. The Apostle speaking of Reconciliation, saith, that Christ is not the Mediator of one, therefore as God is one party, so transgressors are the other party, both which are reconciled by the Promise leading to Christ, that were at odds by the transgression of the Law. So 1. Tim. 2.5. There is one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus; affirming evidently, that there is but one only mediation of Reconciliation, and that of two parties, God and man into one. So Ephes. 2.1, 2, 3, 12, 13, etc. We are Children of disobedience to God; God is a God of wrath to us, till faith in Christ comes, and then each to other at once are reconciled. So Rom. 5.1, 2. It is as evident as evident may be, That by faith in Christ, both God is reconciled to us; Being Justified by Faith, we have Peace with God, that is as the 
(*) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We find peace in God, we find God at peace.  Greek is, from God, God is at Peace with us; as also we are reconciled to God, By Christ we have access by Faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.  Add to all the Confession of our Brother, that was a while mistaken by the false light of this distinction, that he was reclaimed by that place, Ezekiel. 16.63. That thou mayest be ashamed and confounded, and never open thy mouth any more, because of thy shame, when I am pacified towards thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God. Where it is evident, from the 62. verse, that then only, when the Covenant is applied, is God reconciled to man, as man is then reconciled to God. 
We confess with the godly Learned, that there is of the elect a purposed Justification, or Reconciliation, in God's eternal Decree, and a virtual Jnstification, or Reconciliation, in Christ's Resurrection. He risen again for our Justification. Then Christ had an acquittance from his Father for all the debts of the Elect, for which he had paid. Before Christ's suffering, the Father trusted the Son to satisfy for them he saved in the old Testament. After Christ's suffering, the Son trusted the Father to save all the Elect by virtue of that Suffering, that should believe for time to come, till the world's end. Both these are before our actual Reconciliation to God. Before we Believe. The 1. is but that designing of the thing; the 2. the preparing. But that 3d, namely actual Justification, or Reconciliation, of God to us, is the finishing at the same instant, that we are actually reconciled to God. The two former prepare the justification, or Reconciliation, the last only makes the justified man, makes God and man to be reconciled.  
You see we are ingenuous to yield what with truth may be yielded. But further we cannot; as to say, God is actually reconciled to us before we are to him: you have heard the Scriptures, and Divine reason clear against it. And therefore tremble you to say, That God loved Paul with as great love when he persecuted the Church, as after when he preached the Gospel. For purpose, or preparation of a ground of love, is not so great as actual Love. To purpose to woo, is not equal unto the Love of wooing. Likewise tremble to say. That Christ did not purchase his Father's actual Love. For we are not actually loved, till actually found in him.  
If it were so, that God were always reconciled to us, why do you condemn yourself in your own words next following, pag. 11. I conceive, (say you, and consider what you say) the drooping Conscience that sits in darkness, under the cloudy apprehension of an angry Junge, etc. Attentive to hear how God may be reconciled. So you. How is God an angry Judge? how is there a may be of his Reconciliation to us. (terms importing future time) if he was never at enmity with us? If it were so, that God may be reconciled to us from all eternity, and so before we were in Christ, why do you say in pag. 11. 812. that God is freely and fully reconciled to the Elect, and loveth them in Christ? your words following of persons polluted and sinful, being in Christ, import an actual being in Christ, as sure as an actual pollution, when they come to him. So much of this distinction.  
Pag. 12 You say that God is freely and fully reconciled to the elect, and loveth them in Jesus Christ without any previous dispositions, without any qualifications, without any performances of Conditions on their parts, unless to be polluted and sinful be a previous condition, or qualification.  
Answer. The Lord expresseth it as the Cardinal condition of the Gospel, that men must as well feel their sins, as be sinners. Matth. 11.28. Come to me ye that are weary, etc. Which Christ explains, Luke 15.7. Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth (which is a sense of sin at the least) then over ninety nine Just persons that need no repentance: who are they, but such as think they have no need? whom Christ calls not, Matth. 9.13. speaking to the Pharisees, who justified themselves. Luke 16.15.  
It is true, that the qualifications in man to prepare him for Christ (as john, by telling men they needed to repent, calling them generations of Vipers, and telling them, That the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, Mat. 3. is said to make ready a people prepared for the Lord) must be from God. If there be the qualifications only of illumination, conviction, and humiliation, (for a man blind, or stubborn, defieth Christ) they are the common works or graces of the Spirit of God, which may be in a reprobate Esau, judas, etc. Heb. 6.4. And therefore we cannot be understood in these to ascribe to man, either merit or efficacy towards his own salvation. If they be the qualifications of Conversion-graces, as of faith, etc. they come in a special manner from the Spirit of Christ, as the divine nature of Christ, and so cannot be imagined to be of man, though in man, and acting upon man, and man by them. For we cannot say, that Faith or belief doth believe, repentance doth repent, love doth love; but men acted and moved by these graces, are said to be Believers, penitent, and lovers of God, So that though there be no qualifications on man's part, from man, yet on man's part from God. And though there be no performances on man's part by mere man, yet there are performances on man's part in man from Christ's Spirit: when Christ will come and close with the soul actually, then doth he act desires, and faith into it, to make way for himself. Rev. 3. Christ knocks before he let in. Christ opens Lydia's heart, then comes in. And Ephes. 2.8. By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: where it is evident, that besides the riches of Gods free favour, explained in vers. 9 there must be God's gift of Faith, to bring us unto, and into Christ. So john 6.37. Him that cometh will I in no wise cast out. There must at least be a restless desire, that the soul cannot sit still without Christ; (though that be an effect of the Father's gift, in the same verse; All that the father giveth me, shall come to me) and then Christ will not cast him out, or leave him out, but receive him in. The holy Ghost in that 11. Matth. 28. Come, that is, believe, ye that are weary and heavy laden, that is, weary of fin, and desire to come out of it; compared with Matth. 5. where there is such frequency and variety of expressions of desires, under the notions of poverty, mourning and hunger, and compared with john 3. where there is oft mention of faith, as necessary to bring into Christ; and unto salvation; I say, the Holy Ghost by these places sets forth unto us that there is a double condition of the Gospel, Viz. Quadratus, & Quae. 1. The qualification in which a man comes to Christ (that is, a sensible need of Christ.) 2. The qualification which brings a man to Christ, that is Faith, required unto salvation; but both of and from the Spirit, yea from the Spirit, as Christ's Spirit, as sent by the Mediator, when effectual. So that still all is of God. But that which Christ doth to men before they come unto him, and into him, cannot be denied. And this method of the Lord, is much for our comfort, that the King comes not, sine magno strepitu, multo pulvere, without some hurry, somewhat to do, that we may know the come in of the Lord, and not derive all assurance from fanatic Enthysiasmes, & fantastic dreams, that are neither from the word and work of Christ, nor warranted there by him.  
You think to comfort a sinner by this, that Christ is his without any qualifications, performances, or conditions on man's part: But if there be no conditions, qualifications, etc. performed by Christ in man's behalf, as to put into him desires, faith, love, etc. How shall he know but that he is still a miserable sinner, uniustified? How shall they say to their comfort, as 2 Tim. 1.12. I know whom I have believed, unless they do believe? And that Rom. 8.28. We know all work together for good to them that love God, unless they feel their Love to God? And that 1 Epist. john. 3.14 By this we know we are translated from death to life, because we love the Brethren, unless they do love the Brethren? But of these marks and signs in another place, if God permit.  
This Position being your main ground, together with the foresaid distinction, I have been the longer in, confuting the one, and clearing the other. I shall be briefer in taking down your props and superstructures, and that plainly and lovingly. You offer to bring many Proofs, for the aforesaid unqualified Proposition.  

Proof I.  
Pag. 12. Of God's preaching salvation to Adam and Eve, in whom you would not have us to think there were any qualifications. pag. 13.  
Answer. 1. God made Adam afraid, by his voice in the garden. 2. God expounded to him the cause of his shame, namely his sin. 3. Presseth upon him his sin, Gen. 3.17. and upon Eve hers, vers. 16. As for the Promise, it fell from God's mouth in his speech to the Serpent. And then vers. 20. is all the intimation of Adam's Faith, calling his wife's name Chavah (see the Hebrew and the margin of the English Bible) that is, the mother of all living.   

Your 2. Proof.  
Pag. 13. Abraham receiveth the Promise in the uncircumcision of his flesh.  
Answ. Be it so (though the Apostles observation touching justification is, That Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness in his state of uncircumcision) yet doth it follow that all is done in the heart; 
Rom. 49.10.  as soon as the Promise comes to the ear? Then all hearers are immediately saved at their first hearing of the Promise. But to the point in a word. God commands Abraham to come out of his Country, and God promiseth to bless Abraham, and to make him a blessing. Gen. 12. But it was faith that did actually derive all that upon Abraham. Rom. 4. Hebr. 11. By faith he received righteousness; and by faith he obeyed. And by faith must all the spiritual children of Abraham receive blessedness. Gal. 3.9.26.   

Your 3. Proof.  
2. Tim. 1.9. pag. 14. Who hath saved us with an holy calling, not according to our workees but according to his own purpose, and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began. Now what conditions or qualifications (say you) were there in us before the world began?  
I am not willing to stay myself, or to stay you so long, as to tell you that this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, here translated, Before the World began; is not so infallibly evident, to signify eternity, as that Ephes. 1.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Before the foundation of the world. That Calvin translates this phrase, Ante tempora secularia: Beza, Ante tempora seculorum, (seculum a sequendo) which may be rendered, informer Ages, or before these latter ages. That Augustine hath a subtle dispute on this, confessed by Calvin. That the Greek word here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes signifies but term of life. Philem. vers. 15. As the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gnolam (Tempus homini absconditum, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abscondere) which answers to the Greek, sometimes signifies but the 50. years of the Jubilee, Exod. 21.6. sometimes a man's life, 1 Sam. 1.28. But suppose this place to be meant of eternity; yet, 1. cry you not out; What is there, that is not comprehended in the word Grace? For that is your challenge. For though all follows upon that grace or favour here meant; yet the words purpose and grace (as Calvin and Beza well note) comprehend no more than a gracious purpose. So they; or at most a purpose of grace, if you dare to understand it of any other grace, then of that which in order of nature goes before purpose, God of his eternal grace or favour eternally purposing to save. And then what actual saving is here, before actual qualification of the soul, with somewhat from Christ for Christ. 2. Note the words, given us in Christ. So that, If given in purpose, it is given in Christ, as when it is given in act, it is given in Christ. So that God doth still look at us in Christ, as qualified, or to be qualified in Christ, from or by the power of Christ. Though in us and from us, there is no power or merit, we disclaim the Arminians Foreseen Faith, and the Papists Overseen Works, and both their power of ; yet God saith in his Word, that he will save us actually by Faith in Christ, both which he gives us, Ephes. 2.8. He gives Christ to us by Election and incarnation, and us to Christ by vocation, drawing us by the Word and grace of Christ unto and into Christ, Cant. 1.4. Joh. 6.44. which is the Third thing here in this Text of 2 Tim. 1.9. by you urged. That as God doth intent us, and purpose us favour in Christ, and gives it us intentionally in him, by election, so saith the Text, We are saved being called with an holy calling. Calling necessarily supposing hearing and understanding our condition, and believing in Christ: or else, how is it an holy Calling, and that which saves? If you do not yield to these things, you set up Grace by diminishing Christ. And seem to make, as if Christ should not be beholding to himself, because he is not to man. For as Christ merits, so Christ also elects. As Christ offers himself graciously, so Christ gives man grace to receive him. john 1.12. If this prevail not with you, look to the very next verse to that you allcage, 2 Tim. 1.10. and you shall find, that the place speaks not in vers. 9 but of God's purpose of favour. And in v. 10. of actual; But is now made manifest, etc.   

Your 4th Proof.  Pag. 14. Ephes. 2.4, 5. 
Vers. 4. But God who is rich in Mercy, for his great Love, wherewith he hath loved us,  
Vers. 5. Even when we were dead in Trespasses and sins, hath he quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are saved.)  
Out of this place your great design is, to prove that men are loved with God's great love, when they are dead in tresposses and sins. And the better to make way for it, you say, a stop may be made at the word sins; And so read the Text thus continuedly, God loved us with his great love, even when we were dead in trespasses and sins. And this reading, you say, the Text will bear either in the Original, or in other Translations. But however; you say the text will hold out the same conclusion.  
Answer. If we say the text cannot be thus read after your new way, do not say again (as it is in your book given afore hand) that we are froward; but with meekness of wisdom we would inform you: 1. That the Original will not bear it. For after God's love is described in vers. 4. A Comma being put at the word us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 us, the next verse begins with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and? 
Hutter.  yea some Greek copy puts a Period, a full stop at us in the Fourth verse. As if he had as boldly read it thus (as you the other way) I say thus; But God is rich in mercy, for the love, or in regard of the love wherewith he hath loved us. They that know Greek, do know that this doth not strain the text. And then the sense concurs; in the Fourth verse is described, the what Gods love is; it is rich in mercy. And verse 5. the wherein his Love is acted and manifested: Viz. in quickening us, etc. And to put all out of doubt, that the Text will not bear the removal of the stop, observe the Antichrisis or opposition between our Passiveness and God's Act, vers. 5. There God is said to quicken us, and that with Christ. Now how or whom shall God be said to quicken, but by taking into construction that clause, us that were dead in trespasses and sins? That as Christ being dead, was quickened, Hebr. 13: So we from the death in sin, are quickened together with him. 2. As for other Translations; The Hebrew Copy, and the Syriack Copy put at the word us in verse 4. their full stop or Period. Nor do I fee any other Translations point it, as you would point. 2. From words, let us come to matter. If we should lend you this Proposition, that God loved us with his great love. WHEN we were dead in trespasses and sins; what would you gain? For these kind of Whence in the Scripture, as here, when you beware dead, and Rom. 5. when we were enemies, and Ezek. 16. When thou wast in thy Blood, do but import an order of Nature, or working, not a difference of time. That is, at the same instant, when we were dead, enemies, in our blood, in the same instant did God put us into Christ by faith, and made us lovely, and actually loved us with his great love in him. So is the very scope of the Apostle here, to show wherein did appear God's great love, namely in quickening us to a spiritual resurrection with Christ. verse 5. And in raising us to a special Ascension with Christ. verse 6. And so Rom. 5.8, 9, 10. God commends his love towards us, that when we were enemies, etc. we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. And so in other whence. They do but show the matter God makes lovely in Christ, not a sinful condition, that he can love out of Christ.  
In common Speech, When must of necessity so be taken, to signify order of things, not antecedency of time. As one saith, I married my wife when she was a Widow. This cannot be meant, that when she was a widow, she was married, or made a wife. And so God converted me, when I lay in a most profane unregenerate condition. It cannot be meant, that when a man is regenerated, he is unregenerated. So when it is said, God loved us with his great love, WHEN we were dead in Trespasses and sins, quickening us together with Christ: This cannot be meant, that God loved us with great love, being still in our state of sin, and out of Christ. For why then is he said to be wroth with the self same Ephesians, whiles out of Christ, and unregenerated, and unquickened? verse 1, 2.   

Your 5. Proof.  Pag. 15. Rom. 9.11, 12. 
The children not yet borne, and having done neither good nor evil, that the purpose of God might stand according to election.  
Answ. The Apostle expressly in your quotation, applies this to election. And election is called even here (as oft elsewhere) a purpose, and we cannot say, that in regard of us, or upon us, that God's purpose of love is actual love. God distinguisheth himself between his Purpose and Act, Ephes. 1.3, 4. and 2 Tim. 1.9, 10. Of which at large afore.  
Upon this place of Jacob, you make an Objection. pag. 16. What if Jacob after this had turned to be a notorious and profane Person, would, or could the Lord have continued his love to such a person as this? I answer boldly, (say you) yea. For God's love, and mercy, are mercies of eternity. Psal. 103.17. Ps. 136. Malach. 3.6. Should the Lord change as often as we change, he should be more variable than the wind.  
Answ. By these your words, and the Objections of some that hear you, as a Commentary upon them, you seem to conceive, that if the Lord should not love us with as great love in a profane and unconverted condition, as after, than there were a change in God, and in his love: which to be your mind, is yet more plain by many former Passages already alleged; and especially of that place out of Ephes. 2. And that touching Paul; after in pag. 23.  
That God loved him with as great love, when he persecuted the Church, as when he preached the Gospel.  
But this inference will no ways follow, That if God doth not actually love us from all eternity in the same manner, that therefore there would be a change in God and his love. O that in such deep things, you would speak debitè, in proper terms, as a man that hath skill in Divine reason. Let me ask you a question, Whether God, having chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the World, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love, having predestinated us unto the Adoption of Children, by Jesus Christ, etc. can save us without our being in Christ, without holiness, etc. If not (for his purpose is unchangeable) whether he doth not love to see us in Christ, rather than out; to see us holy, rather than not, & c? If so, then there is a change in God's acts, though not in his purpose. O that you would discrecely mix your sweet drinks, lost they make your Ratients burst. Poison is sooner taken down lapped in gold, or sugared. 
Keckerm. Syst. Theolog. lib. 3. cap. 1.  Evermore (say the Learned and Godly Schoolmen, we call not the Papists in) put a wide difference between the Decree of God, and the execution of that Decree: The Decree is eternal, but the bestowing or giving of the end, by the means, is done in time. So Keck. And he saith well. For though God's Decree be eternal, yet the World was made in time, in six days. Therefore when God actually looked upon it, and approved all as exceeding good, 
Gen. 1.  that was done, was in time. So Christ was sent in due time to die for us; and to save us in him, either at Third, sixth, Nineth, or Eleventh hour, 
Rom. 5.6. Matth.  therefore God doth actually love us in him, in time. Yet all this doth not alter God's purpose, but answers to his purpose, 
Medul. Theolog. lib. 1 cap. 6.  and is the perfection of his purpose, carrying on itself to its designed end. To effect, work or do, (saith D. Ames) taken actively as they are in God the Agent, differ not really from God himself. For there is no composition or change of Power and Act in Gods most simple and immutable Nature: mark; not in his nature. But saith he, to effect, work or do, doth add a certain relation of God to a real effect. And there belongs unto God an active power, in regard of the creature, which gives to the creature a posse recipere, a power to receive; which produceth an appearance of that act, which formerly was not. So he. So that God's essential purpose is like himself, is himself, eternal, and unchangeable; but his outward actual working is in time. And it is as great contradiction, to conceive an outward action of God upon the creature, without all time, as to conceive he should make a body that should be in no place. Add what the said Doctor hath touching creation; 
Ibid. cap. 8.  that you may not think me singular and selfish; Active creation, saith he, is conceived in manner of a transient action; in which is always supposed an object, upon which the agent doth act: yet is it not formally transient, but only virtual, because it doth not suppose the object, but makes it. So he. How much more therefore is Redemption a transient act, and justification a transient act: which doth clearly suppose that preaexistent object, man, made already? And therefore, as actual creation, done in time, though decreed eternally, doth not infer a change in God: so, nor doth actual Redemption, Justification, putting us into Christ, and loving us, as found in him, conclude that there is a change in God hereby, which before was eternal, but only in the decree and purpose. God from all eternity hath the Idea and platform of all in his mind; yea his essence, as understood by himself, is the Idea of all. But to say that God doth actually justify, whiles man is not actually existent, is to charge God with contradictions. Or to say that God doth actually love, justify, etc. that which is actually nothing, is to frame fantasies to ourselves. 
God made man after his own Image.  God looks on us no otherwise, from all eternity, for matter of being, but as he looks upon his own essence, the Idea, (as we said) and platform of all things. Therefore God in his decree cannot be said to justify us from all eternity, unless you dare say, God justifies himself.  
There is the same reason of distinguishing of a man afore conversion, and after.  
If Gods decree be, that 1. he calls effectually by the Word;  
And then 2. justifies in Christ;  
And 3. glorifies with grace and blessedness; Then it is impossible to conceive or say, That it is done eternally afore; that we are justified eternally afore, loved as justified eternally afore; when the Decree is, That is shall not be afore we are actually called.  
So this indeed is to defend God's unchangeableness to maintain, that God doth Act all things in time, place, manner, and degree, exactly according to his eternal unchangeable purpose.  Your Quotation of Rom. 5.6, 8. of Ezek. 16. we answered afore: 
The same Answer serves to that you allege out of John 3.16. Thus, God purposed actually to love some of the World. And after he did actually love those of the World that were in Christ by faith. So that God actually loved those that were of the world, but not whiles of the World. And this place of John. 3.16. doth show the order of Gods proceeding, to make us actually loved.  

1. He having decreed to love.  
2. Prepared a Propitiation, gave his Son, for whom he might love.  
3. So actually loves all that believe in that Christ, that he saves them.   
If you understand otherwise, of an actual love in God towards the world, before they believe, than it will follow, that God doth actually love all the world, of which many never believe, yea, never were elected.  
I wonder why you do so contend for this expression, 
Ephes. 1.3, 4, 5.6.7, 8. Rom. 8.28.29. Rom. 9.11.  That God doth love the elect from all eternity. For, 1. If the holy Ghost in Scripture calls it a Love once, he calls it a purpose, an election, a choosing, a predestination, a fore-ordaining, a counsel, a determination, many times for that once. And we are to follow the frequenter exposition of the holy Ghost, as a commentary to that which is more rare. 2 You yourself will call that actual love, which God bears to us, when we are actually in Christ by Faith. So you do, Sermon 2. p 3. p. 5. And the Scripture saith, that before this, God's love is but a purpose, a predestination, an election, etc. Now a purpose, and an act of love, are immediate contraries, no middle love between both. And therefore what do you contend for? A mere imagination. 3. Cui bono, to what end do you strive in this? For what more effectual argument lies in this, to tell a poor forlorn sinner, that God loves him, then to tell him, God hath elected him, or purposed to save him in Christ; for his Election and Purpose are unchangeable. And you may as safely say the one, as the other: yea, safer. For that expression, to tell him, that God loves him being yet out of Christ, may give an occasion of mistake, whereby to neglect Christ. Sure enough, on their parts that use this phrase, God loves sinners out of Christ, many gross expressions bud thence. 
☜  As that you have, p. 27, 28. following, That we are Predestinated, chosen, redeemed, sanctified, called, the heart opened, and all before Conversion comes. I leave you and all ingenuous men to stand and wonder at these words, till I come to answer them in their order, upon those pages of your Book, which you see, we quote in order. There you, and all candid men may see how unextricably you hamper yourself.   

Pag. 21.  
You say, neither may we, nor will Christ himself say, that he purchased the Father's Love for us.  
Answer. Here is another of those 
* For you see, and say yourself, pag. 22. That you see a depth unsearchable and you cannot tell what to say to it. So you.  thickets you rush into, by understanding God's election, or purpose to love, to be a love. And that his eternal love contains more than a purpose. For if you would keep to the frequenter expressions of the Scriptures of election, purpose, etc. you would easily understand all.  
Namely, that as well the Son and holy Ghost, as the Father, do elect and purpose to save sinners. That all Three, as well as one of the Persons, must be pacified by merit of a Saviour, God and man.  
That all Three Persons do purpose to love in this manner and method.  
1. That they will send the Second Person to take humane nature (for Christ sends himself, as he himself laid down his life, joh. 10.) to die, and prepare a satisfaction for sinners.  
2. That this Christ's sufferings shall be preached to sinners, 2 Cor. 5.20.  
3. That the efficacy of the Spirit entailed on the Ministry of the Gospel 2 Cor. 3. shall make the elect by faith own these sufferings, as done for them to discharge them, whereby they are united to Christ. Ephes. 3.17.  
4. Then God finding them in Christ, he confesseth he is satisfied and well-pleased with them, Matth. 3. verse last. Matth. 17.5. Twice spoken from heaven, for the eminency of it. Which in sense is all one, as that Christ merits God's actual love to sinners. And that is the reason that Christ is so oft in Scripture 
* Heb 9.26 Rom. 3.25 Rom. 5 11. Ephes. 2.14. 1 Cor. 5.  called our Sacrifice, our Propitation, our Atonement, our Peace, our Passeover, etc.  For that your dangerous Distinction; That God can begin to love without Christ, and after cannot continue it without the help of a Christ, I wade not into it, because yourself in part wave it. And you do well. For the grimness of the thing itself will make a conscience afraid of it.  

For those your Expressions, Pag. 23.  
That God's love to us in our blood was as great as ever afterwards, and that God loved Paul with as great love when he persecuted, as when he preached the Gospel.  
Because I find them there to be but words, without proof, I forbear to confute them; unless in one word: that if before and when signify a time of being out of Christ; your words are most false. For whiles the elect Ephesians are out of Christ, they are without all hope, Ephes. 2.12. And children of wrath, Ephes. 2.2. And before men are in Christ, God doth but purpose to love, not actually love, Ephes. 1. Or else you must say, That God can actually love without Christ's, making satisfaction to his Justice. If you say, that these your assertions were proved afore; as you do in that 23. pag. Then we can as truly say, they were answered afore. Those expressions in the 23. pag. That God loves sinners with infinite love. Yea, his Love is God himself. 1 Joh. 4.16. A word will suffice. God in himself is as essentially Justice, as he is Love. And therefore as necessarily must the one he satisfied, as the other communicated to save. So that when his infinite justice is satisfied with Christ's infinite merits, than he can exercise with honour to himself, his infinite love; himself properly being the only Object of his infinite Love, because he is infinite. It is enough for sinners, that he saves them to the uttermost. Hebr. 7.25. and that God Loves Christ infinitely, and loves us in him enough (if you dare say that obiectively and properly, A creature is in a capacity of infinite act upon it, or that God can love infinitely a finite thing; unless you mean infinite in duration, that is, eternal for time to come) And before his justice is satisfied, he actually loves not, (Rom. 9.25. I will call her beloved, that was not beloved) but only purposeth to love upon that consideration and satisfaction, as we have afore often proved, Heb. 9.26. etc. Immediately before in the margin.   

For that Passage, only breathed out, Pag. 24. 
God's Act of love is immanent in him: Gods actions of love are transient upon, and in the Creature.   
That God's Love cannot increase or decrease.  
We say, That it is true of the Act of Love in God. But the actions of Redemption and salvation from God to a creature, may as well increase, as those of the creation, wherein the World was first a Chaos, etc. after was raising to perfection six days. The more of Christ is in a man, the more of God's actions of love are manifested to him. Special graces, above common graces. God speaks higher touching those his Martyrs, that have the suffering graces of Christ, then of others. Phil. 1.29. Dan. 12. last. Revel. 
Heb. 6.4.9. The Apostle puts a wide difference between common graces, from which there may be a defection, and such as accompany Salvation.  20.4. If Actions of God's love may not be more or less to a Believer within the latitude of never falling from grace totally, and finally: then there are no desertions, of which there are so many instances in Scripture. Mistake me nor. My meaning is, Though God never ceaseth to love those that are once in Christ, according to that, Joh. 13.1. Rom. 11.29. yet sometimes he may do more, sometimes less for the inward comfort of such a soul; even as on the other side, a Christian may more work his own discomfort at one time, then at another.   

The rest that you have in pag. 24.25. are in effect but repetitions of the same things. Therefore we follow you to  
Pag. 26, 27, 28.  
God doth not only love us before conversion, with his great love, but (say you) with his greatest love, that ever was communicated to the creature. This may appear by several effects of the love of God communicated unto men, by God, in and through his Son, before conversion, faith, etc. As Predestination, Choosing, Redemption, Justification, Adoption, before repentance, faith, conversion, or calling. And Sanctification, Calling, opening the heart, all of them gracious acts of God, communicated unto the creature, before the conversion of the creature to God.  
Answer. O Brother, that you would consider what strange doctrine is here, which the Bible never knew. For that Scripture you allege is flat against you. Namely, That God hath chosen us in him [Christ] Eph. 1.4. Hath predestinated us unto the adoption of Sons, by Jesus Christ: Hath made us accepted in the Beloved, in whom we have redemption through his Blood, even the forgiveness of our sins. vers. 5, 6, 7. In whom we have obtained an inheritance. vers. 11. For can any thing be communicated to the creature through Christ, (those are your words) without Communion, Co-union with Christ by faith? Is not Christ in us by faith? Ephes. 3.17. Doth not the Scripture speak as plainly as may be; that we are the sons of God (which is Adoption) by faith? joh. 1.12. Accepted in him through faith, Hebr. 11.6. That we have Forgiveness of sins (which is justification) by faith? Rom. 5.1. That the inheritance is not of the law, but of faith? Gal. 3. So for the expressions you use above; the Scripture is clear, that sanctification is by faith, 1 joh. 3.1.2. Acts 15.9. That effectual calling is by faith, Heb. 4.2.  
If you had only meant, that all these, choosing, redemption, justification, etc. had been made a sinners by God's decree and purpose: 1. You would not have said, they were communicated to the creature. 2. You should not have numbered Predestination with the rest. For by this means, you speak vain repetitions, thus; Predestination is communicated by Predestination. For Predestination can be no otherwise ours, then in God's purpose. 3. Why did you not think upon this, that in God's purpose, faith, and repentance, and conversion, were eternally as well thought upon by God, and intended for man, as Redemption and Justification? He links the means and the end in an indissolvable chain, Rom. 8.  
So that in God's decree, you cannot say that any one of those Acts is older than another.  
Let any man read your words over again, and speak truly, whether you can mean any thing (if he make sense of your words, though false) unless he understand a communicating, that is actual, and not mental merely in God. For you speak of sanctifying an ungodly man: of effectual Calling 〈◊〉 as some of the instances of those things that you say, are communicated in Christ (another note, that you mean actual communicating:) And then you fall upon your Bead-roule (as they speak, if not your bad-roule) of a redemption, justification, sanctification, calling, opening the heart, communicated to the creature, before the conversion of a creature to God. Good Lord teach you seriously to think what conversion that is, that hath no effectual calling: or what effectual calling that is, that may be without conversion.  
For that speech (which in effect we had afore, pag. 23.) though we have answered it effectually (we hope) afore; yet lest any should cast an eye upon it here as unanswered, and so conceive it unanswerable, (though you do but speak, not prove) we answer in a word.  
Before Calling and Conversion, God doth only purpose, predestinate, elect sinners to be loved in time, Ephes. 1. first 11. verses (a place of your own quotation:) not actually love. Rom. 9.23. I will call them my people that were not my people, and her beloved that was not beloved. And in God's predestination God doth as well purpose man's fall, and foresees him a child of wrath, Ephes. 2.2. as his salvation. And therefore when God doth actually give Christ to us, and us to Christ, there is his great, and greatest love. For in him we have all. 1 Cor. 3.22.23. Yet you will hold the conclusion. p. 30. That God's love is as great before faith, as after: yet you know, that God saith, Without faith it is impossible to please him. Heb. 11.6.  
Next, you come to answer Objections; and we to reply to them. In the Objection against the Page 32. (which you have not answered to refute, yet we have spoken to afore.) that distinction of hating the sin, not the creature, which you you reject, is a truth.  
God cannot hate the entities or beings he made, 
Gen. 1.31.  Physically considered, no not the devil himself, for being considered so, abstractively from sin, God saw all exceeding good. But morally considered, as sinfully mannered, so he hates them.  
He hates the workers of iniquity, because of that iniquity, Psal. 36.2. He flattereth himself till his iniquity be found to be hateful: which done away in Christ, he loves them dear, Ephes. 2.1, 2.  
Likewise that distinction Page 33. rejected by you,  
Of God's love of benevolence to the sinner before conversion, and his love of Complacience to him after conversion.  
It hath more light in it, than all your assertions in this dispute, (which are a very darkness) provided that it be meetly understood. Namely, that God hath a benevolent purpose of saving a sinner before conversion or faith in Christ. And after these, he hath an actual love of Complacency to him. And before that not. 
Mat. 3.17. & 17.5. So August. In quo, non cum quo.  Your own proof shall assert it: This is my beloved son IN whom (not WITH whom) I am well pleased: Hear ye him. So that men must hear and have, and be in Christ, and then God is well pleased with them: Not afore.  
This you grant unawares page 38. in your own Answer to the Objection, and so do yield the Question; namely, in your large parallel, or as lest antithesis in that page 38. between Justice and Mercy, Law and Gospel. The sum whereof is, to use your own words, That the one declareth wrath without forgiveness; the other, mercy, grace, and peace in Jesus Christ.  

* Where also you put a difference very well of being under the Law, and under grace.  The only piece of Divinity that we have had from you all this while. The Lord keep us all to that.   

In your Answer likewise to the second Objection, Page 40. which you propound as against you, out of  
Math. 6.15. and 18.35. If you forgive not men, etc. your heavenly Father will not forgive you.  
In sum you yield the question, and overthrow your eternal Justifi-fication, etc. For you yield that there is a time when a man doth not apprehend or lay hold on (for the words are the same in sense) God's forgiveness. And that till Gods pardon come to us, we cannot pardon men. And sure enough we cannot do that till conversion, that makes the Wolf to dwell with the Lamb, as the Prophet speaks.   

Likewise in your last answer, Page 46. to the third Objection, Page 45. viz.  If God love us before conversion, as well as after, then to what purpose serveth faith? 
I say in your answer to this objection, you overthrew your own position of justification before faith. For these are your very words. Faith is to good purpose, that believing, you, who were under darkness, and in the shadow of death, and saw no light, yet I say, ye might rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full of glory, receiving the end of your faith. 1 Pet. 1.8, 9 
* You durst not go on with the whole 9 ver. of that 1 Pet. but break off in the middle, excluding that clause, Even the salvation of your souls. Because that you thought did too apparently attribute salvation to faith. Read the place wisely.  Rom. 15.13. The God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing. So you. Now where is life, where is peace, before faith comes, according to your own answer, and your proofs of Scripture.   

The other three last Objections, Page 51. etc. against your Doctrine of Justification, and Reconciliation before faith. As  
1. That then what need we take care what we do? if we believe, the Lord will not love us the better; if we believe not, he will not love us the worse.  
2. That then a man may die without faith, and yet be saved.  
3. Why then doth God suffer us to live in profaneness, twenty, fifty, sixty years?  
I say these Objections following merely on your unsound Doctrine, are stronger to do hurt, than all your declamations against desperateness and looseness, and disparaging the power of being under grace, (beneath some heathens morality) are likely to prevent. It is in vain for that man to forbid young people the conclusion of committing fornication, that allows them the premises of all wanton carriage. Corrupt men are in their kind rational, and they will conclude according to the principles you teach them. 
☜  A maid led away with this Doctrine said boldly to me, that she knew not how she could offend Jesus Christ by any thing she did. But I leave men to read the Book of our brethren of New-England, touching the tragical effects of these Doctrines.    

2. Part. Or Sermon, Reconciliation of man to God.  
Page. 1. There is (say you) in Scripture a twofold Reconciliation: 1. Original. 2. Actual. Parallel to the distinction of original, and actual sin. Original Reconciliation is of our natures; Actual is of our persons.  
Answ. 1. There are no such terms of distinction in all the Scripture. Those places you bring for it, Rom. 5.10. Ephes. 2.16. Colos. 1.21. 2 Cor. 5.18, 19 let all men read and judge whether there be the least hint of any such thing.  
For is this any argument, that because the Apostle saith to the Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians, that they were already reconciled, and tells the Corinthians, that he was now but a persuading them to be reconciled, that therefore the Corinthians had one reconciliation, and were to have another? For nakedly this is the sense of your inference. For these are your very words, you having quoted the former places.  
Now (say you) compare we these three places , with that which we find, 2 Cor. 5.20. In the former places the Apostle told us, we were reconciled, and in this place he beseecheth us to be reconciled: So you. If you mistook yourself, and intended to make the parallel between the 18. verse of 2 Cor. 5. God hath reconciled us to himself, and verse 20. We pray you in Christ's stead to be reconciled. Meaning herein, that the same Corinthians were reconciled, and were yet to be reconciled. Know that in that 18. verse the Apostle speaks of his, and his fellow Ministers reconciliation; verse 19 of the reconciliation of others in the world. And therefore ver. 20. intreats and beseecheth the Corinthians, that were not yet converted, to be reconciled. For as for the other, they were Saints, and a Church of God, Chap. 1.1. and therefore actually reconciled.  
2. Answ. If our first reconciliation be original, that is, hath a beginning, like as original sin: then our first reconciliation is not before the foundation of the world; much less our second, which you call actual.  
And whereas in your first part, or Sermon, you mention another reconorliation before both these, namely God's reconciliation of himself to us, we ask you what shall be the object of this reconciliation, seeing that our nature and persons are not (say you) reconciled but by the other two, namely, by that original and actual reconciliation.  
3. By bringing both ends of your Book together, we perceive that the whole frame of your mouldering foundation is this. 1. God is reconciled to man, Serm. 1. Page 2. And this contains such a love as Christ never purchased. Page 21. Yea that God was never an enemy, page 2.2. There is reconciliarton of us to God: and this is twofold.  
1. Original, of our natures, 2 Serm. Page 2. And of this you lay down this Proposition, That we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, without any previous conditions in us, page 3. Here you admit Christ's sufferings: but Christ's grace and spirit of faith is excluded.  
2. Actual Reconciliation of our persons, page 2. And of this you lay down this position, page 5. of your 2. Part or Sermon. Man's actual reconciliation (say you) to God, requireth previous conditions and qualifications to be wrought in man by the Spirit of God, before man can be actually reconciled to God, or God's reconciliation manifested unto him. For there are (say you) three sorts of conditions. 1 Antecedent. 1 Knowledge of sin. 2 Knowledge of the depth of misery by sin to such. 2 Present. 1 Without believing (the soul remaining in the body) cannot be reconciled to God. John 3.36. That by believing the soul is actually reconciled to God, john 3.33 John 1.12. Rom. 5.1. Thus you. Your third sort of conditions are rather effects than conditions. therefore I mention them not.  
Thus (brother) after you have filled the bellies of your auditory with crudities; (I am loath to say poison) in your after service, or second course you bring somewhat that is wholesome, in that one dish of actual reconciliation. All the rest we must vomit up, or we die. To that end I go on to administer my Dosis.  
1. Ans. That there is but one only reconciliation; namely, that of God and man into atonement by faith in the one & only. Mediator Jesus Christ. We proved afore 
* On page 2 of 1. Sermon.  that the Scripture would yield you this one only, & not two; much less will it now allow you three: one being enough; and therefore one only held out to us in the word, whereof we have said so much already, that we shall add the less now. 1. The quarrel between God and us is but one, namely our fall in Adam, and continuance in that condition, Rom. 5. it's the business of the Chapter. 2. The satisfaction is only one, and made at once, Rom 6.10. In that Christ died, he died unto sin ONCE. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God. Hebr. 7.27. Christ needeth not daily to offer up sacrifice: for this he did ONCE. Heb. 9.12. Christ by his own blood entered in ONCE into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us, (mark that clause) Heb. 9.26. But now ONCE in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself. And ver. 28. Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for him he shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation. 1 Pet. 3.18. Christ hath ONCE suffered for sins; the just for the unjust; that be might bring us to God. And so in the fourth of Ephesians, the Apostle much runs upon one: That as every Christian hath but one God the Father, and one Lord (Jesus Christ) and one and the same holy Spirit: so every one hath one calling, one, hope, one faith, and one Baptism, as a seal of those. Out of all we conclude, that if Christ did not at once make a full reconciliation for all that shall be found in him; then is he an insufficient Saviour. If he did make a full and sufficient satisfaction, whereof they have benefit by the individual act of justification, Rom. 5.1. then is he fully within the atonement in an instant.  
2. Answ. Reconciliation, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is, the Ecclesiastical, Church polity. No members of a Church. Ishmael in the Church circumcised. His posterity out of the Church not circumcised.  and non-reconciliation are immediate contraries: therefore either a man is wholly reconciled, or nothing reconciled. This immediate contrariety the Apostle toucheth and intimateth, 2 Cor. 6.14. where the Apostle makes the opposition between believers, and unbelievers, to be as between righteousness and unrighteousness, light and darkness, Christ and Belial. And the Apostle toucheth our conclusion or inference, that a man is either wholly irreconciled, or reconciled, Eph. 2.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Remember that ye in time passed were Gentiles in the flesh who were called uncircumcision, etc. that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, (or rather * Polity of Israel) and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ: For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished the enmity, even the Law of Commandments, contained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace, and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross. O golden place to our purpose! Read it, and read it; and weigh it and read it. See 1. the Apostle sets down once and again a time in this life wherein they were not reconciled. 2. Saith, that the they were afar off. 3. That as they were without hope, so without Christ; as without Christ, so without God; God and they were not reconciled. And 4. That the blood of Christ, the cress of Christ (by the preaching of peace, verse 17.) had made believers (verse 8.) Jews and Gentiles, one among themselves, and both one with God at Peace. I know not what can be plainer to convince, that we are either altogether at peace; God with us, and us with God; or else not at peace at all.  
3. Answ. I remember it was the main argument of the Orthodox against the Arminians, that if we might fall totally (as the Arminians said) from grace, and yet not finally; that they should produce the evidences of Scriptures set down of one totally fallen, and not finally. If the Scripture set down none, but of those that were totally off, or finally on, than the Arminian truth was not sound. So may we argue, that the Scriptures set down no discoveries of one half reconciled, or two parts reconciled, and not the third, (for you make three reconciliations one after another) but set down a demonstration to know whether we are wholly unreconciled, or wholly not. And therefore either we are wholly reconciled, or wholly not, for the time, till Christ comes and makes the change. This demonstration set down in the Scripture is only from the act of actual justification by faith in Christ, Rom. 5.1. By this we are blessed, or else not blessed, Rom. 4.6. Faith makes that there is no difference between us and others in state of salvation, or else there remains the difference, that we are not in state of salvation, for the time, till God comes and altars the case through faith. This is evident Acts 15.9.11. And put no difference between us and them purifying 
* There is a purity by faith as well as of imputation, & of sanctification. Rom. 4.3.  their hearts by faith. But we believe that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved even as they.    

The Postscript.  
MUch more might be said; but I have been much larger than I intended, though I had two several printed Tracts to answer; the material mistakes whereof we have discussed, not letting one (as I know of) escape. I wish it had been undertaken by a fit man, and to such a one I had left it, but that I saw most of the able men so busy; and the mean while some of my near friends, to begin to be taken with these mistakes: I have answered with as much judgement as I could, in so very a short time as I had allotted for this business, still carrying with me a render conscience (the Lord knows I lie not) that I nught not in the least grain or jota, prejudice or cloud the free grace of God in Jesus Christ, which is more precious to me than my life, and the only bridge that must carry me over the eternal Lake to heaven.  
I have also used as much modesty and love in all my expressions as I could (I appeal to the would for the truth of this) that I might not grieve any, but guide them. If any apprehend any material mistakes, let them but with divine reason clear them unto me, and I will print my retraction. Or if they will needs print a confutation, let them but do by me, as I have done by this, for the manner; and keep to the Scriptures for matter, and I will say well done. Farewell.   
FINIS.