Vindication of the Doctrine of Justification and Union Before Faith, Treatise (1 of 2)

Vindication of the Doctrine of Justification and Union Before Faith · Treatise (1 of 2)

p. 1A Vindication of the Doctrine of Justification and Ʋnion before Faith.

WHereas Mr. Coleman, or his Prefacer, have taken occasion to cast Aspersions on the Church at Rowell, and on me (R. Davis) their Pastor, especially with Reference to David Culy, intimating, or terming him one of my Disciples, &c. The Lord forgive the Author that ungodly Speech, with others of the like nature, and that root of bitterness in his Mind whence they did proceed. Surely he had no cause to make any Reflections, or to take up a Reproach against the Church at Rowell, and me, because of the offensive, unsound and exorbi…ant Expressions of the said David Culy, forasmuch as we testify'd against them, and faithfully admonished and reproved him for them, which it pleased the Lord graciously …o succeed unto his Conviction and Repentance, so that he openly retracted them, and declared his Sorrow or Contrition for them; and we do not hear that he hath uttered any such Language, or hath used any such Expressions since that time.

Therefore there cannot be the least Pretence or Excuse for his mentioning or repeat…ng that Matter as a just cause of blame to us, who had manifested our detestation of …hem, or of Reproach, to David Culy, who hath openly declared his Repentance for …hem, and his Recantation of them, except it were to give vent to the malignity of a …epraved Nature, that lusteth unto Envy, and delighteth to be Slandering and Reproaching, which the Lord help him to be mortifying by the power of his Grace.

Since also the Prefacer hath to his mentioning of David Culy's untoward and grievous …xpression, immediately subjoyned my Erroneous Interpretation of Heb. 2.14,15. …s he thinks, with an apparent ill design to insinuate to the World, That I am guilty …f the same gross Error which he charges upon David Culy, thinking, perhaps, every …hing may be believed against a Man whom the most of Professors cry down.

I judge it is my Duty to take notice of his Reflections, and to Vindicate the Expo…tion I then gave. The Scope of that Sermon was to prove, That Christ upon the Cross did truly and properly bear, or sustain and represent the Persons of the Elect. The Argument to prove it was this, viz. That He was their common Head, Root, …urety, Representative. The Foundation of which was, That God the Second Person, …ccording to the Divine Ordination, assumed our Nature into an Hypostatical Union, …ut not only as singly considered, but as being the common Head, Root, &c. of the …lect Number. Therefore when He assumed the nature of the Election into a personal …nion, He assumed in that Nature, as a common Head, the Persons of the Election …o an Union with Himself, as their Head, Root, Representative. This was then …d down, though perhaps not in the same express Words, yet I am sure to the same …ose. This Truth was then inferred from Heb. 2.14. as well as other Scripture… p. 2This he saith is contrary to what any Orthodox Minister ever Asserted. He means first, either the Truth it self; or, secondly, the deduction of it from that Scripture.

If the first, then it is plain the Scripture asserts it, and so several of the Reformers, and he himself also, whilest he is making opposition. What the Scriptures assert see in Eph. 1.10. In which words there are these Terms which ought to be Explained.

I. What is meant by the gathering together in one.

Answ. 1. The Word Imports a gathering of many scattered Sums into one Total Sum.

2. Of divided Parcels of Histories and Arguments into one Summary.

3. Of many Members into one Body, under one Head.

And in general, comprehensive of these Three, to collect and joyn together several into one, even in the fullest Sense that I intend it for.

But, II. What is meant by all things.

Answ. To wave what is said by others, I judge the whole Election is principally intended here.

1. Because the Elect Number in Scripture are stiled Things, 1 Cor. 1.27,28. nay, all Things, (foreign, the same Word with this in the Text) Gal. 3.22. But the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin, &c.

2. The Elect Number is the Predicate here, concerning whom the Apostle treats, viz. Such as were chosen, predestinated, and made accepted from Eternity, ver. 4, 5, 6. The whole Scope of the Chapter is to speak of such in a limited Sense: Therefore such are those All Things mentioned in the Text, gathered together unto Christ.

Nor does that overthrow this Exposition, what is here said, Things in Heaven, as well as things in Earth. For the Elect Number then gone to Heaven, though they were United to Christ afore, as the appointed Head of the Election; yet, when he Actually and Hypostatically United their Natures, He did therein Unite the Person of every Elect Vessel to Himself, in a more visible close manner, even in that United Nature; and of such also as were then gone to Heaven. For it pleased the Father to hang all the Glory of his House upon Him, Isa. 22.24. even the Vessels of great quantity (such as are perfected in Glory) as well as the Vessels of small quantity, viz. such as are imperfect Pilgrims here, and the meanest of them as well as the greatest.) And though they were gone to Glory, yet could not in this Sense be made Perfect without us, (Heb. 11.40.) viz. the Elect Number existing after his Incarnation.

III. What is meant by the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times?

Answ. In short, the time of our Lord's Incarnation. That is the meaning of that Scripture Phraseology. See Gal. 4.4. But when the Fulness of Time was come, GOD sent forth his Son, made of a Woman, made under the Law. The dubious Terms being Explained, I shall now raise these Observations from the Words poinent, to evince the Truth in question.

1. That God, at a certain Time, collected and summed up the chosen ones into one Sum or Body, under one Head.

2. The Center, in which they all met, or the Head, unto which they were recollected, was CHRIST, That He might gather together in one, all things in Christ, — even in Him, again reiterated.

3. That this especial Time of gathering of them into One, was in the Fulness of Time, viz. When the Eternal Word was made Flesh. For that individual Nature assumed, p. 3was a publick, common, representative One, and by means of that blessed One United thus Hypostatically, He brought into near Union to his own Person, the Persons of the chosen Ones, John 17.21,22,23. Whence 'tis evident, our nearness of Union to GOD is founded (as to the means) in this middle Chain, God assuming the Second Man into his own Personality, as a publick Head, that had a nume…ous Seed in it self, even in his Loins, not in a natural way of Generation, but in a mystical way of transcendent Union. Now all these put together, Establish the Truth …rmer than the Pillars of Heaven and Earth, viz. When God the Second Person took the Natures of the Election into a personal Union, He took their Persons also in that common Nature, into an Union to Himself, as the Root, Head, and Representative.

Again, all Scriptures that Assert Christ to be a common Head, Root, &c. compa…ed with those that declare the Foundation (as to the mean) to be laid in the As…umption of the Nature of the Election; besides what was mentioned, viz. John 17. …. 22.22. See Heb. 2.11. ad finem, prove this Doctrine. So 'tis evident, that 'tis … glorious Truth, contained in the Holy Scriptures; and that there needs not this Ex…amation against it.

2. Most of the Sound Divines (according to the Formal Stile of the Day) that I …ave read, in maintaining Christ's common Headship, and the aforesaid Foundation, not only Assert, but strenuously Defend it. To pick out two or three, Keckerman, a …dicious Divine, says in his System, That Christ taking our Natures, is the Foundation of … other sorts of Ʋnions of our Persons to Him.

Mr. Rutherford. Christ and we are not only both, viz Mankind; (for Christ and …araoh, and Judas, are one Specie, & Natura, true Men) but one in Brotherhood, He …suming the Nature of Man, with speci…l eye to Abraham, Heb. 2.16. i. e. to the Elect, …nd Believers: For with them He is Bone of their Bone. and is not ashamed to call them Bre…en, Heb. 2 11.12. Psal. 22.22.

See also Dr. Goodwin, on Eph. 1.10. — 3.17, &c. 'Tis true, I should not be …orward to produce Authorities, even of great and good Men, because there is a Car…al Proneness in Professors, to have their Mouths sooner stopped with what Men say, …an what the Word of God says; whence 'tis very likely to ensue, That Men's Faith …ill be resolved into Humane Authority, as the Complaint was of such a fatal Conse…uence, after some Assaulted Truths were determined by General Councils; and so …is way of Defence impress a deeper Gangreen upon our Holy Profession, than the …ound it pretends at present to heal: But hereunto I was now necessitated, to give …me Check to that peremptory Allegation, That what was then delivered was contrary … what any Orthodox Minister ever delivered.

Having manifested 'tis not contrary to Scripture in the Sense afore explained, nor to …e Sense of Sound Divines, it will be no hard matter to make it appear, that it is not …ontrary to his own Judgment, from the Objection he states to make the dirt stick …e more, viz. — He only meant Christ assumed their Persons representatively. I shall …ereafter take notice of the Objection, and his Answer, more fully: At present, I on… observe this, that therein he himself seems to grant, That Christ did assume the …rsons of the Election representatively.

But, Secondly, If he mean, That never did any deduce that Truth from that Por…n of Scripture, or else both. I ask him,

p. 41. How does he know that? Has he read all the Writers of Divinity down from the Greek and Latine Fathers, to the smallest Modern Author in our Days? or,

2. If he has, yet has he known all that every Orthodox Minister that has, or doe… now live in the World, has Preached or Discours'd on this Matter, or deduced from that Text in the Hebrew: Then how with a Conscience tender of Truth, can such a thing be thus universally Affirmed? I have already quoted one, viz. Mr. Rutherford, that infers what's tantamount from the same Scripture, in his Book of the Covenant, quoted by Dr. Chauncey, in his Book against Mr. Williams, Page 223. Mark what he Writes, That Christ, and the Election, are not only one Natura & Specie, but in Brotherhood too, He assuming the Nature of Man, with a special Eye to Abraham, i. e. The Elect and Believers; proving it from this very place. And pray what is this less than I Asserted? But suppose none ever had, yet still it is no Argument to me against the Exposition. Do not we pray for, and expect great Light to break forth in the last Days; and that this Light will help the Saints to see further into the Word of God, than any other of his Servants since the Antichristian Apostacy? What offence should it be then, if the meanest of God's Servants should be taught from a particular Scripture, what others of his Servants have not been before? However, I shall lay down the Reasons that moved me to expound the Words so, and leave them to the Censure of the discerning Christian.

1. The design of the Context is to set forth the Union between the Election and Christ, as their Head and Root. He positively asserts it in the eleventh Verse, and proves it in the subsequent Verses, by these Mediums. 1. That He owns them as Brethren. 2. As Children (Expressions denoting great nearness of Relation.) 3. His living by Faith, as their Head and Exemplar; which Mediums are confirmed by the Authority of the Old Testament. See ver. 11. 12, 13. Next he argues it from the proximate Cause thereof, viz. His being made very Man; which he also proves, 1. From his Believing, ver. 13. 2. From the necessity of his being so, in order to attain the ends of Representativeship, ver. 14, 15. Forasmuch then as the Children were partakers of Flesh and Blood, He also himself likewise took part of the same, &c. This 16th. Verse seems to me again to repeat this Medium, and so draw the Conclusion, viz. And having assumed the nature of the Election, He is qualified to be an United Head and Representative to them. And this is further confirmed by the Subsequent Verse, That therefore He apparently is a suitable High-Priest, which is the same with a Representative. For that was one of the designments of the Priest under the Law, in reference to the People, viz. to represent them in Sacrificing, and in the High-Priests entring into the Holy of Holies, with the Names of the Tribes Engraven upon his Breast-Plate.

2. I argue the reality of this Inference from Remarks on the Words themselves.

1. The Word Nature is not in the Original, and there is no need of having it understood. The Word foreign, Governing a Genitive Case, as well as an Accusative, without altering the Sense; as is evident not only in Heathen Authors, but in the New Testament, Heb. 8.9. Implying there such an Apprehension, as signifies taking the Hand to himself, as the Word from the Etymology must needs, and does import Then the Sense will be, That He assumed not to himself Angels, but the Seed of Abraham. And,

2. 'Tis plain in Scripture Language, it signifies not only the Nature, but also the Persons in that Nature into such an Union as may be between a Representative and thos… represented by Him. These Premises duly weighed, it will follow, that the Cons… quence of the Prefacer's Argument is very illogical, and wrested greatly beyond th… Rules of Art and right Reason. He may as well argue, because the Second Perso… took the nature of the Election into an Hypostatical, that therefore He took it into th… Essential Union. And because He made it one Person with himself, therefore He Deified it: As to argue, because He took the Persons of the Election into a Foederal Union in that common Nature of theirs, He took them into Personal Union with himself, and so Christed them all. I bless God I abhor the Position as well as himself. Nor (though he does most unchristianly Insinuate it) can he by any solid Argument make it out, but by guessing at my meaning, which is like one of Mr. Williams Inuendo's on Dr. Crisp's Works. The Reason given why I must thus mean is, because it was not brought in under that Head of Christ's Representativeship. But with submission, unless he can prove it was brought in under a Head, that laboured to prove that Christ assumed our Persons into an Hypostatick Union with himself, and so made Christs of them all, he does nothing. I appeal to his Conscience, whether any such thing was industriously laboured to be evinced in that Sermon. But further to clear it, That that, and no other could be my meaning, I must trouble the Reader again with a Rehearsal, viz. That the whole Scope of that Sermon was to Answer a Question delivered me in Writing, viz Whether Christ did truly and properly sustain and represent the Persons of the Election on the Cross. It was affirmed as a glorious Truth. The chief Argument then used to prove it was this, That if Christ was the common Head, or Root, Surety and Representative of the Elect Number, then He Sustained their Persons, &c. But the Scriptures of Truth did assert Christ to be the common Head, Root, &c. and that two ways.

1. By Stiling our Lord so in express Terms, as to Head, Root and Surety.

2. By ascribing to Him, in reference to the Elect Ones, the highest and most peculiar Things, that the Notion of a Root or Head, Surety and Representative does import amongst Men. And then I came to shew that the Foundation of such a Relation between Chri…t and Elect Persons, was laid in his assuming their Natures into a personal Union with himself.

The Pref…er says, I brought it not in under that Head, wherein I shewed, That whatever is included in the Notion of a Representative amongst Men, is applied to Christ in the Scriptures. But what if not? And what if brought in under any of them, is it not the same? What if it was brought in under the Head of Christ's being held forth as a Root, and Surety, is it not the same import? and can he upon fair Construction screw my Meaning to a higher strain from thence? Dare he in the presence of God, the Searcher of Hearts say, That my meaning was to prove that all the Elect Number by this Union are Christed with Christ? If not, I would appeal to his Conscience, when it is nearest the Throne, Whether it be in him an act of unfeigned Brotherly Love, to insinuate this of me in Print to the World? And whether he …ould be so served himself? If I had delivered any thing ambiguous, it had been a Christian part in him to have discourss'd me about my meaning first.

Lastly, The Quotation from Dr. Owen is as trifling, as the imaginary Consequence … am loaded with; Dr. Owen only denying (as I also do) that the Second Person …umed the Persons of the Election in an Hpyostatical Union with himself, as He did …ur Natures. But neither here, nor elsewhere denying, that in such an Assumption …f the Nature of the Elect, as a common Nature, or common Head, Root, &c. …e did also assume every individual Person of the Election into a Natural, Foederal, …nd Legal Union with himself (as Mr. Rutherford Phrases it,) which is the Truth be…ween us under debate. Therefore it is as unfair to insinuate that Dr. Owen speaks …gainst me, as 'tis to insinuate, I meant what I never did. Though the Authority of Dr. Owen (whom I honour as a Learned and a good Man) if it were so, would …e but a meer Humane Authority.

And hence an occasion is offered me to declare against the Practices of Writers in …hese Days who are Adversaries to the Truth; 1. That they hide their own Principles under an Ambiguous Form of Words. 2. They wrest the Positions of their Adver…aries, and put them to the rack to speak what they would have them. 3. They quote …ome Sentences of Orthodox Men, that in a slighty reading may chime a little towards their Opinion, to patronize Assertions which they know they abhorred, and make the credulous People (whose Faith they know to be determined by great Names) believe such and such great Men were of that Judgment.

If they would examine these Practices by the Rule of God's Word, they would find the first to be a Falshood, with an intent to deceive. The Second, a wrongful Accusing and Condemning the Innocent, by a tyrannick Force put upon their Words, with an intent to destroy them or their Reputations. The Third, a forcing good Men to be false Witnesses against their will and design; all which I reckon to be soul Immoralities, which must be accounted for to the Judge of quick and dead, at his appearing; being they are also refined, yet Malevolent Persecutions of the Glorious Gospel.

The Prefacer has also hereupon took occasion to nibble at Mr. Eyres's Book; but Mr. Ey…es stands in need of no great Defence from such an Assault: for his Arguments stand yet untouched for ought that can be perceived. Yet some few and slight Animadversions may be necessary for stating of Truth (if it may be) and put some end to Controversies and Clamours, if it be the will of God.

1. I judge it not necessary to speak both to Union and Justification, which the Prefacer has jumbled into one. Mr. Eyres's Assertions (which are opposed) are in his Book about Justification.

2. Though Mr. Eyres, and others, have Explained what they meant about Eternal Justification; and though this Explanation has not been disapproved of, nor judged by many unsound, yet a strife has been kept on foot under the shield of meer Words (that only have been rendred odious to the Vulgar, by a meer Noise and Clamour) for to uphold Parties in Religion, and make those (whom Christ does and will own as his Ministers) abhorred in their Names, Writing, and Preaching, of the generality of Professors and others.

3. Notwithstanding all these discouragements, I shall once more attempt to see how far Mr. Eyres, with others, and their Revilers, can be brought to an Agreement, foreign, to mean however the same thing, if they will not, foreign, speak the same thing; that so (if it be the will of God) Controversies may be ended, unnatural Heats and Animosities among Brethren extinguished, and Peace and Prosperity may yet flourish in the Palaces of Zion.

p. 7This Prefacer declares, That he, Mr. Coleman, and others hold,

1. That all the Chosen of God are Decretively Justified, &c. from Eternity.

2. Vertually, at the Death of Christ.

3. Yet, that no Adult and Elect Person is really and actually Justified before he doth Be…e in Him.

As to the First, I find Mr. Eyres agrees with him, and so do I, provided his mean… and ours be the same. And therefore I shall speak the Truth in love to those … are Brethren (being, notwithstanding all our Differences, yet Members one of …ther in the Lord) with the Premise of these distinctions.

1. Justification and Justified, are in a Sense Relatives, mutually inferring one another. … in what Sense soever God's Decree of Justifying was the Elect Person's Eternal Ju…ation, in that Sense the Elect Person was Eternally Justified. But yet,

Justification is two fold, either Active or Passive, according to Sound Divines.

Justification Active is God's Act towards, or upon the Person, Rom. 3.21.

…. Towards the Person, as an Act of his Secret or revealed Will, going forth to…ds the Object (the Elect Sinner) either in his Representative, Being, or Actual …tence.

And as considered in his Actual Existence more secretly applied to his Person, as … Actually Existing, or more sensibly and manifestly, by terminating the Act on … Conscience.

Justification Passive is the effect of God's Act towards, and upon the Person; which …e Discharge that the Sinner receives and possesses by Faith in the Conscience.

Take Justification in this latter Sense as Passive.

There is a real difference between God Justifying the Person, and the Person being …ified. For God may really Justifie a Person, when he receives it not; but he must …y receive God's Act by Faith upon the Conscience, before he can be thus Justified … Discharged. And the Sinner being thus actively Justified, doth necessarily pre…ose not only his actual being, but his being a Sinner; and actually Araigned in … Conscience, in order to such an actual Conscience discharge.

These Distinctions premised, I shall plainly give my Sense from Mr. Eyres own …ds, what I apprehend he means by God's Eternal Act, decretively Justifying … Sinner, and what he means by the Sinners being decretively Justified from Eternity. …ever, I shall give my own Sentiments, with as much Plainness as I can set down … Words.

Mr. Eyres distinguishes Justification into Volitio Divina, and Res Volita, viz. 1. The … of God not to punish, or impute Sin to his People: And, 2. The effect of God's Will, … His not punishing of them, or setting them free from the Curse of the Law, Page 88. … says that by decretive Justification, he means the former of these, being of the same …ment therein with Dr. Twisse, Page 89▪ And also the Agreement between the Father … the Son, from Eternity, upon that sure and everlasting Covenant, That his Elect should …ar the Punishment which their Sins would deserve, Page 90. ult. 91. init. And this …e than Justification in the Decree, for it is Justification in the Compact also.

This appears plainly to be Mr. Eyres's Judgment about God's Justifying Elect Sinners … Eternity; of whose Judgment I profess my Self to be in this matter.

…ow 'tis plain also, Mr. Eyres means Elect Sinners are Justified from Eternity, Ter… diminuentibus (as the School-Men Phrase it) even in that Representative-being p. 8they had in their Head, set up by the Decree from Everlasting, Prov. 8.23. As th… Decree gave an esse futuro to the whole Creation, so the Decree, as it was the Sovereig… Pleasure of his Goodness, gave also an esse Representativo to the new Creation or Election of God, which is yet higher than a meer being of Futurity. For that goo… pleasure of his Will did more effectually constitute and call tho…e things, that are n… as though they were, than any other of his Decrees. Besides, as they were Covenanted with from Eternity, in their Head and Redeemer, they received in Him, as suc… an Head (viz. He receiving it for them) the Promise of Eternal Life, wherein was included Justification of Life, Titus 1.2. 2 Tim. 1.9.

Now therefore this meaning of Eternal Justification, either the Prefacer and his Fellow-Opposers, either approves or disapproves of. If he disapproves thereof, why ha… he not set about a solid Refutation of a Doctrine he apprehends so dangerous, instead of Squirting at it with invidious Consequences, that follow to more from th… Premises, than if one should argue thus; The Staff stands in the Chimney-Corner, therefore it Rains.

But, Secondly, If he approves of this Explication of Decretive Justification (as h… stiles it) why does he not say so, and not represent Mr. Eyres, and others, as Persons suspicious of dangerous Heresie? and assign no other grounds for it, but that (first) Mr. Eyre has so weightily Answered Objections against this Eternal Act of God's Will, bein… called Justification, Page 94, 95. when also this Author makes not the least attemp… to enervate his Answers, or to shew the weakness of his Arguments. Or, Secondly That Page 45. he infers from Mr. Rutherford, (that was a great Enemy of Antinom… anism) That the Elect before Conversion and Faith, stand actually reconciled to GOD, an… Justified afore Him. For if God has by an Act of his, pardoned their Sins afore the Believe (as Mr. Rutherford says) then as Reconciliation is an Act of God, and on h… part they thus stand actually Reconciled, or Justified in his sight, as before the Ey… of his satisfied Justice before they Believe. Or, Thirdly, Because he has asserte… Page 46. That this was the certain and actual Effect of the Death of Christ, that a the Elect were thereby free from the Law, delivered from the Curse, reconciled unt… God, made perfect and compleat in the sight of God, viz. in Christ, as their Hea… and Surety, in whom there was, upon his Resurrection, made over to them, an u… doubted right to all these afore-named Blessings, &c. as he explains himself in seven places in his Book, but particularly from Pag. 98. to the end of that Chapter; but mo… of this, perhaps, hereafter.

But to bring this Matter in debate, into some narrow Compass again for the endin… of it, I again affirm, That what we intend by Eternal Justification, must be look… upon by our Smiters, to be either Truth or Error, and if Truth, yet very ill worde… or else why all this noise? What we mean has been plainly expressed, both private and publickly: And if the Prefacer, and the rest, judges it an Error, let them manif… it from God's Word, and sound Arguments deduced from thence, and they shall … attended to, either by a Recantation, if convinced, or else by Reasons given to t… contrary.

I shall therefore again, as I promised, repeat plainly, what I apprehend Etern… Justification to be, viz. That it is God's Eternal Will and Decree, not to punish the El… Sinner, though he would Transgress. And his will not to punish, is formally Pardon, in the Mind of God, and the non-imputation of sin.

'Tis I grant you his Decree; but this Decree is such an Act of Pardon, that has it …ll compleatness of being in it self from Eternity, before the Elect began to have a being, &c. …ven as the Act of Election and Reprobation. Mr. Rutherford Vind. gr. Pag. This Act doth no more pre-suppose the existency of its Object, than the Decree of Election doth.

As God's Eternal purpose, to set apart a determinate Number for Himself from E…ernity, was his actual Electing, and setting of them apart, as an Act in his own breast, …o in like manner, his Eternal Soveraign Pleasure, not to punish them, though Of…enders, is as compleat an Act of Pardon, in his own breast, and of his secret Will, as any can be.

Again, I think Eternal Justification is the Eternal good pleasure of his Will, that the Elect should be compleatly Righteous in the Righteousness of another, viz. his Son JESUS, and this is a compleat Judicial Act, Eternal and Immanent, as Mr. Ruther…rd affirms. The absolving Senten…e, as conceived in his Mind, by the Decree of Justify…g, as Dr. Ames asserts. Observe what he says; That in the very Decree of Justify…g, there is the very Sentence of Absolution or Justification, though not Pronounced, …et Conceived, Ratified and Recorded, in that Sovereign Will that is the Supreamest …aw, and High Court of Chancery.

'Tis this Eternal Pleasure of his good Will, is the fundamental Reason why a Sinner …ould be made and pronounced Righteous in the Righteousness of another: This does …ot arise from the nature of the Covenant of Works, nor any Transaction, but that Everlasting One between the Father and the Son. The Faith of a poor Creature must …o upon good Ground for receiving this Mystery, viz. his being compleatly Righte…us in a Righteousness without him, that is inherent in another. And where can it …eceive original Satisfaction, but from this Sovereign Act of God's Will, as revealed …d declared in the Word of his Grace? What Answer must be given to Sense (yea, …o Spiritual Sense) and fleshly Wisdom in this matter, but this? That a Gracious God has so ordained it as an Act of Sovereign Grace, which is that original Act, that …onstitutes and makes Persons, whilst in themselves imperfect and sinful, compleatly Righteous in the Eye of Justice and the Law, in Christ Jesus and his Righteousness, …rough a mysterious Commutation of Persons.

Lastly, I think Eternal Justification, is that Eternal Grant of the Father, to the Lord, …e Head of the Election, upon his Engagement to perform Conditions perfectly, of … Grace, and amongst the rest, of this of Justification to Life to Him and his, in that Compact ratified in Eternity between them both. Thus was the Promise of Eternal …ife given forth to us in our Head, before the World began, Tit. 1.2. And thus there …as not only Grace purposed in God acting Essentially, but Grace given forth from …od acting Subsistentially, by way of Covenant Transaction for us, before the Founda…n of the World, 2 Tim. 1.9.

This is all that I plainly mean by Justification from Eternity; and do sincerely de…re, that thereby I do not mean, That the actual Payment was made by Christ …om Eternity (though He engaged, and his Word was taken by the Father;) not …l mean, That the Elect had any Eternal Being, save of Futurity and Representa…ship; nor that God's Act was applied to them, as Personally Existing from Eter…ty, and no other to them personally, than in that Representative Being they had in …e Head. Nor that this Eternal Act hindered their being rooted in the First Adam, or placed for apparent Felicity upon the bottom of a Covenant of Works; nor did it secure them from falling thence into a state of Sin or Misery, in reference to the First Adam, and that Covenant, and this, in subserviency to the Covenant of Grace: Nor by Divine Ordination was this Eternal Act enough to rescue them from the visible apparent Curse of the Law, and manifest displeasure of Justice, without a Righteousness actually wrought out, and brought in for them: Nor was this secret Eternal Sentence to Justifie them in their own Consciences, till as declared and pronounced by ways of God's appointment, it was received into the Conscience of the Sinner actually existing, and actually Arraigned at the Bar of Conscience by the Faith of God's Elect, wrought in them by the irresistable Power of the Spirit of God.

Thus have I told my meaning of Eternal Justification; if I am Erroneous, I desire this Prefacer, or Mr. Coleman, or any other, from God's Word, and in the Spirit of Meekness, to endeavour my Conviction. But if the Prefacer, and our Opposers, judge the Fault only to lie in the wording of it, then I say, why this Heat and Displeasure meerly about Words? And especially, when they that affirmed, that these afore-mentioned Acts of God, may be properly enough stiled Justification, were Men of Eminent Parts, Godliness, Reading, Learning, and Skill in Polemical Divinity; such as Pemble, Twisse, Rutherford, Ames, besides Mr. Eyres, who are to this Day reputed justly by the godly Learned, to be as Famous Men as England bred, and never taxed with Antinomianism, except by Mr. B—r, and his Admirers: And not only so, but when these also gave such Reasons for their Judgment, as I have not seen hitherto Answered.

I say, the Prefacer had done well to have seriously weighed Mr. Eyres's Reasons, Page 89, 90, &c. why the Eternal Will of God not to Punish the Elect, should be called Actual Justification; and if he had not liked his Arguments, like a Christian, and a Disputant, from Scripture and found Reason, should have endeavoured to shew their weakness and absurdity. He should have considered, whether Justification be barely the declaring of a Sinner Righteous, or the Constituting also a Sinner, and making him Righteous; and given his Reasons, why 'tis only the former, and not the latter; and answer what is Alledged, for making or Constituting a Person Righteous: As,

1. That is Justification to which the definition of Justification does agree; but the Eternal Act of God's Will counting, and so Constituting the Elect Righteous in CHRIST's Righteousness, is according to the definition of Justification: Therefore, &c.

The Proposition is an undeniable Maxim. The Assumption leans, first, on that Definition the Scripture gives of it. See Psal. 32.1,2. compar'd with Rom. 4.6,8. as Explained by Mr. Eyres, Page 90. Secondly, on the usual Acceptation of it amongst Men. For Forgiveness amongst Men is principally an Act of the Heart; as when a Man purposeth in himself not to take Revenge, then he doth forgive. But,

2. The Word Justifie doth signifie in its Etymology, and common acceptation in the Civil Law, to make one just, as well as to declare one just; and Sinners cannot be made Just, but by two ways: first, either Infusion; or, secondly, Imputation of Righteousness. The first we deny, as Popish and false: For, 1. None by Infusion are made perfectly Righteous here, so as to answer the demands of the Law. 2. Yet if so, it would not do, unless also Satisfaction was made to Justice for Violations of the Law, by Sufferings of an infinite Nature. Then it must be by Imputation, and that Funda…ntally being an Act in God's Mind, is granted to be from Eternity.

3. God will not declare Persons Righteous, but those that are so in some real Sense other; for the Judgment of God is according to Truth; therefore the making or …stituting Persons Righteous, is as necessary an Ingredient unto Justification, as the …claring of them so to be. And they are made Righteous in the sight of Justice, only … Imputation, as afore proved.

4. The Acts of God's secret Will may have the same Name with those of his Re…led; nay, the Acts of his revealed Will borrow their Names from the Acts of his …ret Will. Thus God's manifesting his Love, is called his Love in Scripture Dia…; but yet it takes its Name from that everlasting good Pleasure of his Will towards …▪ So his Eternal Act is called his Election, and in like manner his Temporary Act …

And why not his Will to declare Sinners Righteous upon the account of another's …ghteousness, be called his Imputation of Righteousness, and consequently also, his …tification of them?

But instead of this there's nothing offered to invalidate Mr. Eyres's Arguments, and …ers, but, 1. That Letter frequently builds, viz. The difference between the Decree …d the Execution. 2. A misimproved Similitude. 3. Illogical Consequences.

The Objection started by him to make way for his Answer, is not fairly stated; and … Answer given, though consisting of many Lines, yet may be summed up into …s, viz. There is a distinction between the Decree to Justifie, and Justification it self. … God Decreed to Create the World from Eternity, but did not Create it till Time. To …ch I Answer;

1. That though there be a difference between the Decree, and the Execution of the …ecree, yet may not both be called by the same Name? As God's Eternal Will to …er all manner of Blessings on such and such, is called His Eternal Love towards …n, Jer. 31.3. Eph. 1.5. compar'd with Chap. 2.4. So his manifesting Love in …e, is called His love, or loving of them, Hos. His Eternal Will to bring them out of …ery, is called His Mercy, Psal. 103.17. And his actual bringing of them out of …ch an Estate of Misery, is also called, His having Mercy on them, Rom. 9.15,16, &c. …s Eternal Decree to call Persons out of Misery to Himself, is called His actual Ele…n of them, Eph. 1.4. And so his calling of them forth in time, is called in Scri…e Language, His Election, John 15.16, &c. Whence the Distinction among and Divines, of Eternal and Temporary Election.

2 We must distinguish between God's Decree of a relative Change, and that of a …l Change; the foundation of such Relation's being existing in the Immutable Pur…e of God, and the Relation exists as soon as the Foundation, and in this respect does … pre-suppose the Actual Existence of the Correlate. But 'tis sufficient, if they have Being of Futurity, or Representativeship.

God, in willing Persons to be Righteous in anothers Righteousness, doth not will to …ll, or count to count, but 'tis one continued Act in Him from Eternity: And from …rnity has its totum esse in se completur, as the Act of Election, &c. according to Mr. …herford, &c. Imputation is fundamentally an Act in God's Mind, and Acts in his …nd are Eternal. 'Tis true, God's Will to Create or Sanctifie, is his Act, but the …cution thereof, viz. Sanctification and Creation, is his Work, and therefore differ from his Decree to Justifie, and the Execution of it taken in an Active Sense. For … his Decree to Justifie is his Act, so the Execution thereof is, and take the Execution a… God's Act declaring; but which way you will, 'tis still but a Copy of the Original … his own Mind. Whence is inferred (if you will) this plainer distinction: There … difference between his Will to act an Act concerning us; for his very Will is the ver… Act in substance; and his Will to work a work upon a Subject. The difference between the Decree, and the execution thereof in the former, being no more than this▪ That it is so; and the appearing of it to be so. In the latter, the Execution is a Physical Change wrought upon the Subject. Therefore the Inference from the one to the other will not hold, for the Similitude halts.

2. All Similitudes in general do not prove; so this particular Similitude our Preface… brings to confute Dr. Twisse's, and Mr. Eyres's Definition of Justification, (Pag. 10. o… the Introduct.) does not illustrate any thing to the purpose. The Definition it meddle… not with; but only faintly strikes at another Assertion of Dr. Twisse's, viz. That Justification (I think the Doctor has it Christ's Righteousness) is ours afore we believe, in respect of right, &c. but though not in possession and enjoyment. The Dr. here distinguishe… truly between a bare right, and a right with a possession. The Prefacer, to overthrow his Distinction, uses the very same himself; For, says he — Can that Chil… be said actually to have the possession of that Estate long afore 'tis born? No, Dr. Twisse denies that, as well as he; and only affirms there is an undoubted right for them, but n… possession 'till they Believe. And the very same thing is said by the Prefacer, to enervate the Doctor's Distinction. The Difference would be quickly compounded, if he stop… here: But he advances such Distinctions to over-throw the Doctor's, as Subtle Scotus neve… found out. He distinguishes between right, and 1. proper right, 2. personal right, 3▪ virtual right, Pag. 10. l. 30. 32. Yet seriously this is but meer trifling, to please th… common sort of a Party, and not solid Argumentation: For such Distinctions a… without Foundation, which I prove by these Reasons: 1. 'Tis a known Maxi… amongst the Learned, Omne analogum per se positum stat pro famosi…ri significato, viz. Every Name of a thing …ut alone, is to be took in the most comprehensive Sense of tha… thing; so that the Word (right) comprehends all manner of Right, even personal, proper, actual, &c. Wherefore there can be no distinction between right, and actual, proper, personal right; for the Members of a Distinction ought not to be subordinate t… each other.

2. The Members of a Distinction ought to be opposite to each other, therefore th… opposite Member to a proper right is not right, but improper right, and then his Distinction runs thus: A Child afore he is born, has an improper right to an Estate conveyed to him by the firmest Conveyance in Law, but not a proper right; Ergo, th… Elect afore they believe, have an improper right, but not a proper right to Justification. So again, The lawful opposite Members of the Distinction to Personal, in this Position afore us is impersonal, or else I know not what; For though it be a good Distinction to say, to possess by, or in our own Persons, and possess in and by an Head an… Surety (Believers now possessing Heaven by their Head, the Fore-runner for them entered, yet in their own Persons they do not possess Heaven yet.) But notwithstanding 'tis no lawful Distinction that's framed between having a right in our Person, and a right in our Surety; for all right to Spiritual Blessings in an Head, is to Persons his Spiritual Seed and Members; nor is the Question concerned, whether they Exist, or no… p. 13Exist, for 'tis to Persons in esse Representativo, as well as esse Reali: And the Persons of the Election (in the same Sense) have a right to Spiritual Blessings, amongst which is Justification of Life, and that alone, by and in a Head or Surety: So that his Argument founded on this Distinction must run thus: As a Child afore he is Born has not a Personal, but an Impersonal Right; so the Elect, afore they Believe, have only an Impersonal, and not a Personal Right to God's Justifying Act: What then I pray? Did God, when He Justified them in their Head, Justifie them only as Things of Names, and not as Persons? I leave it to the Prefacer himself now to Judge, whether there be any thing of Solid Right in these Two Distinctions, when thus they are made to appear obvious in all their strength and weakness?

And now I pass on to consider his Third, between Right, and Virtual Right: The due Opposite of Vertual or Potential (which is one and the same) is Actual, and then thus his Distinction runs. The Elect afore Believing have a Potential Right, but not an Actual Right to Christ's Righteousness. For though Actual and Vertual, or Potential, be oppos…te Members of a Distinction, yet that Distinction cannot be applied to Right, as being that that subsists in God's actual Grant: And as is the Grant, so is the Right. And I cannot s…e there can be any Right, quatenus Right, but what's Actual. This will yet appear more plainly, if we enquire into the nature of Right amongst Men, as it adequates, to this the Election have to Blessings in a Spiritual Sense, even afore they Believe. A Right is that Equity and Justice, that entitles a Person not yet born, to an Estate by vertue of a grant from him, who has full power to grant it, contained in Writings Legally Signed and Sealed, and conveyed by way of Lineal Descent, or otherwise. This Grant is either conditional or unconditional; if conditional, the Ha…endum is suspended, 'till the Conditions be performed, and no Right does arise to the Party 'til then: But if unconditional, the Right then stands undoubted, assoon as the Grant is Legally Confirmed; unless the Granting Party has no Legal Power to make such Grants, or intending to deceive, leaves irreparable Flaws in the Writings: And in this respect then the Right becomes false, or at least dubious; so that this sort of Right may be divided into true or false, dubious or undoubted, conditional, or unconditional.

But there is no colour to distinguish them, with our Author, into proper, or improper, personal, or impersonal, actual, or potential: After the same manner, the Right of the Elect Number to Christ's Righteousness, and other Spiritual Blessings is …unded, and does arise from God's Eternal good Pleasure in Election, His Engagement …n the Eternal Compact, Published to them in a free and sure Promise, Ratified and …ealed by the Blood of Jesus, the grand Purchaser. In this Eternal Grant in the Decree and Compact, God had the individual Persons of the whole Election in his Eye. So had the Lord Jesus in his Eye every individual Person of them in his Engagement and Purchase: So that the Right is in it self actual, proper, real and personal; the Grant being actually and really made to the Persons of the Election, as considered in Christ their Head.

Let the Prefacer therefore speak out what he means, when he affirms the Right to …e Impersonal, Improper, and only Potential; sure it cannot be that 'tis a false Right, … that would reflect on God's Soverainty, or Faithfulness, or the security of the Covenant, God's Word and Oath, or the value and worth of the Obedience and Blood …f Jesus. Does he mean the Right is doubtful? A doubtful Title does arise from p. 14the afore-mentioned Flaws, and I do not think sure he means this, viz. That it is doubtful in it self, but only to the Conscience of a Sinner through Unbelief. But if by those Words are meant the Grant is conditional; then that is out of Doors also, since the Death and Obedience of the Lord Jesus, who performed all Conditions fully, unless it be for a new Law with milder Terms and Conditions: So that it appears by such Quibbling Distinctions, he more truely Fights with Shadows, than Mr. Eyres, or Dr. Twisse: And let me tell him, that Reflection upon Dr. Twisse, and Mr. Eyres, might have been better spared. Their Learned Adversaries will not account them Triflers, and would judge it Falshood in Men of Learning to do so. What then must that Censure be esteemed as dropping from the Pen of Mr. Coleman, and his Prefacer, Men whose Education is well known amongst their Neighbours; I fear no less than fulsom Vanity. But in fine, Dr. Twisse, and Mr. Eyres Assertion, concerning Eternal Justification, receives not so much as a scratched Face by this Similitude. And,

Thirdly, The less does he fail in his Attempts to overthrow it in his interspersed false Consequences at last, as shall be manifested in its due place.

Thus far have I laboured to try how far we can agree in the Prefacer's First Position, viz. That all the Chosen of God, &c. are decretively Justified from Eternity. I shall proceed now to the Second, viz.

That they are Vertually Justified at the Resurrection of Christ. And here I maintain;

1. That God the Father's Act towards Christ then, was his actual Justifying of Him, as our common Head and Surety.

2. That Christ, as our Surety in our room and stead, was actually Justified from all the Sins of the Chosen of God charged upon Him. Hence he was unloosed from the Bands and Chains of Death Judicially, and made to fit at the Right Hand of the Majesty on high.

3. That by this Act passed upon Christ, all his Spiritual Seed was actually Justified in Him, in respect of God's Act, and Christ's actual Justification in every Sense, as their Surety.

4. But yet they are not actually Justified with Christ, 'till their Believing; wherein they are made in some measure conformable unto the Resurrection of Christ: 'Till then they are not brought out of the Dungeon of a natural State; nor are the Fetters of Spiritual Death knocked off, 'till they receive, by Faith, that Justifying Act passed upon Christ into their own Consciences, whereby they are made to Rise with Him. And therefore, to be brief and plain, I thus word it:

The Chosen Ones are actually Justified in Christ ever since his Resurrection; but Vertually only with Christ, 'till they Believe; and so Dr. Goodwin Explains it: The Prefacer knows best whether we agree herein. However, this is my present Light, and I have worded my Judgment as plain as I can; Only here I must subjoyn, That Faith possesses in the Conscience, that Justifying Act of God passed upon Christ, as the Sinners Head and Surety. Here I forbear to argue, because I know not, but things being thus Explained, the Prefacer and I may be of a mind.

5. The Prefacer Asserts, That no Adult Elect Person is really and actually in Ʋnion with Christ, and actually Justified, afore he doth Belie…e on Him.

To which I say, 1. I shall not insist upon Union, that being not the Subject handled p. 15by Mr. Eyres, and some-what already being spoke to that, and may be some-what …ore hereafter.

2. I understand not that Limitation, viz. To Adult Elect Persons; for it plainly in…s Infants may be really and actually in Union with Christ, and actually Justified …ore Faith; and then it will need Explanation; Whether all Infants, or those that die … their Infancy? And if Infants in general, How come those that live to be Adult, to …e again their Actual Ʋnion and Justification, till recovered by Faith. But take it in …e softest Sense, it plainly implies, That there are two sorts of Actual Unions and Ju…fications; one to Elect Infants, or at least them that die in their Infancy, and another … Adult Persons Elect, which I confess I do not understand.

3. He grants himself real and actual Unition, which is Union on Christ's part afore …ey Believe.

4. Yet … far I agree with him, That no Person is actually Justified afore he …es Believe.

1. If you take Justification as God's Act terminated on the Conscience, as received … Faith.

Or, Secondly, If you take Justification in a Passive Sense, as the Effect of this Act … God, viz. The Soul being actually brought out of the Dungeon and Fetters of a …tural State (as rooted in the first Adam) into the Liberty of Christ Jesus, raised …om the Death of Sin, and quickned with Christ, and so in some measure made con…mable to the Resurrection of their Head Christ.

But if he means thereby, first, God's Eternal, non-imputing of Sin, was not real …d actual: Or,

Secondly, That Christ's Satisfaction upon the Cross was not an actual Payment: Or,

Thirdly, That Christ, when He rose from the Dead, took not out an actual, for…l, legal Discharge or Justification, for Himself, and all his Seed, the Chosen of …d: Or,

Fourthly, That He was not actually Justified in every Sense, as their Surety and …st-Fruits: Or,

Fifthly, That God's actual Discharge pronounced thus to Him, was not a general …al Discharge in the Court of Heaven, and at the Tribunal of Publick Justice, that …d been wronged, to the Elect, by the Denomination and Quatenus Elect; though … yet actually brought into the Conscience of this or that individual Elect Person, … Faith is wrought in them. If I say, he means these, or any of these, by being …ually Justified only when they Believe, then I must declare my Dissent from him; … besides what I have given already, am ready to give further Reasons for my …ent, if required by him, or any Body else: In the mean while I forbear to urge … further.

Page 5. He says Mr. Eyres, &c. seems to say, that neither God's Justice, nor his Holy …, doth charge Sin on any Elect Person, though under the Power of Ʋnbelief, and Vile, … Prophane. I Answer,

If by charging Sin upon the Person, he means,

1. The Condemning of Sin as Sin; We say, God's Justice, and Holy Law, Con…ns Sin as Sin, wherever they find it, though it be found upon the Persons of Be…ers themselves, whose Persons most grant to be actually freed from Condemnation.

2. If by Charging Sin upon their Persons is intended, that whoever breaks the Law, p. 16is a Breaker of the Law in his own Person; We say, That Believers themselves ar… in themselves found Transgressors of the Law, and break it daily, and come under th… Guilt of its Breaches in themselves. And that therefore their Righteousness, that Answers the Demands of the Law, consists not in their own personal Obedience, either … whole, or in part, but in the Obedience of their Head and Surety. How much mo… do we say, That the Law does charge Sin upon the Elect in a State of Nature in thi… Sense?

3. We also Judge the Holy Law charges Sin upon the Person of the Elect Unbeliever, as he is considered in himself, in that relation his Person had to the first Adam on the bottom of the Covenant of Works. But we do not seem, but roundly say, Tha… neither God's Justice, nor his Holy Law, can charge Sin upon the Person of such a… one, as the Eye of Justice views him in another, in that relation he stands to his Surety and that Covenant whose Conditions are perfectly fulfilled for him, by that Gloriou… Surety; for under such a consideration his transgressi…n is finished, his sin made an end of reconciliation made for him, and an everlasting righteousness brought in to cover him, Dan… 9.24. And who shall lay any thing to his charge? For 'tis …od that Justifies; who sha… condemn? It is Christ that died, nay rather, that is risen again, &c. Rom. 8.34,35.

4. We do also say, The Law does charge Sin upon their Consciences: For in every Execution there is a Charge pre-supposed: And whether the Conscience of an unconverted Sinner be under Security or Despair, 'tis a Law Execution there (as might b… shewed at large) the one being more sensible, the other more insensible: And in tha… Sense the whole Man is charged with Sin by the Law, as he stands at the Bar of Conscience. But as the same Person stands at the Tribunal of Justice in the Court of Heaven, he cannot be there justly charged; for Justice has there received for him full Satisfaction, and given out to him a full Discharge by his Surety, about 1700 Year ago.

Thus have I also endeavoured to State this Question aright: I have no Call yet t… Argue, 'till Opposition be made by the Prefacer, and others, to the Truth a… thus distinguished.

The Reason the Prefacer gives for his Thoughts, concerning Mr. Fyres, and other… is this; That Mr. Eyres had Asserted, Page 94, 95, 45. That all the Elect before Conversion and Faith, stand actuall… Reconciled to God, and Justified afore Him. In wha… Sense the Elect may be said then to be actually Justified, has been afore Explained And Mr. Fyres has done it substantially in Page 94, 95, &c. His Explanation thereo… himself might have been took by the Prefacer, if he pleased, and his Arguments Answered foot to foot (if he could, or else Silence, and not continued Accusation) ha… appeared most lovely in him. But to clear up Mr. Eyres meaning, That they sta… Actually Reconciled to God, &c. 'Tis to be observed, That Reconciliation in Scriptu… is two-fold.

First, On God's part, towards the Elect Sinner. Second, On the Sinners part towards God.

The Former again is two-fold.

1. That Eternally in God's Breast, viz. His Electing Love: For if He loved wi… such a Love from Eternity, is was inconsistent with Hatred and Irreconciliation.

p. 17Obj. But he loved them from Eternity only with a love of good will; but not with a love …f complacency.

Answ. 1. The distinction is not right. 2. If so, it would not invalidate the Argument.

1. The Distinction is not true: for according to the former Rules hinted about Distinction, the Members of the Distinction are not opposite; for the love of good will, (as Dr. Goodwin well proves) comprehends all in it, and therefore he chuses sometimes to call the latter the Love of Friendship, Commerce, or Communion. This Debate would be soon ended, if it was plainly stated, what is meant by this Love of Delight. By it must be meant, as far as I can judge,

1. God's Eternal Will to go forth by way of Union into the highest Creature-Communication. Or,

2. God's sight or vision from Eternity to Eternity, viewing the Persons of the Elect Number in Christ their Head compleat. Or,

3. God's accepting and delighting in the Approaches and Services of such Persons.

Or, 4. His manifesting himself to them, for to be enjoyed by them. Now therefore,

If the first is intended, the Members of the Distinction are not lawfully opposite, the one being subordinate to the other, and included therein. For what is the Eternal Love of God towards a Person, but his Will to give all good to that Person he shall be capable of receiving? This is his Love of good Will. The principal Good he Decreed to give, was Himself in our Natures, for Eternal Communion, this call (if ye …ill) his Complacency towards their Persons; so that in willing to give all good, he willed to give himself in Christ, to be Eternally enjoyed. So that here is no difference, …nd therefore no ground for such a Distinction.

It distinguishes between God's Will and Prescience, which Distinction is good in it self, but ill-applied to this Matter; for 'tis false and Non-sense, to limit his Prescience, (which is one Eternal View in Him, in which all things are from Eternity to Eternity, present to him, that he willed to be) to any time at all, but especially to limit them to the time of the Persons Believing. As if his glorious Knowledge of Vision never saw …he Elect Sinner in his Son, afore the Sinner by Faith sees and apprehends it in his Conscience. But if,

4. 'Tis granted the Distinction is true, it being between Love, as it is an Affection …n God, and the manifestation thereof in Time, or between the Decree and the Ex…cution of the Decree; and the latter Branch thereof, well timed and limited to Con…ersion; but then the wording of it thus is very exceptionable: For,

1. Without a constant limitation, it confounds his Love, and the manifestation …ereof.

2. It has a tendency to the understanding of the Hearer, to pare and parcel out the …lorious Love of Election, and so depretiate it to the Minds of Multitudes; which to my …rief I know to be practically true.

3. Most blasphemous Errors about Electing-Love have shrouded under the Distin…on as thus worded, (which I know to be true too) and therefore would it not be …ore according to the plainness and simplicity of the Gospel to word it thus. God does … manifest his Love to Sinners but in a way of Believing; or, he never accepts and …lights in their Approaches and Services afore Faith. Or, there can be no Commu…n had with him afore they Believe.

p. 18I am not soon persuaded to reject an old received Distinction or Expression, used by godly Men with a good intent; but when it is made use of to darken the Counsel of God, and becomes a Word without Knowledge; and when it is perverted to stumble the Weak, to confirm the Ignorant, to shelter Errors, and to darken Truth, 'tis time to reject it, especially this that is Anti-scriptural: The Scriptures of Truth affirm the contrary, viz. That God declares himself well pleased with Elect Sinners before they have Faith. It was the Sum of the Gospel the Angels Preached at the Incarnation of Christ, Luke 2.14. Glory to God on the Highest, Peace on Earth, good Will towards Men. Good Will here is foreign, which is best rendred Well-pleasingness, Delight or Complacency: And so the Word is rendred by the same Translators, Mat. 3.17. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 'Tis the same Word here as in Luke, only here 'tis a Verb, and in Luke a Noun. Other places might be added, but let this plain Proof suffice to evidence, that 'tis an Un-truth against the very Letter of the Scripture, to say, That God loves not his Children afore Conversion, with a Love of Complacency, when the Angels at Christ's Incarnation, in their Heavenly Anthems, warbled it forth, and when the Father himself declared it towards our Head and Surety, at his Baptism, Mat. 3.17. and Consummately at his Resurrection: And whatever he declared to his Son, as the Surety of the Election, the same, at the same time, he declared to the Election in him.

Thus have I proved this Distinction, as commonly used, to be faulty; but yet if it were admitted, and take but along with it the Sense, wherein several that use it hold, Electing Love from Eternity towards the Persons of the chosen Ones, it would not re…ate the edge of the Argument in the least, viz. That whomsoever God loved with such a Love from Eternity in his own Breast, he could not possible hate, and be irreconciled unto them; but 'tis true, (past all sober contradiction) Reconciliation on his part was in his blessed Mind to them from all Eternity.

2. The Second Branch of the Distinction is God's Act in declaring and manifesting his Reconciliation to them, which again is two-fold.

1. Reconciliation declared to them in general, by their Surety, when he had perfectly fulfilled all Covenant Conditions in their room and stead, Isa. 59. ult. 2 Cor. 5.19. Dan. 9.21.

2. When 'tis declared to, and revealed through the Organ of Faith to the Conscience of a Sinner, Eph. 5.8,9. Rom. 5.11.

All this may be fitly called Actual Reconciliation on God's part. But,

Secondly, There is in the Scriptures a Reconciliation said to be on our part. And here, pray observe, that the Scripture-Dialect bends most this way, to shew that God has Reconciled Sinners to himself, and not himself to Sinners, as might be manifested at large, if Brevi…y were not intended. But,

This Distinction on our part may be also distinguished into that, that's Radical and Fundamental, viz. in our Root and Head, 2 Cor. 5.19. Rom. 5.10. which consists in the actual Atonement we made in our Surety at his death. Or,

2. That which on our part is actual in our Consciences, viz. When we are made by Grace to lay aside our Enmity in part against our blessed God and Father, 2 Cor. 5.20. To be sure this cannot be, 'till Faith is wrought in the Heart, Rom. 5.1.

Now 'tis evident that Mr. Eyres means that which is on God's part actually declared at the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, even that actual Reconciliation obtained by the p. 19compleat Satisfaction of our Surety; (as Dr. Twisse proves against Arminius very sub…tantially;) and therefore his words cannot be tortured and wrested to another meaning, without breach of Christian Love.

The same Answer may suffice to what is Excepted against some Passages of his, in Pag. 46. That the Elect were thus freed, delivered, made compleat, &c. in Christ their Surety and Representative, and Justified in that actual Justification He received for them, …d in their stead, though they receive it not into their Consciences 'till Faith.

What follows in the Preface, Page 6. to explain the Prefacer's meaning, I approve: And were it not for those odious Consequences he has insinuated to spring from Mr. Eyres's Notions, (who has so accurately, solidly, and plainly delivered his Judgment about the timing of Justification) I should in that Explanatory Instance of his, have given him the right Hand of Fellowship, and so have ended the Debate.

But the Absurdities he pretends to fix, savour not of a Christian Spirit, which moves me a little to review them. Our Notion of Eternal Justification at the time of Christ's Resurrection, and by Faith have been so plainly opened and stated, that to the godly Wise it would be a superfluous thing to vouchsafe a particular Examination of his wild Consequences; they can easily see they are all nothing to the purpose. But for the …ake of weak ones (who judge that enough is said to a Position that suits with their …ark Minds) when nothing is said at all to any good purpose: And (when no An…er is given to a Fallacious Argument, they judge it cannot be Answered) I shall enter …pon an Examination of those Absurdities, he alledges, follow from our Notion of …stification.

The first Absurdity charged is,

1. That it confounds (1.) Election and Justification. (2.) The Decree, and the Ex…ution of the Decree.

Answ. Both these have been Answered already; but as to First, to what has been …lready said, I shall subjoyn Mr. Eyres's Answer in his own Words, Page 92. saith he, …ey may be both of them Immanent Eternal Acts, and yet not confounded. Indeed all dif…rent Immanent Acts are but one simple Act in God, in whose Decrees there is no Priority … Posteriority, quoting Hilary, Omnia, &c. — Yet in our consideration they receive …cient distinction from their various Objects, and our various Application of them. And … Election and Justification are distinguished; Election includes both the end, which is the …y of God's Grace, and all the Means, from the beginning to the end, conducing …reunto. His Will not to Punish includes, precisely and formally, only some part of the …ans.

To the Second he may remember what has been Alleadged, That 'tis not confoun…g the Decree and Execution, viz. his Secret and Revealed Will, to call them by … same Name.

2. If to Constitute Righteous be Essential to God's Justifying a Sinner (as has been …oved) as well as pronouncing him Righteous. There the one belongs to the Decree, …d the other to the Execution, and are not Confounded: For to Constitute Righte…s, and to Pronounce Righteous, are two distinct things, and do differ as Eternal …ection and Temporary Election do. And as in Election Eternal and Temporary, …e is no Confusion of the Decree, and the Execution thereof; so 'tis in Eternal Justi…ion, and Justification in Time.

3. Justification, as being the thing willed, is two-fold:

p. 201. The same God Acting as one in Essence Decretively, in the same Act of Eternity, acting subsistentially, passes the Decree into a Covenant Transaction, between the Father and the Son, with the whole Election, his Seed considered in him: In which Covenant the Father Promised to the whole Election, John 1.2. by their Head set up from Everlasting, Prov. 8.22. Justification of Life. This Covenant Transaction is under some Considerations, the Effect of the Decree, and therefore the thing willed as it was in Eternity.

2. The thing willed is in time, viz. An Act passed to the whole Election by Christ their Surety, Rom. 8.34. when raised from the dead, Rom. 6. ult. And this Act also terminated on their Consciences in Believing. Now there is a difference between God's Act of Willing in Eternity, and the first Effect of Sovereign Pleasure, viz. Covenant Transaction between the blessed Persons in Eternity. 1. The first being an Act of God considered as one in Essence. The 2d. an Act of God considered as Three, in the manner of subsisting, or Three Persons. 2. The one is a Decree, the other really a Covenant. 3. The former advances his Love and Soverainty, the latter, together therewith, his Faithfulness and Truth. 4. This Act under the former Consideration, sets up an everlasting Mediator; but under the latter Consideration supposes him as set up already; so that where there is such material ground for Distinguishing, there can be no confusion.

Again, there is a difference between res volita in Eternity, even in the Eternal Compact, and res volita in Time; even this Eternal Covenant promulgated divers ways, and at sundry times, but consummately in the publick, visible Transaction, between the Father and Jesus Christ (actually existing in our Natures in the fulness of Time) even from the Cradle to the Throne of the Majesty on High. 1. The one is an Act Secret, the other Revealed. 2. The one Eternal, the other Temporal; so that besides the Decree being Eternal, the thing decreed, in a sense, is proved to be Eternal, and differs from the manifestative Execution in Time. So that 'tis plain, the Assertion of Justification in the Eternal Compact, does not confound the Decree, and the Execution thereof. This Absurdity of the Prefacer seems to have most weight in it of all his sixteen, therefore I have repeated and urged anew, what Answers were cast in interspersedly afore. His

Second is — Then the Elect never fell in the first Adam, &c. 'Tis intended for an Hypothetick Syllogism; and thus it should run. If the Elect fell in the first Adam, and there was a time when they were under the guilt of Sin, and were Children of Wrath, then they were not Actually Justified from Eternity; but the former is true, and therefore the latter. To which I Answer:

1. The Syllogism is false. For from affirming the Antecedent, it proceeds to den the Consequent. And in all Hypothetick Syllogisms that concludes Negatively; the Rule is, To advance from denying the Ant…cedent, to deny the Consequent, and the contrary theret… is faulty: so is this Syllogism of our Antagonists.

2. The Connexion is false; 'tis a meer non sequitur. It should have been a particular Negative Branch of an Universal Negative; but 'tis not so. That which is understood by Justification from Eternity, is distinct from what is intended by Justification in Time. And so Non-Justification from Eternity is distinct from that whic… is Non-Justification in Time. The former is Reprobation, the latter is God's Judicia… Se…tence of Condemnation. And the former of both is not comprehended under the p. 21latter of both. But enough of this. 'Tis my Duty to make it plain to the Capacities …f all God's Children, if the Spirit strikes in with it

Let the Godly Reader know, That we hold not the Actual Existence of the Creature …rom Eternity; nor that the Election, as actually Existing, was actually guilty of the Breaches of a published Law; nor that the Blessed Mediator had, as existing in our Flesh, actually, publickly, and visibly performed Covenant Conditions for them; or that they had received an actual Discharge into their Consciences, for all these Tenents we abhor: But only, that God's Eternal Imputation of Righteousness to them, was an Act of God; therefore no need to load us with such direful Consequences. And unless they can prove these to be our Principles, their Consequences are to no purpose, but meer forged slanders cast upon Persons and Truths. I cannot but think they know in their Consciences we hold no such Principles; and how they will acquit themselves of throwing Calumnies upon the Truth and Us, will be known one Day. But to repeat again our Sentiments concerning Eternal Justification. It is an Act of God's Sovereign Pleasure, constituting Persons Righteous in the Righteousness of another, and Eternally Promising to the Lord Redeemer, a Discharge to them every manner of way, upon his Engagement to perform Covenant Conditions perfectly for them. Now let the Impartial Reader Judge, whether it can follow from these Principles, That the Elect must not fall in Adam? No, but the quite contrary; for,

1. This Sovereign Will, and Compact of God, that unalterably fixes the end, fixes all the Means conducing thereunto; and this is one of the principal Means, that they should of themselves lose their own personal Righteousness in Adam their Head, that … they might be alone compleatly Righteous in the Righteousness of a Redeemer.

2. So far as they are to be understood to have a Representative being in their everlasting Head, so far as considered in Him they were never otherwise than Rig…teous. And this hinders not, but in that relation they had to Adam their Head, since the Fall, they are Guilty and Unrighteous: since Believers themselves, here, as in Christ have no Condemnation: As considered in themselves, or Adam their Root, have the Sentence of Death and Condemnation.

Thirdly, His Third Consequence is this, viz. That Actual Justification is not, cannot be the Declaring, Pronouncing, &c.

The force of his Argument lies here, viz. That Actual Justification is only the Declaring and Pronouncing an ungodly, guilty, and condemned Sinner, Just and Righteous through Christ's Righteousness: Therefore there cannot be in any Sense Actual Justifi…tion from Eternity. Whereunto I thus Reply:

1. That there is a Justification from Eternity, which he here grants.

2. But he would not have it Actual: If by Actual he means an Actual Discharge …n the Conscience, and an Actual Conformity (in measure) to Christ's Resurrection, I am of his Mind. But if he means it in reference to God, the Sentence conceived in God's Mind, (as Dr. Ames says) from Eternity was Actual, it being an Act of God. And when we speak of Justification Analogously, 'tis generally understood of God's Act, and of that Act which the Scriptures call counting Sinners Righteous in the Righteousness …f another, which is indeed an Act of his blessed Mind. And therefore I know not …hy Persons should be offended at the Word Actual Justification from Eternity. For if there was any Justification at all from Eternity, it was only God's Act in his own Breast, and therefore could not be any thing but Actual.

p. 22Fourthly, His Fourth Consequence is, That by this Notion the Elect are twice Justified, &c. And it makes a posterior and collateral Act in God.

It runs thus: There is no posterior or collateral Act in God, therefore there can be no Actual Justification from Eternity.

Answ. 1. What we mean by Actual, has been already Explained. 2. But I know not what he means precisely, (1.) by Posterior or Collateral Acts: And (2.) by joyning them both together in his Argument. 3. We make Justification, as it is an Act in God, to be one continued unchangeable Act from Eternity, which appears to be a plain Consequence from our Positions. 'Tis this very thing makes us contend for Justification from Eternity, because Justification really is fundamentally an Act of God's Mind, and all Acts of his Mind are Eternal and Unchangeable. The blasphemous Inferences of Acts arising de novo in God's Mind, towards Elect Sinners, we endeavour to Fence against, by Asserting Eternal Justification. And the Position, as we hold it, effectually destroys them; and yet must the Principle be accused of countenancing and indulging those horrid things 'tis directly shaped to oppose and quash?

4. Justification from Eternity, and Justification at the Resurrection of Christ, differ but as God's Secret and Revealed Will does; and there is no other Distinction between them. God's Secret and Revealed Will are not two Acts in God; his Revealed Will is but the Declaration of the Acts of his Mind; and that Act is but one and the same with the Act of his Mind: An Acquittance in the Heart of the Creditor, and in a Paper. A Pardon in the Heart of a Prince, and Enrolled (as Mr. Eyres well says) is one and the same; this Manifested, and the other Secret.

5, Justification pronounced may be at sundry times, and in divers manners, and yet but one and the same Act. And as Mr. Eyres adds, Page 105. Though there are never so many Copies written forth in several Hands, they do not make many Acquittances, or many Pardons, being but the Transcripts of one Original. And though God's Love in his Breast, and this Love as testified divers ways and times, both in Old and New Testament, multiplies not Acts of Love in God, but is one and the same Act of Love in Him. The same may be said of Justification as it is an Act of God's Secret Will, and as it is an Act of his Revealed Will, and as Revealed at various Seasons, and in variety of ways. Good Men, counted Sound, Pious, Learned and Intelligent, have differed among themselves in ascribing Justification to several Periods, yet for the most part Judged not one another Antinomian: Nor this Inference just and lawful from thence, viz. There are posterior Acts in God. Alsted, Pemble, Twisse, Rutherford, Ames, Eyres, Crandon, &c. Judged that God's Eternal Act, viz. Actus volendi, might properly enough be termed Justification, and yet denied not all the various Acts of his Revealed Will.

The rest, that limits Justification to an Act of his Revealed Will, yet have vastly differed as to the Timing of it: Macovius judges it to be then, when the first Promise of Grace was given forth to Adam and Eve.

Dr. Goodwin, though he says we are Virtually Justified in Christ, in respect of our Consciences, yet he asserts, That Christ as the Sinners Surety, took out at his Resurrection, a real, actual, formal Discharge, in his own Name, and the Name of the whole Election; which is that great Original Discharge they receive into their Consciences in Believing. According to him 'tis in Christ actually as a Root; and it follows, if the Life of a Tree be actually in the Root, that Tree may properly enough be said p. 23… actually alive. If I mistake not, Witsius compounds both together, alleadging, …hat Justification was initially in that Promise, diversly afterwards, with gradual …earness declared; but consummately at Christ's Resurrection. Dr. Crisp times it to …e first actual Being of the Elect Sinner. Dr. Burgesse periods it first at Infant Baptism, …hich he affirms is an Initial Justification at the Tribunal of Christ in his Church; …d he makes his Initial to mean little less than our Actual: And indeed, it can be …o less than an Act of Christ Ministerially by his Church; according to that, Mat. 8.18. Whomsoever ye loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. If this Church Act …inisterially be not founded upon an Antecedent Act of God, published concerning the …eed of the Godly Indefinitely, 'tis altogether insignificant. I confess, they that are not for …fant-Baptism, are not so much girt by this, as they that are for it. However, he …otes for his Opinion the Primitive Fathers, the Confessions of the Reformed Churches, …e Protestant Divines abroad of the chiefest Note, and the most Eminent at home, …nd lastly, the Doctrine of the Church of England, Established by Law; so that they …d need be Silent as well as others.

Others again have fixed the Timing immediately afore Faith, in order of Nature, …ough not of Time. Mr. Cotton, quoted by Dr. Chauncy, to whom seem to agree, …ideaux, Calvin, Luther, Austin, Mr. VValker, &c. And what if there be some that …ive its first Period to the Infused Principle, rather than Act of Faith. But lastly, …veral affirm, That Justification is after Faith.

And after all, it might be no hard task to reconcile all these Opinions, and shew …hat Truth there was in each of them, depending like Links in a Chain one upon …nother. But my design in reciting these, is to shew the different Opinions of Men, …enerally counted very sound, about the Timing of Justification. And that 'tis to be …ought no understanding godly Person will say, That these made divers. Acts, or Poste…or, or Collateral Acts in God of Justification.

The godly Reader may see this Objection fully Answered by Mr. Eyres, Page 105, …6. And yet the Prefacer throws it in again, without taking any notice of Mr. …yres's Arguments to overthrow it; either because he would say something, or because … thinks any thing said on this Subject will pass as current Reason: But this is not to Answer Mr. Eyres, but a resolution to have the last Word of him. And so he, and …em of his Kidney, may easily have of us, for were we fond of drawing the Saw of Con…ation meerly for the sake of the last Word, we have neither Leisure nor Money to do … But I pass on to his next.

Fifthly, His Fifth is rather a new Charge than one in the Catalogue of Absurdities; …less 'tis propounded (as by one of late in a publick Debate) for the sake of another …onsequence in its belly: But, however, this is my Answer:

1. That the Protestants have made a Distinction formerly, between Faith Justify…g, and being Justified by Faith; or between Faith which Justifies, and Faith whereby …e are Justified. But let it pass, as he words it, with a candid Construction. Faith …stifies, or we are Justified by Faith, must be understood properly, or improperly: improperly, or by a Metonomy, then the meaning is the Object of Faith Justifies; and … this Sense we abhor to say, Faith only Justifies declaratively; for so taken it Justifies …aterially, &c.

p. 242. If Faith be understood in a proper Sense, 'tis in reference to 1. Its Habit. 2. … Act. Or, 3. Both. If Faith Justifies properly in reference to its Habit, it can be n… other than a Supernatural Light of Life, going along with the Object manifestin… or his Divine Beam, as forming its own Image within, and so imprest upon the So… And take it in the latter Sense (which is most congenuine to an inward Principle) y… still I would fain know, what is it but a Divine Living Light infused there, which both Light and Eye conveyed by the applied Object, suited to view the Object as precious, for the Manifestation or Declaration of it self? And again, what is this Obje… but God's Justifying Act through Christ, and his Righteousness? That the Object … Justification is such, is taken for granted; being not the Matter in Controversie. Th… the infused Principle of Faith is an impressed Light of Life, manifesting the Object t… the blind Soul, to be suitable, precious, and excellent, is as plain and evident fro… the Scriptures of Truth. The Holy Scriptures do attest, 1. That God the Father i… working this inward Principle, did it by Discovering or Revealing. Mat. 11.2… And thou hast revealed them unto Babes. Add hereto Mat. 16.17. And that this is not bare outward, but inward Revelation, appears by comparing these places with Gal. 1▪16. — To reveal his Son in me. Which Expressions do evidently declare, what the Father does in Infusing the Principle of Faith.

2. They do set forth, That the Second Person, as He Co operates in this Infusio… in the Principle of Faith, does it by Revealing, Declaring, Discovering, &c. See Ma… 11.27. and other places.

3. They evince, That the Spirit, as the immediate Efficient, works this inwar… Principle, by Revealing or Discovering, &c. John 15.26. — Chap. 16. ver. 14, 15▪ 1 John 5.8.

4. They also bear witness, That the Gospel Preached, as the principal, externa… instrumental means, operates also by Revealing, Rom. 1.16,17. I might add mor… but let these suffice, which I draw up into this Argument. If all Causes that concu… to produce the inward Principle of Faith, according to the Scripture, be said to op… rate by Revealing, Declaring, or Words of the very same import, then it follow… That Faith, if it may be said to Justifie as an infused Principle, can Justifie no othe… wise but declaratively, &c.