"ferings; the greatest of which was, the Father's imputation of our fins to him." What our author further obferves concerning fome texts of scripture, engaged by the Supralapfarians, to speak for their opinions of eternal justification and adoption, being what is introduced by him, with reference to a living author, I leave it to him to answer for himfelf; who, I doubt not, will make a proper and fuitable reply. I proceed,

t

Secondly, To defend the doctrine of eternal union, which this author calls a branch which grows from the fruitful root of the Supralapfarian tree; which, fays he, they ftile eternal, actual, union." As this author particularly refers to myself, throughout his performance on the head of union, I take leave to afk him, Where has he found eternal union in any writings of mine, ftiled eternal, actual union? I have carefully avoided calling juftification, or union from eternity, actual; though for no other reason than this, left any fhould imagine, that I confidered them as tranfient acts of God upon the elect, which require their perfonal and actual exiftence; for otherwife, as I believe, that eternal election is actual, and eternal reprobation is actual, as they are immanent acts in God; fo, I believe, eternal juftification is actual, as it is an immanent act in God that justifies; and eternal union is actual, as it is an act of God's everlafting love to his elect, whereby he has knit and united them to himfelf. I go on to afk, where have I faid, or who has told this man, that a non-entity was united to an exiftence? The language with which this expreffion is cloathed, manifeftly fhews it to be of his own fhaping. The elect of God, though they have not an esse actu, an actual being from eternity; yet they have an effe reprefentativum, a reprefentative being in Chrift from everlasting, which is more than other creatures have, whofe future exiftence is certain; and therefore at least capable of a representative union from eternity, and which has been readily owned by fome divines, who are not altogether in the fame way of thinking with myself. However, it feems eternal union is a branch which grows from the fruitful root (not from the body) of the Supralapfarian tree. Poor creature! it is plain he knows nothing of the Supralapfarian tree, as he calls it, either root, body, or branch; for as he is pleafed to explain the meaning of eternal, actual union, it is this, "that they (I fuppofe he means the elect) had "actual union with Chrift, whilft they were in their fins ;" and if fo, they must be confidered in their union with Christ, as fallen creatures; and then it will follow, that this is a branch which grows from the Sublapfarian, and not the Supralapfarian tree. But paffing these things, I fhall now attend to what he has to object to what I have written on the fubject of union. And,

Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 74.

(1.) Whereas

u In a Letter to Mr Abraham Taylor, p. 29. &c.

(1.) Whereas I have undertaken to prove that it is not the Spirit on Christ's part, that is the bond of union to him, I endeavoured to do it by obferving that the Spirit is fent down, and given to God's elect, in confequence of an antecedent union of them to Chrift; and that he, in his perfonal inhabitation, operations and influences of grace in them, is the evidence, and not the efficient cause of their union. That an elect perfon is firft united to Christ, and then receives the spirit in measure from him, and becomes one fpirit with him, I thought was pretty evident from 1 Cor. vi. 17. He that is joined unto the Lord, is one fpirit. From whence I concluded, and still conclude, that a person's becoming one spirit with Chrift, or receiving the same spirit Chrift has, though in measure, is in confequence of his being joined or united to him; and not that he first becomes one fpirit, or receives the fame spirit from Chrift, and then is joined or united to him. The fenfe of the text is evident, and admits of no difficulty: But, fays " this writer, "it evidently proves that the Spirit of Chrift "dwells in all that are united to him." I grant it, that the Spirit of Chrift dwells in all that are united to him, fooner or later; but the question is, whether the indwelling of the Spirit is antecedent to their union, or in consequence of it? If it is in confequence of it, then that is not the bond of union: If it is antecedent to it, it must be before faith; for, according to this man's fcheme, union is by faith, and there is none before it: and fo the abfurdity he would fain leave with me, follows himself; "that the holy Spirit dwells with unbelievers." To illuftrate this matter, of a perfon's receiving the Spirit from Chrift, in confequence of union to him, I made ufe of a fimile taken from the head and members of an human body, and the communication of the animal fpirits from the one to the other, in confequence of the union between them. This author, though in his great modefty he owns that he is poorly skilled in philosophy, a conceffion he needed not have given himself the trouble to make; yet thinks himself capable to make it appear, that I am not a little wanting in the application of my argument: I fuppofe he means fimile; for I am often obliged to guefs at his meaning. But what is it he fancies is wanting? In what is it inapplicable? Does it not exactly tally with what I am speaking of? But instead of fhewing the want of application, or any difparity in the cafe, which he does not attempt, he puts me upon proving ", " that there is any life in the head of "a body natural, when the members are all dead; or that the life of the natu"ral body is all extinct before the head dies, or that the head can subsist with"out any living members, or that the body natural is deftitute of natural life, "when united to a living head;" things I have no concern with, and which are no part of the fimile I make use of; and which is made use of by me only to shew, that as the animal fpirits from the head are communicated to the memVOL. II. N

bers

bers of the body, not antecedent to union between them, or in order to effect it, but in confequence of it: fo the Spirit of Chrift is communicated from him the head to the members of his body, not antecedent to their union, or in order to effect it, but in confequence of it: whence it follows, that he cannot be the bond of this union; and by this I abide. For the proof of the Spirit's being the evidence of communion, and fo of union, and therefore not the bond of it, I produced 1 John iii. 24. and chap. iv. 13. Only the first of these fcriptures is taken notice of by this writer; who fancies that the former part of this text was difagreeable to me, and therefore left out by me. I declare I was far from thinking it to be fo; and am well content it should be transcribed at large, it being a witnefs for, and not against my new notion, as he is pleased to call it: And be that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and be in him; and hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. The meaning of which is, that thofe perfons, who under the influences of the Spirit of God are enabled to keep the commandments of God, dwell in him, and he in them; that is, they have communion with him, as the effect of union to him; for these acts of indwelling are not uniting acts, but acts of communion, in confequence of union; of which the Spirit being given them, is an evidence. Now could it be proved that Chrift dwells in his people by his Spirit, though the scripture no where fays fo, but that he dwells in their bearts by faith; yet it does not follow that he is united to them by his Spirit, because this act of indwelling is an act of communion: not this, but his everlasting love, which is the foundation of his dwelling in them, is the bond of union. That the Spirit is the seal of covenant-love and of union with Chrift, will not be denied: But then his being a feal, is no other than his being a certifying evidence and witness of these things. Now from the Spirit's being a witness and feal of union, this man fuggests that he must be the bond of it; because the party that feals, is the principal of the bond where his poor wandering head is running upon a pecuniary bond, a bond in writing, by which a man is bound to another; and in which he most miferably blunders; feeing it is not the principal, or he to whom the bond is made, but the debtor, or he who obliges himself to the other, that figns and feals: Whereas the thing in difpute is, a bond of union between perfons, by which they are united to each other. Nor will it be denied that the Spirit quickens and regenerates us, begets and maintains fpiritual life in us; but then all this is in confequence of union to Chrift: nor is it by this fpiritual life which he begets and maintains, that we have union with our living head, but we have this fpiritual life as the effect of that union, and thereby have communion with him; and though the elect of God, whilft dead in trefpaffes and fins, have no communion with Chrift, yet there is a fenfe in which they are united to him then; which union is the ground and foundation of their being quickened.

(2.) I have

(2.) I have also affirmed that faith is not the bond of union to Christ, and defired those who plead for union by faith, to tell us whether we are united to Chrift by the habit or act of faith; and fince there are different acts of it, whether our union is by the firft, fecond, third, &c. acts of believing? To which our author has not thought fit to return any anfwer. I go on to argue, that if union is by faith as an habit, it is not by faith on our part, because faith, as fuch, is the gift of God; and if it be by faith as an act of ours, it is by a work, for faith, as fuch, is a work; and then not by grace, fince works and grace cannot be blended. To which this author replies: "what if we have union "with Chrift in that part which lies on our fide the question, by acts of ours, "unto which we are enabled by the Spirit of God, who works faith in us; does "this tend to leffen the exceeding grace of God?" I answer, that what he fays of the Spirit's working faith in us, is right, but that regards faith as an habit; though that there is a part lying on our fide the question, to bring about our union to Chrift by an act of ours, I utterly deny: Strange! that an uniting act, or a bond of union, must be parted, that there should be a part belong to us, and another to the Spirit of God? But to his question I answer, that to afcribe our union to Christ in part to acts of ours, though enabled to them by the Spirit of God, does leffen the grace of God: and I argue thus, that if to afcribe election in part to works, to any acts of ours as to faith, though enabled to it by the Spirit of God, would tend to leffen the glory of grace in it; fo to afcribe our union to Chrift to any acts of ours, to faith as fuch, though enabled to it by the Spirit of God, would tend to leffen the glory of that grace and love of Chrift, which is the alone bond of it. This writer farther fuggests, that I incline to admit the grace of love to be the union-bond; and argues, that that being an act of ours, it must confequently be efteemed a work, and fo be liable to the fame difficulty: whereas, though I observe, that had our divines fixed upon the grace of love as the bond of union, it would have been more plausible and feasible than their fixing upon faith; yet I am far from an inclination to admit of it, when I affirm, in fo many words, that "it is not our love to "Chrift, but his love to us, which is alone the real bond of our union to him."

a

I proceed to obferve, that "faith is no uniting grace, nor are any of its acts "of a cementing nature." This man fancies I am guilty of fuch a flagrant contradiction, as is not to be produced in any book befides; because I add, "faith indeed looks to Chrift, lays hold on him, embraces him, and cleaves " unto him; it expects and receives all from Chrift, and gives him all the glory." These fentences, it feems, are closely united; and yet an agreement between them cannot be proved. I own, I am not fo quick-fighted as to fee any contradiction,

N 2

2 Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 82.

a Ibid. p. 83.

Ibid. p. 83.

tradiction, much lefs a flagrant one, in them. Was I fenfible of it, I fhould: be thankful for the difcovery. I perceive that the acts of laying hold on, embracing and cleaving to, are thought to be uniting acts. I confess I never thought that whatever my hand lays hold on, is united to it, or one with it. L now lay hold on my pen, and hold it in my hand, make use of it, take it up, and lay it down at pleasure; I do not find they are one, but two diftinct things;. my pen is not one with my hand, nor my hand with my pen, nor do they both make one third thing. I never knew that one perfon's embracing another was. an uniting their perfons together, or that any union or relation between them commenced upon fuch an act. When the apostles exhorted fuch who were par takers of the grace of God, to cleave to the Lord with purpose of heart, it can never be thought that their exhortation was to unite themselves to the Lord with purpose of heart, fince these were perfons already united to him.. All these acts. of looking to Chrift, laying hold upon him, embracing of him, and cleaving. to him, are acts of faith performed under the influences of the Spirit, in confequence of union to Chrift; and are fuch, in which believers have communion with him. He feems displeased with what I fay, that "a foul can no more "be faid to be united to Chrift by thefe acts, than a beggar may be said to be "united to a perfon, to whom he applies, of whom he expects alms, to whom " he keeps close, from whom he receives, and to whom he is thankful." This, he fays, deferves no anfwer. The reafon I guess is, because he can give none.. However, I will take his own inftance, of a distreffed beloved child's looking to, embracing of, cleaving to, and hanging about its tender father, with intreaties and expectations of fupply; and deny that these are uniting acts, or fuch as unite the father to the child, or the child to the father; but are all in confequence of a relation, a relative union, that fubfifted between them, antecedent to these acts.

I farther obferve, that union to Chrift is the foundation of faith, and of all the acts of believing, or feeing, walking, receiving, &c. That faith is the fruit and effect of union, even of what is commonly called vital union: for as there must first be an union of the foul and body of man, before he can be faid to live, and there must be life, before there can be reafon; fo there must be a union of the foul to Christ, before it can spiritually live: and there must be a principle of spiritual life, before there can be faith. This I thought alfo was fully and fitly exemplified in the fimile of the vine and branches, which must first be in the vine, before they bear fruit; and may be illuftrated by the ingrafture of the wild olive-tree into a good one; and concluded, that union to Chrift is before faith, and therefore faith cannot be the bond of union. The fubftance of what is replied to this is, "that though we cannot produce good " fruit