Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

"fruit until we are in union with Chrift the living head, yet there is no abfurdity in faying, that there is life produced in the foul, previous to our union "with him; and that a fpiritual work (an aukward way of talking; why not "the Spirit?) which begets a fpiritual life in us, is neceffary to meten (meeten) "us for union to him the living head." And though he approves the argument, yet does not believe the application of it agreeable to truth; namely, that because there is an union of the foul and body of man before he can be faid to live, that therefore the foul of man must be united to Chrift before he has fpiritual life. In a word, though he agrees that there must be a principle of life, before there is any exercise of faith, yet denies that there was union to Christ, before this principle was wrought. Now let it be obferved, that the union I am here fpeaking of, is what is commonly called vital union; an union in time, at conversion, which is no other than Chrift formed in us; upon which a principle of fpiritual life is immediately produced: for he that hath the Son, hath life; and then follow faith, and the exercise of it. Therefore this union cannot be by faith, nor faith be the bond of it, fince it follows upon it: for though, as upon the union. of the foul and body, life is immediately produced; yet the union, in order of nature, must be confidered previous to life. So though, upon the formation of Chrift in us, called the vital union, the principle of spiritual life is immediately produced; yet the formation of Chrift, or the union of him to us, must be confidered antecedent to this life. No, fays this man; there is life produced in the foul, previous to our union with Chrift, in order to it; yea, to meeten for it: whence it must unavoidably follow, that a man may have a principle of fpiritual life, and yet be without Chrift; be feparate from him, and without union. to him; contrary to the exprefs words of the apoftle, He that hath not the Son of God, hath not life. Befides, does this doctrine give honour to the glorious head of influence, Chrift Jefus, which teaches that a man may have a principle. of fpiritual life, without union to him, the living head; and in order to meeten for it, and confequently elsewhere, from another quarter? What appears moft plaufible, at first view, in favour of this prepofterous notion, is the inftance of the scion, that must have life previous to its ingrafture. But pray what kind of life is it, that the fcion of the wild olive-tree lives, before its ingrafture into the good olive-tree? it is a life agreeable to its nature; it is the life of the wild olive-tree, not of the good olive tree. So men before converfion, before Christ is formed in them, live, not a spiritual life, a life of grace, but a life of fin; there is no principle of fpiritual life, before Chrift is formed in the foul. The fimile of the vine and branches, in John xv. 4, 5. he thinks is of no fervice to me, but rather against me; fince there would be no need of the exhortation,, abide in me, if no act or acts of ours are concerned about maintaining union with Chrift: Ibid. p. 86, 88.

* 1 John v. 12.

f Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 89.

h

Christ and obferves, that abiding in Chrift is by faith, and the fame with standing by faith, Rom. xi. 20. and argues, that if our ftanding and abiding in Chrift are by faith, then do we hold union thereby; and whatsoever holds us to union, is the bond of it. To which I need only reply, that the phrafes of abiding in Christ, and standing by faith, regard the perfeverance of the faints, in confequence of their union to Chrift. Now though perseverance is by faith, or faith is the means of perseverance, under the powerful influence of grace; yet it does not follow that it is the bond of union; fince both perfeverance, and faith, by which we perfevere, are the effects of it. I obferved, from the above passage, that "faith is a fruit of the Spirit, which grows upon the branches that are in "Chrift the vine; and that these branches must be first in the vine, before they "bear this fruit." This author wonders who will attempt to deny it. Very well; if no body will attempt to deny it, the cause is given up, the point is gained: for if perfons must be firft in Chrift the vine, that is, united to him, before they bear the fruit of faith, that is, believe in him; it follows, that union is before faith, and that faith is the fruit and effect, and not the bond of it. The fimile of the wild and good olive-trees, he fays, I have borrowed piece-meal, and have omitted to quote it (the text) in the margin. I own, I borrowed the fimile from Rom. xi. 17, &c. as being an appofite one; but never thought, nor do I think now, that the paffage has any reference to the ingrafture of fouls into Christ, but into a vifible church-ftate: For if ingrafture into Chrift is intended, it will follow, that perfons may be ingrafted into him, that is, united to him, and yet be broken off from him; which fuppofes their intire apoftacy from him; which none will give into, unless they are far gone into Arminian principles. The plain meaning of the paffage is, that the Jews, who rejected the Meffiah, were broken off from their vifible church-state, or from being the visible church of God; and the Gentiles, that believed, were taken into it; and that the Jews, when they believed, would be again grafted, or taken into a visible church-state. Hence the whole of our author's reasoning, about the neceffity of faith, and the removal of unbelief, antecedent to an ingrafture into Chrift, as founded upon this fcripture, comes to nothing.

(3.) Having proved that neither the Spirit on Chrift's part, nor faith on ours, is the bond of union, I proceeded to fhew that the everlasting love of the Father, Son and Spirit, is the bond of the union of the elect unto them. To this, not one fyllable is replied: But whereas I obferve that there are feveral things which arise from, and are branches of this everlasting love-union, and which I apprehend make it appear that the elect are united to Chrift before faith; this author has thought fit to make fome remarks upon them.

Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 88.

Ibid. p. 90.

I obferve,

L

k

I obferve, from Ephes. i. 4. that there is an election-union in Chrift from everlasting my meaning is, that election is an act of God's everlasting love, in which the objects of it were confidered in Chrift; and how they could be confidered in Chrift, without union to him, is, what I fay, is hard to conceive. So that I apprehend, that as eternal election is a display of God's everlasting love to his people, it is an inftance alfo of their eternal union to Chrift. No, fays this man; election is a fore-appointing perfons to an union; as the choice of stones for a building, or of a branch for ingrafture. Had the text in Ephes. i. 4. run thus, according as he bath chofen us to be in him, or that we might, or should be in him; this fenfe of election would have appeared plausible: but the words in connection with the preceding verfe run thus, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Chrift, according as he bath chofen us in him; and therefore will not admit of fuch an interpretation as this, "that "it was according to the eternal design of God, to bestow divine and special "favours upon them, when in Chrift; or that they were chofen to divine and "special bleffings, through Chrift;" but that they were bleffed with these divine and special bleffings in Chrift, according as they were chofen in him. I do not say that election is the uniting act, that is, the everlasting love of God; nor do I see any abfurdity, in fuppofing union previous to this choice, though I think they go together; but this I fay, that in election men are confidered in Chrift, and fo is a proof of eternal union to him; and by this I abide, until fomething else is offered to confront it.

I have also faid, that there is a legal union between Chrift and the elect from everlasting, the bond of which, is the furetyship of Chrift, and fo he and they are one, in a law-fenfe, as furety and debtor are one: and likewife, that there is a federal union between them from everlasting; Chrift being confidered as head, and they as members with him in the covenant of grace. This' writer is of opinion, that the legal and federal union is one and the fame; I am content they should be thought fo: my defign hereby is not to multiply unions, or as though I thought there were so many diftinct ones, believing that God's everlasting love is the grand original bond of union, and that these are so many difplays of it, proving it; and particularly, that it is before faith, the main thing I had in view. The relations of furety and debtor, head and members, conveying different ideas, 1. thought it proper to confider them apart; however, I am willing they should go together, provided neither of them is loft: but I observe, the former of these is entirely funk by this author, and no notice taken of it: for though they both relate to one and the fame covenant, yet are to be diftinctly confidered; and if Christ is not to be confidered as the furety of his people, as one with them, in a lawfenfe,

Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 79, 92-95:

1 Ibid. p. 78, 92, 95;

m

fenfe, as furety and debtor are one; what foundation is there for his fatisfaction for them? nay, not only fo, but even the relation of head and members is dropped by this author, under a pretence that it has been already proved, that there is no being in Chrift before faith, as members of his body; and goes on to confider the relation of husband and wife, which is not at all mentioned by me; and calls upon the men of the Supralapfarian fcheme, to produce any text of fcripture that informs us that God, in either of the perfons of the Godhead, calls any of the children of men his spouse, or wife, or bride, before they are made fo by a mutual covenant. The reader will be apt to conclude, from a large citation out of Dr Goodwin, that it was made by me under the prefent head; whereas it ftands in another part of my book, and made, together with fome others, from Dr Withius, and Mr Richard Taylor, with no other view than to observe to the Gentleman I wrote the Letter to, that there was no reafon why the affertors of eternal union fhould be treated as ignorant and enthufiaftic preachers, when men of such characters as above, had, in some sense, afferted it. Now, though I do not think myself obliged to take any further notice of this citation, not being made to vindicate my fenfe of union, yet I cannot but obferve the rudenefs and pertnefs of the man, in treating fo great a man as Dr Goodwin was, in the manner he does; and at once pronounce, that what is faid by him, is not worthy to be efteemed either good divinity, or good argument. He next falls "foul upon a paffage of mine in another part of my book, and upon another fubject, where I fay that the gift of God himself to his people, in the everlafting covenant, is a gift and inftance of his love to them before converfion. This he denies, and fays, the fcriptures which mention this gift, evidently prove the contrary; the fcripture he produces, is Heb. viii. 10. from Jer. xxxi. 33. and observes, that this covenant is a mutual agreement between God and converted people; for you read here, fays he, that the laws of God were to be written upon their hearts, and in their minds, before God is their God, and they are his people. To which I reply; that there is not the leaft evidence from any of thefe paffages, that this covenant is a mutual agreement between God and any people, converted or unconverted; nor is there any fuch thing as a mutual covenant between God and fallen creatures; the mutual covenant talked of at converfion, is all a dream and fancy. The covenant here spoken of, is wholly and entirely on the part of God, and feems rather to respect unconverted than converted perfons; fince one branch of it regards the writing and putting of the laws of God in their hearts and minds, which converted ones have already; nor is this mentioned as the cause or condition of his being their God, but rather, his being their God in covenant, is the

m

Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 96.

n Ibid p. 99.

• Ibid. p. 100.

the ground and foundation of this; fince this is mentioned in Jer. xxxii. 38. previous to his promife of giving one heart, and one way, and putting his fear into them; all which fuppofe them unconverted. In a word, our author thinks P, that the covenant of grace is not a uniting covenant, no relation arifing from it between God and his people, between Chrift and his members; it is only a fettling the conditions, and laying a fure foundation for a federal union with his people, that is, upon the conditions of faith and repentance; fo that the covenant of grace from eternity, is only a foundation for a covenant. I am content he fhould enjoy his own fentiments, without reproaching him with inexplicable nonfenfe. But fince he has called upon the Supralapfarians to produce a text, wherein any of the children of men are called by God, in either of the perfons of the Godhead, his fpoufe, wife, or bride, before they are made fo by a mutual covenant, I propofe to his confideration, Ifaiah liv. 1, 5, 6. where Christ is called the bufband of the Gentile church, and fhe his wife, long before it was in being and even in the text he himself mentions, Ephes. v. 23. Chrift is faid to be the head of the church, even as the husband is the head of the wife; which includes the whole general affembly and church of the firft-born, even all the elect, converted or unconverted.

The next union I mention, is the natural union that is between Chrift and his people; in this, our author fays, is nothing but what agrees with the holy fcriptures, and fo it paffes without a cenfure. The laft I take notice of, is a representative one, both from everlasting and in time. This man imagines' I have given away the cause, by acknowledging that the natural union was not in eternity, fince hereby the notion of an eternal representative union is entirely destroyed; for, adds he, it is exceeding remote from all the rules of argument, to suppose that Jefus Chrift represented the elect people as members in him, when he had no meaner nature than divine. This writer is, no doubt, acquainted with all the rules of argument: but what does the man mean, when he talks of Christ's having no meaner nature than divine? I hope the reader will excufe my warmth, when fuch a horrid reflection is made upon the divine nature of the Son of God; no meaner nature! This fuppofes, indeed, the human nature to be meaner, but implies the divine nature to be mean; or, where is the degree of comparison? he suggests', that Chrift could not represent the elect in eternity unless he had human nature from eternity; and that there could not be a real union of the perfons of the elect in eternity, without their real existence. I reply; that it was not neceffary, in order to Chrift's being the Mediator, Head, and Representative of the elect in eternity, that he should be then actually man, only that he should certainly be fo in time: befides, there was a federal union of the human nature to the Son of God from eternity, or the human nature had VOL. II. O Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 101.

a co

Ibid. p. 102.

Ibid. p. 1oz.

• Ibid. p. 103.

« AnteriorContinuar »