Argument I shall in the strength of Christ evidence that the Law of Nature or Works is not a hindrance to the Gospels being a Law but that the Gospel is another Law distinct in its Precept and Sanction and other respects 1. The Gospel is distinct in its preceptive part from the Law of Innocency Faith in Christ was never commanded by that Law To say Faith in God was a Duty is a vain Objection for Faith in Christ as a Saviour is specified from its Object and is distinguished into temporary historical saving c. The Faith that Mr. C. saith Adam was wounded in was meerly a Faith of Assent which the Devils have or a natural Trust in God as Creator But what 's that to a receiving of Christ or consent to him as Redeemer and relyance on him Of which more by and by Is it not strange that Mr. C. saith The Law never brings us to God then Faith doth not for it's part of the Law c. But let 's hear what others speak Mr. Hooker of New E. p. 337. saith I flatly deny that Adam if the Lord Jesus had been revealed to him was able to believe in him and so to rest upon him c. the Reason to confirm this Point that Adam had not this Grace of Faith is this this believing in the Lord Jesus is that which doth directly cross the Estate of Adam in his Innocency c. He to p. 343. proves it and answers Objections P. 338. to one he thus says I answer that not believing in the Lord Christ is not a Sin against the Moral Law but it is a Sin against the Law of the Gospel 1 Ioh. 3. 23. Rom. 3. 28. Mr. Bulkley p. 327. lays down this That Faith in Christ unto Justification and Salvation the Commandment enjoyning this Faith is no Commandment of the Law but of the Gospel which I prove by these ensuing Arguments This he doth by no less than nine Arguments and answers many Objections from p. 327. to 335. and thus concludes Thus far we are come that the putting of Faith as a Condition of Life in the Covenant of Grace doth no whit derogate from the freeness of Grace D. Goodwin affirms That Faith now is of another kind than the Faith of Adam As to the Principle Objects Light c. ours is supernatural his natural and as you may see at large proves by several Reasons that his was but natural as 1. All other things belonging to him were natural c. and therefore it would be strange that if the Principle of Faith in him which then was not of general use should be supernatural c. 2. For him to have a supernatural Principle of Faith as we have was in him superfluous and vain This he shews because Adam's Covenant would not have brought him to Heaven 3. It would not only have been of no use but it would have made him miserable 4. And therefore our way of Faith must needs be supernatural and altioris ordinis from his c. which he proves 1. in the respect of the Objects revealed to our Faith which his Mind should never have arrived at 2. in regard to the Light by which our Minds are acted and elevated 3. in respect of the way or manner of Knowledge or Assent raised up thereby I might add the Testimony of one whom Mr. C. honoured who gives this reason in the present Debate saying viz. If Consent to the Covenant was a Duty by the Law then the Law did bind to its own dissolution But I suppose this may serve to shew that Faith in Christ was no Duty by the Law of Nature and therefore either it is a Command of the Gospel-Law or it is no Duty at all The like I might shew of Repentance which Melancthon's Followers prove against Flaccius Illyricus Obj. If any one should object Did not the Law of Nature bind us to do whatever God should at any time require A. You must consider 1. the Law of Nature less properly as the Rule of Happiness in the Covenant of Innocency and so it was appropriated to that state and was a particular Law of Works If so considered the several Precepts of it were written on Man's Heart and God and the Creatures ministred Instruction to the innate Light which was inherent in our Minds and that in a natural way Some Ruins of both are still preserved to fallen Man Rom. 1. 19 20. Cap. 2. 14. In this sence Faith and Repentance could have no place at all in the Law for it was a Law to govern and save Innocent Man but not to recover Sinful Man To suppose our own Perfection to be the Condition of Life and yet to be obliged at the same time to repent of Sin or believe in an aâ—…oning Saviour to have our Abilities immediately from God as Creator and a Stock in our own Hands and yet be obliged to depend on Christ as Mediator for all Strength are utterly inconsistent 2. If you take the Law of Nature for the remaining Instincts and Notices of it in Man which ought to be perfect and assisted and directed by the Works of God sure the Gospel must be another Law or else Heathens are able to find out Christ by the Book of Nature and engaged to receive him and rely on him though he were never revealed to them The reason is this the Law of Nature in this sence binds all the Heathens and its Precepts are engraven naturally upon their Hearts and God and his Works consider'd naturally direct their Minds 3. The Law of Nature may be considered most generally viz. as it is an Obligation upon Man to believe and obey whatever God shall any way or time reveal and require and to suffer for Disobedience what God shall threaten In this sence indeed the Law commands all Duty in general but it doth not deny the Gospel to be a special Law for this indeed doth oblige us to obey all God's Laws when he makes them Laws but it doth not determine any one Law nor give a Being to one particular Precept It 's the Foundation of our Obligation to submit to God's Authority as Creatures but appoints not wherein we must instance that subjection It 's the same as an Obligation among men to Allegiance to the supreme Power which I hope prevents not the Ruler's Acts to be Laws This Law of Nature subjects us to God's Threatnings which he shall pronounce at any time for Sin but determineth neither the sort nor degree of the threatned Evils This Law is common to good Angels Devils innocent Man fallen Man yea damned and glorified Man for they are all engaged as Creatures to obey the Laws of God when he enacts them and suffer what he threatens if they obey not But is the Gospel therefore no Law or only this Law of Nature Then Angels Devils and the Damned are obliged to believe in Christ for Salvation Do not say
God doth not require this of them for they are under this Law of Nature and so he doth require it of them or else it is some distinct special Law whereby he requires it of others and not of them By this Notion God never made any Law beside this one Law of Nature no positive Law no ceremonial Law for this Law of Nature did bind Man to observe them when God was pleased to command them and yet they were special Laws for all that And why then must the Command of Faith in Christ and Repentance for Remission be no Law when God commands them because the Law of Nature requires us to obey them when God doth command them What a Government do these men assign to God who allow him but one and the same Law to govern the whole Creation by when their state and circumstances be so different though all are his Creatures 4. As for such as confound the Law of Nature with the Law to Israel as taken into the Covenant of Grace I shall not think fit to say more to than this Though the carnal Iews did turn it into a Covenant of Works as if their imperfect Obedience and chargeable Sacrifices were the very Righteousness for which they were justified and so neglected Repentance and Faith in the Promise of Forgiveness for the sake of Christ who was typified in their Sacrifices nevertheless it was a Law of Faith and Repentance as Wittichius calls it p. 106. in cap. 2. v. 25. and therefore such great Titles are given it in the Old Testament and not as such is it opposed by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament it was the base perverting of it as exclusive of Faith in Christ and as opposing Gospel Institutions by Jewish Ordinances that he reprehends See Calvin on Ps. 19 9. he states the difference between the Law commended by David and as represented by Paul and saith that Paul had to do with the perverse Interpreters of the Law which separated it from the Grace and Spirit of Christ c. and sums up all in these words Haec diversa legis acceptatio c. This different acceptation of the Law easily reconciles the seeming difference in the words of David and Paul because Paul's purpose is to shew what the Law of it self viz. as it sincerely requires the Duty we owe to God without the Promise of Grace can do in us or for us but David commends the whole Doctrine of the Law which is the same with the Gospel and therefore includes Christ therein See Mr. Ball 's Arguments for the Covenant with Israel being the Gospel-Covenant and how the Precepts were Gospel-Precepts Indeed it 's true the matter of the Ten Commandments were much of the matter of the Law of Innocency but God did not deliver it to his Church as a Law to innocent Man but to fallen Man for his direction and recovery Therefore when any Authors take the Law as given on Sinai to be the Covenant of Grace they deny Faith to be commanded Adam in Innocency though they grant it requir'd in the Law at Sinai 2. The Sanction of the Gospel is not the same with the Law of Innocency which I shall evidence in the promissory and minatory parts I 'll begin with the promissory part I. The promissory part of the Gospel differs from that of the Law of Innocency 1. There are many things promised in the Gospel which that Law never promised Did that Law ever promise Union with Christ or the indwelling Spirit or Forgiveness of Sin or Perseverance Surely no But the Gospel doth all this Nay Dr. Goodwin urgeth many Arguments to prove that the Reward of Adam was to be only a continuance in the same Life he had in Paradise and not a translation to Heaven 2. The Rewards of the Law of Works were not promised on the same account as the Benefits promised by the Law of Grace be those were on the account of Works as a meriting Righteousness ours are by Free Grace on the account of Christ's sole meriting Righteousness Dr. Goodwin saith The Reward of the Law was in a just sence due of Debt unto the Creature and that from God Not that God can owe any thing to his Creature or be obliged for any thing to him but because in a way of natural Justice or rather Comeliness and Dueness such as is by the Law of Creation to be between a just Creator and a holy Creature there is an approbation due to him from God whilst that Creature obeys him and that as a Debt of Nature But I say all the claim we have is for Christ and ex pacto as the Free Promise assureth us 3. The Benefits are promised on different terms By the Law all was for perfect Sinless Obedience but the Gospel promiseth Pardon upon our true repenting and believing and we forfeit not our Interest in its Blessings if our Faith be effectual and persevering in sincere Holiness and Obedience 4. The Law of Adam did not justifie till the whole time of the trial of Obedience was finished It 's true it did continue the Blessings he had while he sinned not but it did not fix his state of Happiness till his trial was over but the Gospel puts us in a justified state upon our first believing II. The threatning part of the Gospel differs from that in Adam's Law 1. The Evils threatned are not wholly the same Here 's not only Death but that in sorer degrees Heb. 10. 29. 12. 25. God's Wrath will be more poured out and Conscience will find matter of sorer Reflections Here 's a privation of Christ and his Spirit and Pardon We are not only without them but we are barr'd from them because of our wicked refusal when they were sincerely offer'd us after our Apostacy If the Gospel were no Law we could not be obliged to more Misery than Adam brought us under yea and Adam could not be our full Representative in his Covenant if we are capable of encreasing our Misery by that Law without disobedience to a new one 2. The Gospel doth not denounce Death for the same Sins as Adam's Law did that Law threatned Death for the least Sin yea for one Sin but the Gospel threatens Death not for every Sin it doth not bar every Sinner from actual Relief but the impenitent unbelieving and utterly ungodly Hypocrite 3. The Gospel binds not Damnation on us unless we are finally impenitent Unbelievers If at any time of life we truly repent and believe we shall find Mercy but Adam's Law denounced him miserable on his first Sin III. There be a great many other Differences viz. in Adam's Law God acted as meer Creator in the Law of Grace he acts as Redeemer as well as Creator in Adam's Law Men were considered as innocent and sinless in the Gospel we are considered as Sinners by that Law God governed us as happy in order to
a Law 1 Iam. 4. 12. 2 1 Ioh. 3. 23 3 Mark 16. â—…5 16. Proved that the Gospel is a Law 1 1 Thess. 1. 5. 11. 2 Col. 2. 18. Heb. 11. 26. Mat. 6. 4. 3 Rev. 22. 14. Iohn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iohn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 2. 3. See my Book Cap. 20. Acts 2. 37 38. Acts 16. 30 31. Of the judgment-day * Ioh. 12. 48. Of Iust. p. 10. Rev. 20. 12. Mr. C's Obj. the Article is wanting A Sanction makes it a Covenant of Works A Law Sanction Every Sanction excludes not Grace The Gospel Sanction infers not merit The new Covenant hath a Sanction Of Iustif. 166 167. A Sanction doth not make the Gospel a Law of Works * Gal. of coming to Christ p. 170. Ball son Covenant p. 114. The Action of Faith is not excluded in Ro. 3. 27 28. How Faith justifies as a Condition tho' it be an Act. Paul affirms the Gospel to be a Law yet not a Law of Works Bulkley of Gospel Covenant p. 325. Ball of the Covenant p. 17. Mr. C. obj No Law but the Law of Innocency The Gospel is not the law of Adam The Gospel differs in its Precepts from Adam's Law Mr. Hooker Souls Effect Calling Bulkley of Gospel Covenant D. Goodwin in 2 vol. of the Creatures c. lib. 2. cap. 7. p. 5â—… to 63. The Law as in Innocency not the gospel-Gospel-law The Law as natural in fâ—…lnmen not the gospel-Gospel-law The general Law of Nature â—…inders not the Gospel to be a Law The Moral Law now the Gospel Wittichius Epist. ad Rom. Calvin on Psal. 19. 10. That the Law was the Gospel in David's sâ—…nce Ball Cov. â—…15 Ball on Cov. from 102 to 120. The sanction of the Gospel differs from Adams law The Promises differ D. Goodw. vol. 2. lib. 2. p. 46 c. D. Goodw. p. 45. ubi supra The Threatnings differ Other Differences Calvin and Wittichius see before Syned of Dort acta Synodi Willet Synopsis papismi Steph. de Brâ—…is in Rom. 3. 27. Hooker of N. England Bâ—…lkley ofâ—… Covenant Mr. Ball of the Covenset forth by Mr. Ash. Lawson Theopolitic Dr. Wallis of God's Sovâ—…raignty Dr. Owens on Ps. 130. Downam on Iustif. Sedgwick of the Covenant Dr. Jacomb on Rom. 8. Mr Charnock 2 â—…ol Turretin Instit. Theol. par 2. Mr. M. Mead Early Obedience Ames Bellarm Eâ—…er Tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 7. Mant. most frequently See 2 Serm oâ—… Rom. 8. Assembly of Divinâ—…s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Owens on Heb. c. 6. v. 9. On Ps. 130. Epist. before the Almost-Christian Gilaspie Ark of the Covenant Mr. Chancy of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the Cov. Acta 〈◊〉 par 1. p. 313. Assembly of Divines larger Catech Mr. Fox that wrote the Book of Martyrs 〈◊〉 Synod par 1. Act a Synod par 2. Dr. Owens on Heb. cap. 6. Dr. Owens on Ps. 130. Dr. Owens of the satisfaction of Christ. Dr. Manton on the Hebrews Charnock vol. 2. Dr. Jacomb on Rom. 8. Dr. Preston of new Cov. Bulkley on the Coven Mr. C. on Iustif. Rutherford Survey of Antinomianism par 2. Mr. Mead Early Obedience Mr. Obad. Sedgwick of the Cov. Beza Epist. 20. Calvin Harm in Mar. 4. 12. Vid. Instit. lib. 3. cap. 17. § 5. Mr. Clerkson of Saving-Grace Calvin is positive that the Gospel-Covenant is conditional but that condition is not the hard one of the Law lib. 2. cap. 5. § 12. Yea he only excludes meritorious conditions when he says it is absolute lib. 3. cap. 3. § 21 22. Of the Wedding Garment Mr. Fox de Christo justificantâ—… Mr. Gale of Christ's Coming Augustin expounds Phil. 3. 8. as I 〈◊〉 Mr. C's Fourth Principle No Covenant â—…fi Redemption distinct from the Covenant of Grace with Men. Rutherford Covenant opened Ark of the Coven Sedgwick of Coven Bulkley of Covenant Mr. Mead. The Author of the City 〈◊〉 Fifth Principle Pardon is the cause of Faith and not Faith the Condition of Pardon c. The first Promise considered Pardon not the causâ—… of conditional Faith Dr. Owens Treatise of Iustif. Clerkson Norton Acta Synod â—… par p. 279 c. Bulkley on the Coven Sheppard's Sound Believer Mr. C's Father of Iust. The Assemb Mr. C's 6th Principle no Conversion or effecteal Vocation bâ—…fore Pardon This the 〈◊〉 Letter affiâ—…ms which I 〈◊〉 regard here in opposition to his denying an habitual change bâ—…f Pardon The Object of Pardon is a Believer tho' ungodly by Adam's Law The first Grace doth not make us sound if abstracted from Christ and the Promise Effectual Vocation before Pardon in order of Nature Eph. 2. 5 6. 2 Cor. 4. 3 â—… John 1. 12. Ps. 110. 3. Eph. 1. 19. 2 Tim. 15. Testimonies that Vocation is before Iustification The Assembly To deny it is to joyn with the Arminians Synod of Dort Hooker Mr. C's Father of Iust. Norton Orth. Evan. Rutherfords Survey of Antin par 2 Mr. C's 7th Principle all sincere Graces and Actions are Sins if they be not perfect The Gospel promiseth Benefits upon 〈◊〉 Grace tho imperfect Sincere Graces not sins thô imperfect Vid my Book cap. 19 Every degree of Duty is not always the Condition of Benefits Sedgwick Jacomb Rutherford Ames Mr. C. of Iustificat Dr. O. on Heb. 6. Mr. C's 8th Principle Christ is King and his Laws bind under a Gospel-sanction Luke 19. 14 27. 1 Rom. 14. 9. 2 Heb. 5. 9. 3 Joh. 8. 51. 4 Joh. 14. 21. 5 Joh. 5. 24 25 26 27. Joh. 20. 31. Mr. C. p. 24. * Icanes against Hammond vide Charnock vol. 2. p. 687. 2. Thes. 1. 8. Mr. C's Challenge accepted Calv. Inst. lib. 3. cap. 24. sect 10 11. Mr. Baxter explained A Rule of Sin and Misery is a proper expression Turret Inst. Theol. par 2. p. 2. Altingius Expl. Catec par 2. p. 12. Mr. C. p. 14 15. A Vindication from the charge of abusing Dr. Crisp. He means sin can do no hurt Dr. C. intends no Graces or Works can do us any good
Pardon c. p. 21. Repl. 1. Here and p. 28. he confounds a Promise of Grace and Promises made to Grace 2. He affirms that the whole of the Gospel-Covenant is but one Promise and this I suppose is the first Promise in the Sentence against the Serpent Hereby he blasts all the fuller Discoveries of it by the Prophets yea and Christ himself as if all the Conditional Proposals of Covenant-Benefits on Terms of Duty were Additions injuriously added to the first Promise 3. He wretchedly mistakes the nature of that first Promise as if it excluded all Terms of our Saving Interest in the Blessings of it Whereas it did imply them If you take the words as a Promise of Christ that he should in our nature overcome Satan then it belong'd to all Mankind to whom it 's promulgated even the rejecters of it Acts 13. 32 46. and as such gives no Interest in the Effects of it to any man If you take them as importing the Saving Benefits to the Seed of the Woman then there must be some change in them who are by Nature the Seed of the Serpent as well as the most wicked otherwise all the natural Seed of Eve have the same Saving Benefits which is thus evidenced When God renewed the Promise to Abraham and his Seed that Seed the Apostle tells you were Believers Rom. 4. 11 16 27. and as I have said before Faith must be then enjoyned for by Faith Abel's Sacrifice was more acceptable than Cain's and God's Words to Cain were the Redeemer's Language and the use of Sacrifices imports that God revealed more of his Will to them by way of Precept than is there recorded 4. And what can he mean by things distinct from the Promise If that Faith and Repentance are promised I had oft affirmed it If that as Acts in Man they are not distinct from the Promise it 's unfit to reflect on If that they may not be Terms of Pardon conjoyned therewith in one promissory Series it 's against the scope of the Bible and sure if that hinder not Pardon to be the cause of them it will not exclude them to be Terms of Pardon 5. But what strange Divinity is this 1. that Pardon is the Condition of Faith 2. Pardon is the cause of Faith How is Pardon and these at once as he affirms i. e. in order of Nature and yet Faith is the consequent yea effect of Pardon But to come to the point Is not this to burlesque the Scripture We believe that we may be justified Gal. 2. 16 That is we be justified that we may believe We are justified by Faith Rom. 5. 1. that is we are made Believers by Justification We repent for the remission of sins Luke 33. that is we have remission of Sins that we may repent One Reason at least should have been offered for these contradictions I suppose all that would be offered is that Christ cannot work Faith in us till we are pardoned which the whole Scripture is against and God hath provided for it by Divine ordination in that Christ's Merits are admitted effectual to the working and and accepting of this Grace before these Merits are applied for Forgiveness which is fully expressed in his own revealed Method whereby he commands and works Faith in order to Forgiveness Yea he will not I hope deny lest he spoil his Argument p. 28. that Union with Christ is before Pardon in order of Nature And is not that an Effect of Christ's Merits Yea the Gospel-offers Spirits operation of Faith c. are so 6. How long must I stay for an Answer if I ask what kind of Cause is Pardon It 's well if it be not hisprocatartick 7. Is not this a new and singular Gospel Consult the former Testimonies Need I mind thee that Dr. Owens saith p. 306. We require Evangelical Faith in order of Nature antecedently to our Iustification c R. Mr. Cl. p. 134. Norton c. say the same the Synod of Dort is oft positive Mr. Bulkley p. 321. gives nine Reasons to prove that Faith is an antecedent Condition of Iustification and saith the denyal of it is some of the new Light which the old Age of the Church hath brought forth Mr. Sheppard proves the same p. 221 to 240. Mr. C's Father saith Faithunites the Soul to Christ p. 144. It accepts of a whole Christ with a whole Heart p. 154. It 's a receiving Christ in all his Offices p. 132. Faith hath an influence into a Sinner's Justification p. 122. Faith is constituted and ordained of God in the Covenant of Grace as a necessary and indispensible means for attaining this end in adult persons p. 123. And he answers his Son's Objections as to Infants The Assembly affirm That Justification is a Benefit flowing from Vocation wherein Faith is wrought but of this hereafter It 's well if he call not all these Enemies to the Grace of God as p. 8. Mr. C. near a kin to this is his Banter on me p. 21. because I had said that Election was not formally our Pardon nor a legal grant of it but that by Divine Appointment there was to interpose between the decree of Pardon and the actual Pardon of the Elect a Gospel-Promise of this Pardon and a work of the Spirit on Men for a conformity to the Rule of that Promise He tells me I would have Christ to stand as a Medicin in the Apothecary's shop for some body or other when the Physician prescribes it Nay it 's not an absolute sick Patient neither it 's one the Apothecary hath in a manner cured before c. And before the person be pardoned he must be in a very sound and safe condition c. and there must be inherent Righteousness in the person to be pardoned c. Add this and much of this kind up and down in his Book to his fifth Principle viz. That Pardon is the cause of Faith c. and then we have his sixth Principle That we are pardoned before the Spirit do at all work any change upon the Soul in effectual Vocation or we are not called or converted in order of Nature before we are justified This is fully the sence of the Letter from the City p. 25 30 c. Repl. 1. A Legal Grant is a term out of Mr. C's Element or he would not confound it with a Decree and what he speaks of the Promise Tit. 1. will appear not to be eternal but before many Ages and not to exclude Gospel-Conditions in their use for our personal Interest in Pardon 2. Is there not a fulness in Christ for Sinners before they make use of it 3. All Sinners are ungodly in a Gospel sence when God comes to call them effectually in order to Pardon and they are ungodly in a legal sence when God doth pardon them or they would not need Pardon 4. Yet they are not unconvinced Unbelievers that are the Objects of God's pardoning
be justified by it as a meer Condition I abhor the former and will through God's Grace dye by the latter In the first sence it 's only that for which I am justified in the last sence it 's only that upon which by God's Ordination the Righteousness of Christ justifies me As a Work it would make me just as an immediate Cause of Title but as a Condition it removes the Obstacle which God's Gospel-Threatning hath laid in the way of my obtaining his Gift of Righteousness upon Christ's account Hath God appointed Faith by his Command to be a federal Instrument to receive Christ's Righteousness I say no more so that Men will own Men shall be denied it without that Instrument But then must the Gospel be a Law of Works By no means tho' Mr. C. p. 30 31 33. thinks that whatever Law requires an Act of ours in order to Benefits for the sake of Christ is a Law of Works because I suppose the Action is a Work Is not receiving Christ an Action Ay but it justifies not as receiving but it 's Christ received justifieth I say the same but yet I ask Will Christ justifie me if I do not receive him A Christ he is and a full Righteousness he hath before I receive him yet I was unjustified notwithstanding that Why was I unjustified by his Righteousness so long Was it not because I received it not till I received it Well then sure though that Action of Receiving doth not justifie me yet that Action is by God's fixed Law necessary to my being justified by Christ's Righteousness not as it is an Action but as it answers to the Rule of the Promise whereby God enacts he will for Christ's sake justifie him that believes 6. The Apostle doth expresly tell us that the Gospel-Law is not a Law of Works Rom. 3. 27. Where is Boasting then Is it excluded By what Law Nay but by the Law of Faith Here 's two Laws opposed and yet both are Laws and one no Law of Works neither We are threatned with an Answer P. 33. though I know as much as he is like to tell me yet I am sure I have the best Expositors for this sence and doubt not the defence of it Yea though he should argue it is but the Doctrine of Faith yet if God be a Ruler that commands that Faith in order to my obtaining saving Benefits I despise all that can be said against its being a Law But it may be he 'l admit a Solution of his Objection from Mr. Bulkley of New England The putting of a Condition doth not hinder or lessen the Free Grace of the Covenant so long as the Condition is Evangelical and not Legal And p. 328 329 330. he answers the Objection against the Gospel being a new Law and saith Tho' Christ be not a Law-giver to give a Law of Works to justifie our selves by it yet He is a Law-giver to give us a Law of Faith commanding us to believe c. p. 333 334. when it is said Do this and live Here the Promise of Life is legal because the Commandment of Doing is legal On the other side when it is said Believe and live here the Promise of Life is Evangelical because the Commandment of Believing is Evangelical but if we make the Commandment of Believing to be legal then the promise of Life upon Condition of believing must be legal also and then there is no difference left between these two Do and live and Believe and live which confounds Law and Gospel Heaven and Earth and makes the two Covenants all one See Mr. Ball The Covenant which was made of Free Love and calls for nothing at our hands but what comes from and shall be rewarded of meer Grace is a Covenant of Grace though it be conditional So the pardon of Sin is given of Grace and not for Works though the Pardon be granted to the Penitent and Faith on our part a lively unfeigned and working Faith be required to receive the Promise Obj. III. Mr. C. p. 2â—… Moreover all the preceptive Will of God then or afterward to be revealed was enjoyned to Man as his Duty to observe in the Law of Nature imprinted on his Heart As for Faith it was an eminent part of his Perfection and that which the Serpent first wounded him in by Temptation c. P. 22. I tell you the Gospel hath no Law-Sanction at all of its own but it only establisheth the Sanction of the Law by way of promise to all saved ones Christ is the end of the Law to them and as to those that are not saved the Law takes its course of them they came not under the efficacy of the Gospel at all Repl. The Argument of these words is that all the Precepts and Threats in the Gospel are part of the Law of Nature given to Adam and that Law of Adam is the only Law and therefore Faith in Christ which Sinners are called to is only the Voice of the Law of Works or Innocency and the whole Sanction of the Gospel is the Sanction of that Law and hence the Gospel must be no Law I might shew what a gross sence he gives of Christ being the end of the Law and that his words lead us to think that all Obligation except from Gratitude to Obedience lies on Christ only and not on the Elect that the Gospel hath no influence at all upon them that are not actually saved that the Gospel is only an absolute Promise or rather a Declaration of Election to the Elect and requires nothing at all from them as a term of any Benefit whatever and yet they are saved as Elect by the Law as immediately entituling them to Life without the interposal of the Gospel-Sanction that is the Gospel doth not only invest them in Pardon and a Right to Salvation by God's imputing Christ's Righteousness to them when Believers which was a perfect Obedience of his to the Law and a full Satisfaction to the Law-giver for them as their voluntary Surety Which I hold but that the Law immediately judgeth them to have obeyed it perfectly and also to have endured the Penalty in Christ he being their Proxy and Attorney This is the Method these men espouse whereby they destroy Christ's Sufferings as a proper Satisfaction exclude all Forgiveness as needless They debase Christ to an Attorney and exalt the Creatures as if they stood on the strictest Terms of Merit with God having legal Innocence of their own as having obeyed and atoned too Yea they had a Grant of all the Saving Effects of Christ's Death before they fell in Adam who was their Head even when Christ was their Head too for they were one legal Person wlth Christ alwaies as Elect and not when they become Believers And hence the Gospel doth require nothing of any elect persons to interest them in Christ or his Benefits But I pass by these and in opposition to the