II. To examine fome of the doctrines which grow from this root, as the natural offspring of it, and appear with the fame complection; and begins, 1. With their doctrine of eternal juftification. What this author fays, I am perfuaded, will never meet with general credit, "that eternal juftification is the "natural offspring of the Supralapfarian doctrine, respecting the objects of elec❝tion, not considered as fallen creatures." He goes all along, I obferve, upon a false notion, that whatever is thought, or faid to be done in eternity, is a Supralapfarian doctrine: whereas, the Sublapfarians themfelves allow election to be from eternity, before the foundation of the world, and fo before the fall of Adam, though not without the confideration of it; and in this they differ from the Supralapfarians. I know a reverend Divine, now living in this city of London, who, if I miftake not, reckons himself among the Supralapfarians, and fays, that they dig deepeft into the gofpel; and yet is a ftrenuous opposer of juftification from eternity, and even before faith: on the other hand, there have been fome who have thought, that the object of election is man fallen, and yet have been for juftification before faith. For my own part, I must confefs, I never confidered juftification from eternity, any other than a Sublapfarian doctrine, proceeding upon the furety fhip-engagements of Chrift, and his future fatisfaction and righteoufnefs; upon which foot the Old-Teftament-faints were openly juftified, and went to heaven long before the fatisfaction was really made or the justifying righteousness brought in; and, indeed, if the objects of justification are the ungodly, as the fcripture reprefents them to be, they must be confidered as fallen creatures. However, if the doctrine of eternal juftification is the natural offspring of the former, and appears with the fame complection, and is to be maintained with equal force of argument, we have no reason to be ashamed of it; and I am fure we have no reason to be in any pain on the account of the oppofition this doughty writer makes unto it: he fays, we have exceeded all the bounds of revelation in our inquiries after it, and then barely mentions three or four places of fcriptures, which fpeak of juftification by faith; and concludes, that therefore there is no juftification before it; an extraordinary way of arguing indeed! When juftification by faith no ways contradicts juftification before it; nay, juftification perceived, known, enjoyed by faith, fuppofes juftification before it; for how fhould any have that fenfe, perception, and comfort of their juftification by it, if there was no juftification before it? He proceeds to obferve the order or chain of falvation, in Romans viii. 30. where calling is reprefented as prior to justification; an objection I have formerly answered in my Doctrine of fuftification, to which I refer the reader, and take the opportunity of VOL. II. obferving L obferving, that neither this author, nor any other, have attempted to answer the arguments there made use of in favour of juftification before faith: I will not fay they are unanswerable; but I may fay, that as yet they are unanswered: this author, if he pleases, may try what he can do with them, and it might have been expected in this his performance; but instead of this, he fets himself, with all his might, against fome other doctrines, which he reprefents as Supralapfarian, as calculated to favour the scheme of eternal juftification, and as branches of it; as, 1. "That God was eternally reconciled to the elect; and that no fcripture " can be produced to prove that the Lord Jefus did come to procure reconcili"ation for them; and that wherever Chrift is faid to make peace by his blood, "it is to be understood only of his reconciling the finner to God." Whether he refers to any thing that has been published, or dropped in private converfation, or who the perfons are, that affirm this, I know not: I greatly fear he has both mifrepresented their words and meaning. I must own, I never heard of any fuch thing as an eternal reconciliation of God to the elect. Reconciliation fuppofes former friendship, a breach of it, and a conciliation of it again; which is inconfiftent with the everlafting, invariable and unchangeable love of God to them. God was indeed from everlasting reconciling, not himself to the world, but the world of his elect to himself; that is, drawing the fcheme and model of their reconciliation by Chrift, or fettling the way and manner in which reconciliation, atonement, and fatisfaction for their fins, fhould be made; and accordingly made a covenant of peace with his Son, appointed him to be their peace, and in the fulness of time fent him to make peace by the blood of his cross, and laid upon him the chastisement of their peace; and who has actually made reconciliation for their fins; and fo they, even when enemies, were actually reconciled; that is, their fins were actually expiated and atoned for to God, by the death of bis Son. This is the doctrine of reconciliation the fcriptures fpeak of, and which I never knew before was ever reckoned a Supralapfarian doctrine: for furely reconciliation, atonement, or fatisfaction for fin, which are fynonymous terms, expreffive of the fame thing, muft fuppofe perfons finners herein concerned. Let it be farther observed, that God from all eternity loved his elect with an invariable love; that he never entertained any hatred of them, or was at enmity with them; that there is no fuch thing as a change in God from hatred to love, any more than from love to hatred; that our Lord Jefus Chrift did not by his atoning facrifice procure his Father's love to the elect, feeing his being a propitiation for fin was a fruit, effect, and evidence of that love. Agreeably, the scriptures never speak of God's being reconciled to his elect either in eternity or in time, but of their being reconciled to him; and not fo much of the reconciliation of their perfons, as of a reconciliation for their fins; whereby their perfons are reconciled, not to the love and affections of God, which they always shared in, but to the justice of God, which infifted upon a fatisfaction to a broken law; which being given, both love and justice are reconciled together, are reconciled together, righteousness and peace kifs each other, in the affair of their falvation. Now there is nothing in this doctrine of reconciliation that is oppofite, (1.) To the fin-offerings and peace-offerings under the law; fince thefe were made to the God of Ifrael for the people of Ifrael, whom God loved above all people that were upon the face of the earth, and were typical of that atoning facrifice, in which indeed were discovered the severest resentment of justice against fin, and yet the clearest evidence of strong love and affections to perfons then enemies, and deftitute of love to God: Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and fent his Son to be the propitiation for our fins. In this both type and antitype agree, that the reconciliation is not of God to men, but for men to God; though this author fays," it is past all difpute, that the party "to be reconciled is God";" when it is the very thing in difpute between us. It is no where faid of the facrifices of the law, that God was reconciled by them to the people of Ifrael; and it is no where faid of the facrifice of Christ, the antitype of them, that God is by it reconciled to his elect; though I am content that God should be faid to be reconciled to his elect by the death of Chrift, provided no more is meant by it than fatisfying of his justice, not a conciliating or procuring his love and favour. The author's reasoning on the denial of this, that the reconciliation must be made to the house of Ifrael, or for the God of Ifrael, or with the finner or the fin, is fo ftupid and fenfelefs, that it deferves no confideration. (2.) Nor does this doctrine, which denies that Chrift came to reconcile God to finners, oppofe, as is fuggefted ", what is prophefied of him in the Old Teftament, or what is affirmed of his performance in the New; fince though it was prophefied of him, that God should make his foul an offering for fin*; and it is affirmed of him, that he gave himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God; yet it is neither faid that he should, or that he did do this for the elect, to remove any enmity in the heart of God against them, or to turn any hatred of his into love towards them, or to purchase and procure the love and affections of God for them: fo far from this, that because they had a peculiar share in the love and affections both of the Father and the Son, the Father made the foul of his Son an offering for them, and the Son gave himself an offering unto God on their account. The Old Testament fays, that the Lord is well-pleafed for bis righteousness fake; he will magnify the law, and make it bonourable; and the New Teftament fays, that Chrift has fo loved his, that he has given himself for them, an offering and a facrifice to God, for a fweet-fmelling favour; but neither the one nor the other fay, that either God was to be, or that he is hereby reconciled to his elect, or they hereby ingratiated into his affections. What is written in Colos. i. 20. 1 Cor. xv. 3. Heb. ii. 17. Colos. ii. 14. Ephes. i. 7. perfectly agree with the doctrine of reconciliation I am now contending for; nor does this oppofe that plain fcripture, Rom. v. 1. Therefore being juftified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jejus. We have no need to remove the ftop in the text; though how this author dare venture to alter the reading of it, and render the words peace in God, or what is his reafon for it, I know not. The peace the text fpeaks of, does not defign the peace, reconciliation, and atonement made by the blood of Chrift, but the effect of it; even an inward confcience peace, which believers have with God, or God-ward, through Chrift the donor of it, fpringing and arifing from faith's apprehending an intereft in the juftifying righteoufnefs of the Son of God. (3.) Nor does this doctrine leffen, or tend to fruftrate the great and important ends of our Saviour's fufferings and death, as this author attempts to prove. The ends of his fufferings and death were to bring the elect to God, to make reconciliation for their fins, to reconcile them to God; and accordingly they were, even when enemies, reconciled to God by the death of his Son. Where does the fcripture ever reprefent the end of Christ's fufferings and death to be to reconcile God to his elect; that is, to remove any enmity in his heart against them, or to procure for them his love and favour? but on the contrary, it reprefents the fufferings and death of Christ as fruits and evidences of his matchless and furprising love to them. God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet finners, Chrift died for us". The doctrines of reconciliation and justification, thus viewed in the light of feripture, can never clash with the fatisfaction of Chrift, nor tend to leffen and frustrate it; fince reconciliation is no other than fatisfaction and atonement to the juftice of God, and juftification proceeds upon the foot of fatisfaction, and everlasting righteoufnefs. Nor is there room or reafon for that ftupid inference and conclufion, that becaufe Chrift came to reconcile finners to God, therefore he became an offering to the finner, and not to God. There is a twofold reconciliation the fcriptures fpeak of; the one is obtained by the price of Chrift's blood, the other by the power of his grace; you have them both in one text, Rom. v. 10. For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be faved by his life. The meaning of which is; that if, when the elect of God were in a state of nature, and fo of enmity to God, atonement was made for their Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 19. ⚫ Ephes. v. 2. с 1 Pet. iii. 18. Dan. ix. 24. Heb. ii. 17. Rom. v. 10. d Rom. v. 8. their fins by the facrifice and death of Chrift, which is ftrongly expreffive of the amazing love of God to them; then much more being by the Spirit and grace of God reconciled to this way of peace, pardon, atonement, life and falvation, they shall be faved, through the interceding life of their Redeemer. (4.) This doctrine, as it has been stated, does not render the offices of Chrift, as mediator, interceffor and high priest, needlefs, yea, of none effect; unless this author can imagine, according to his own fcheme, that it is the fole work of the mediator, interceffor and high priest, to reconcile God to the elect. This we indeed fay is no part of his work, in fuch fenfe, as to conciliate the love and favour of God to them; but does it follow, from hence, that his office is needlefs, and of none effect? Is it not needful, to reconcile the elect to God, to make reconciliation for their fins? Is he not useful, as mediator, to be their advocate and interceffor, their way of accefs to God, and acceptance with him; and of conveyance of all the bleffings of the covenant of grace to them, whence he is called the mediator of it? I would also ask this author, if he thinks when God is reconciled to the elect by the death of his Son, or rather when they believe; for it feems there is no reconciliation before faith in Chrift, the blood, facrifice and death of Chrift will not effect it, according to thefe men, till faith has given the finishing ftroke: I fay, I afk this author, whether he thinks that the office of Chrift, as mediator, ceafes? for, according to his way of reasoning, it should ceafe, when reconciliation is really made. Whereas Chrift, after believing as well as before, is the mediator between God and man, and ever lives to make interceffion for us. We are able to prove that Chrift was fet up as mediator from everlafting; that his mediation was always neceffary, and ever will be; that as he is the medium of all grace now to us, he will be the medium of all glory to all eternity. To conclude this head; our author feems to be convinced that John iii. 16. expreffes the love of God to his elect, antecedent to his giving and fending of his Son to be the propitiatory facrifice; fince he does not attempt to offer any thing against the expofition, or to give another fenfe of it. 2. "Another branch of their (the Supralapfarians) eternal juftification, is "faid to be their refufing to pray for the pardon of fin, any other wife than "the manifeftation of it to their confciences " Strange! that pardon of fin fhould be a branch of eternal juftification, when it is a diftinct bleffing from it; as, I think, I have fufficiently made to appear in my treatife concerning it: ftranger ftill that refufing to pray for it fhould be deemed a branch of it and what is of all moft wonderful, is, that this fhould be reckoned a Supralapfarian 1 1 Tim. ii. 5. Heb. vii. 25. 8. Ibid. p. 25: h |