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
have God for their own God which with him the vilest if Elect have their Sins can do them no hurt at all and in that regard there is no cause of fear from any of their Sins that ever they have committed Beloved I conceive this may seem harsh to some Spirits especially to such as misconceive the drift at which I aim which is not to encourage any one unto Sin but to ease the Consciences of the distressed I desire you to resolve with your selves this one thing and I beseech you kick not against the Truth There is not one sin nor all the sins together of any one Believer that can possibly do that Believer any hurt real hurt I mean and therefore he ought not to be afraid of them I will make it appear And goes on for five Pages to prove it Now Reader can this one line make all the rest safe There is no more said by him it 's in a Doctrinal way stated and not in a use to wounded Consciences He oft says it elsewhere without so much as this and he saith this to avoid the Odium not to guide his Discourse and it 's no other than if a man were proving a quarter of an hour â—…o a whole company very apt to drink poysoned Wine if this Poyson be drank it will do no harm to them that drink it but yet should once say I prove this all this while but it 's for the sake of them that have drank the Poyson but not to encourage you to drink the Poyson yet be you all assured that when it 's drank it cannot harm you more than them C. It 's to evince the damning nature of sin is taken away A. But that 's a gross Error thô Pardon will prevent its effects Yet hear D. C's own words p. 511. No you will say no condemnation in Hell but yet as there is remainders of Sin in Gods own People so there will some Evil or other fall upon the commission of Sin Mark c. and in many words answers it Now sin is condemned to the Believer it can do no hurt at all to him for what hurt can that do which is carried into the Land of Forgetfulness and this he oft affirms was when Christ died Reader I 'll tell thee on what Principles Dr. Crisp affirms that Sin can do no hurt Take his words 1. God hath no more to lay to the charge of such a person Elect thô a Murtherer than he hath to lay to the charge of a Saint in Glory p. 364. and the Lord hath not one Sin to charge on an elect person from the first moment of conception to the last moment of Life 2. A man doth sin against God God reckons not his Sin to be his he reckons it to be Christs therefore he cannot reckon it his see p. 270. Except God will be offended where there is no Cause to be offended he will not be offended with a Believer because he doth not find the Sin of the Believer to be the Believer's own Sin but he finds it to be the Sin of Christ p. 15. Now Reader judge how vain Mr. C's Excuses be and how injurious his Censures What Mr. C. p. 15. pleads for Dr. Crisp's saying that Graces and Holiness cannot do us the least good is as vain and false viz. that he is only against setting them in the place of Christ for he reckons they are put in Christ's place thô they be affirmed but as Means or Conditions antecedently necessary by divine appointment to obtain any Blessings for the sake of Christs Merits His Principles are 1. That Faith is not so much as the Instrument by which we are united to Christ or justified p. 616. 2. That Christ brings us all good things when we are ungodly and so it 's in vain to do any thing to obtain these p. 41 42. yea that we had a full Title before we are born 3. He saith p. 45 46. It 's a received Conceit among many that our Obedience is the way to Heaven and thô it be not say they the cause of reigning yet it is via ad regnum the way to the Kingdom But all this Sanctification is not a jot the way of that justified person unto Heaven 4. Salvation is not the End of any good work we do 5. No Believer should have the least thought in his Heart of promoting or advancing himself or any end of his own by doing what he doth Consider these with many such and what good can Faith or Holiness do us See my Book c. 13 14. Read the Preface to Mr. Flavel's Blow at the Root which Mr. Mather subscribed Reader distinguish 1. between the Righteousness for which we are justified and the way of applying it to us 2. between a Law by which Christ's Merits are applied and that Obedience whereto is our meriting Righteousness 3. between the Precepts included in the Gospel taken in a large sence and what are its proper Conditions 4. Free Grace as it gives Faith and Pardon and as it 's a Liberty to condemn the Believer and justifie the Unbeliever 5. between the Promises of Grace and Promises to Grace 6. The Gospel as a means to quicken us and as a Charter of Benefits and thou wilt Answer Mr. C's Arguments FINIS The Reasons of my Sermon at P. H. above a year since Why I printed my Book about six months since Vulgar Objections against my Book answered The History thereof is worth the buying Mr. Parkhurst lately reprinted it Part of the Controversie between Mr. C. and me stated which appears fully in his Principles as in the following Book The Method Election asserted The Law not abrogated Christ's Righteousness the sole meritorious Cause or material Righteousness in Iustification and it is applied to Believers Gospel-Conditions not the Righteousness for which we are justified nor of the same nature as legal Works Gospel-Conditions no way meritorious of Iustification or Salvation nor other workingconditions but a meer conformity to the Gospel way of receiving the Gifts of Christ. A moral specifick difference between true Grace and meer moral Endowments The First Grace absolutely given Christs Righteousness is imputed Iustified by Faith before Works Gospel â—…ons no 〈◊〉 of Iustification Iustification by Faith alone as the 〈◊〉 Receiving Condition All Elect Believers shall persevere Christ not opposed but exâ—…ted Free Grace honour'd and not oppos'd Holiness not compared with Christ nor Works sâ—…t in 〈◊〉 place The 〈◊〉 of the Eleâ—… â—…f God be considered as meer Proprietor The state of fallen Men as GOD is considered a paternal Ruler A plain account of my Iudgment by Questions and Answers Popish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arminian Iustification as our Divines state it Mr. C's first Principle Mr. C's 2d Principle Mr. C's 3d Principle The word Law of Grace same as the Covenant How for a new Law and yet no new Gospel Heb. 11. 4 6. Gen. 4. 7 11. How the Gospel is not a Law How the Gospel is
whether Iustification Adoption and Glorification be Acts of God's Free Grace which I affirm but whether iâ—…â—…eased God to leave himself at liberty to justifie the Unbeliever while such and glorifie the Unbelieving and Wicked and also to damn the penitent godly Believer This Mr. C. affirms and I deny This is these mens Free Grace while they deny the Gospel-Rule and Law 8. It is not whether God hath as to us absolutely promised and coveâ—…nted with Christ that the Elect shall believe and all men believing be pardoned and so persevere in Faith and Holiness to Eternal Life which I affirm but whether there is a Covenant which require our true believing Consent to the Terms of it as â—… Conâ—…tion of Pardon and Glory and supposeth this true Consent in the actual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…f thâ—…se Benefits This Mr. C. denies and I affirm 9. It is not whether â—…uth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only Grace by which we receive and rest on Christ and his Righteousness for Iustification and that it is Christ received by Faith doth justifie which is the Sence of Protestants when they say we are justified by Faith alone this I affirm but whether he that can truly believe to Iustification must be in part a convinced humbled penitent Sinner This I affirm and Mr. C. denies yea he saith that Pardon is rather the Condition of Faith nay Pardon is the Cause of Faith 10. It is not whether Sanctification taken strictly do follow Iustification this I affirm but whether Effectual Vocation make a real habitual change in the Soul and that this Vocation is in order of Nature before Iustification This Mr. C. and the Letter c. deny and I affirm with the Assembly 11. It is not whether our sincere Faith Love c. are imperfect and so can be no meriting Righteousness which I affirm but whether they are disobedienâ—… even in Gospel Account and so incapable of being the Conditions of any of its promised saving Benefits This Mr. C. affirms and I deny These are some of the Points wherein Mr. C. and I differ I fear I shall find him in all things of Dr. Crisp's opinion as I have assurance he is in his Definition of Faith May not I now expect that People that rail at me will impute to me only what I thus plainly state The Body of well-esteemed Authors are on my side there 's an end to our Ministry if these be not true most of the practical Books we have as Allen c. are all Lyes and tending to ruine Souls if Mr. C. judge aright Thou wilt find in this Book Testimonies cogent to my purpose and if it will serve Mr. C. to say I wrest them and men there upon believe him I cannot help it Such as I quoted in my first Book ' are truly quoted and serve fully to what I produce them for but to reconcile all men to themselves is not my Work and yet I think it no hard matter to evidence that none of my Authors speak against my Assertions Mr. C. saith I am against the Articles of the Church of England and the Assembly I am sure he 'l never prove it and I profess the contrary and am certain he is against all Confessions of Faith that we own as Orthodox How far other Ministers are concerned for the Kingdom of Christ the Safety of Souls the Rule of Iudgment the plain Gospel way of Salvation to Sinners the truth and scope of their Ministry Time will evidence But in the strength of Christ I 'll sustain the utmost Persecution at the Hands of these angry men and while God enableth me they shall not overturn the Gospel by their unscriptural Abuse of the blessed Names of the Righteousness of Christ and Free Grace the Gospel way of the application whereof and a subservient Ministry being the whole I contend for I have oft attempted to adjust these things before I engaged nay since the severe Treatment I have met with I sent to Mr. Ch. that I would meet him and shew how much he mistook my Principles or if he refused a meeting I would send him an account in Writing that he might not abuse himself and the World but he would accept of neither as if he could not write without the Question were mistated Yea at the request of the united Brethren I agreed to suspend this Book if he would do so with his but this he refused Now whatever be the Consequences of these Debates I am innocent and commit all to God in whose Cause I though sickly weak and unworthy am engaged There is a Mystery in it that the Explication of one Text should be pretended by some for a Reason against my whole Book and so countenance all Dr. Crisp's Errors which yet they profess to dislike and the Impartial see I oppose nothing but those Errors The Doctrine of Imputation being still by Mr. C. c. objected against me though I have not yet had opportunity to insist thereon I will state that case 1. It is not whether Christ was a publick person as a Mediator in his Undertakings and so transacted all for Sinners that they might be pardoned and saved by his undertaken Satisfaction and Merits this I affirm but whether we were so represented in Christ â—…s that we were in Law sence they that undertook to atone and merit This I deny 2. Nor whether Christ was a Surety for us in a Bond of his own to pay our Debt to the full and much more that we might in a due time and way be released this I affirm but whether we were joynt-parties in one and the same Bond with him and so we were actually acquitted when he made Satisfaction and therefore God could enjoyn no Terms of the application thereof to us for Iustification and Glory nor suspend the same upon those Terms This I deny 3. Nor whether Christ was made under the Law and that this was one Article of his part in the Covenant of Redemption viz. That he should in a way of proper Satisfaction bear the substance of the Penalty of the Law and yield perfect Obedience to all such of its Precepts as were competent to his Person and this to save thâ—… Elect this I affirm but whether Christ was joynt-Covenant-Party with all the Elect in Adam's Covenant so that they were legally esteemed to make satisfaction and yield perfect Obedience in his doing thereof This I deny 4. Nor whether Christ's Righteousness is imputed to Believers and so made theirs that it is applyed to them and pleadable by them as what was always designed and undertaken for their Salvation and is the sole meritorious Cause of their Pardon Acceptance and Glory and this as effectually as if they themselves had satisfied and merited and this Righteousness is reputed by God as that which now pleads for their Impunity Acceptance and Happiness as Members of Christ All this I affirm but whether it be imputed as our formal Righteousness and so we may truly plead that
Act they are such ungodly ones as believing Abram was 5. Their Faith doth not merit Pardon nor is it the Righteousness by which they are pardoned that 's Christ's alone 6. Faith or the first Grace is far from making a Sinner sound or whole before Pardon it makes him sound but as being the Condition upon which Christ's Righteousness will be applied to him for healing but without this applied to the Believer for Pardon he would be miserable notwithstanding Faith 7. Faith is necessary to our Interest in Pardon see cap. 12. 8. This Faith is an effect of the Work of the Spirit on the Heart of a Sinner in effectual Vocation and by Vocation there is a change of the Soul and its prior to Pardon Whom he called them he justified Rom. 8. 30. Lest they should be converted and I should heal them Mat. 13. 15. Act. 26. 18. The Sanctification which follows Justification doth not import that there 's no Calling before nor that begun habitual Holiness is not infused in Vocation But I would ask 1. Q. What kind of Faith is that by which we are justified if there be no Work of the Spirit on the Heart Is it a vital Act before Life Is it the Faith of God's Elect when it proceeds from an unregenerate Heart Is it an Act of an enlighten'd Mind before the Mind be enlighten'd or Can they see Christ before their Eye be opened Is it an Act of the Will before the Will be at all determined by Grace Is it a receiving of Christ while the Heart is yet under an utter aversion to him Is it a renouncing of all for Christ whilst the byass of the Heart is against Christ and for other things above him and against him Do we believe before we are made a willing People Can it be an Effect of Infinite Power and make no change in the principle of our Actings Or can that Principle be and yet have place neither in Understanding or Will It 's true as they describe Faith a man may be Evangelically ungodly and yet believe because it 's a Faith common to the most prophane who perswade themselves all is safe though Destruction is near and this while they hate and reject Christ with their whole Heart How can it be a Faith unfeâ—…gned while Villany and Hypocrisie reign in the Soul Or be adapted to such great Operations whilst in its whole Essence there is nothing which argues the least alteration on the Soul or operation of the Holy Spirit Here 's the Faith of a dead Soul of an unregenerate Soul of an unconverted Soul and by such a Faith we are justified they say But 2. Q. How dare these men pretend to agree with our Orthodox Divines when they are so plain against them Read the Assemblies lesser Catechism Q. What is Effectual Calling A. Effectual Calling is the Work of God's Spirit whereby convincing us of our Sin and Misery enlightening our Minds in the knowledge of Christ and renewing our Wills he doth perswade and enable us to embrace Iesus Christ freely offered to us in the Gospel Q. What Benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this Life A. They that are effectually called do in this Life partake of Iustification Adoption Sanctification and the several Benefits which in this Life do either accompany or flow from them Reader is not the Assembly plain that a man is called before he is justified When Justification is a Benefit that the Called and none but they partake of and this Benefit supposeth them effectually called who partake of it let 's next see who are called Is there no change made upon them by effectual Vocation Sure there is and this in order to their embracing Christ which is Believing They are convinced of Sin and Misery their Minds are enlighten'd with the Saving Knowledge of Christ. Their Wills are renewed they are perswaded and enabled to put forth that Act of Faith whereby they embrace Christ. Is here no change Sure it 's a great one in the Understanding and Will too and all this to make a man an Object of Justification And shall these men face us down as if we differ'd from the Assembly Nay do not all our Orthodox plead against the Arminians that there is the infused Habit of Faith before the Act yea and that most Habits are infused at once and included in the vital Principle What heaps of Testimonies could I produce for this Yea is it not our common Principle that Vocation is before Justification Herewith agree the Canons of the Synod of Dort par 1. p. 303. Hooker's Effect Calling p. 344 345. Mr. C. saith p. 123. Hence Justification is set after Vocation and therefore after Faith because Faith is wrought in Vocation Norton p. 260 261 263. Union in order of Nature followeth Vocation p. 291. So also Ball of Cov. p. 334 339. See how Mr. Rutherford exposeth this Error p. 131. and p. 111 112. he sets down this as the Gospel-Order 1. The Sinner dead in Sin a Son of Wrath 2. a Walker after the Errours of this World 3. The Gospel of Free Grace is preached to the Dead the elect Heirs of Wrath c. 4. The Law and Curses of it preached with the Gospel lest they despair to humble them 5. The Sinner legally humbled Rom. 7. 11. with a half hope of Mercy prepared for Christ c. 6. The stony Heart of meer Grace removed in the same moment a new Heart put in him or the Habit of Sanctification put in him 7. In the same moment the Soul believeth in him that justifieth the Ungodly 8. In the same moment God for Christ's sake of meer Grace justifieth the believing Sinner Is not here a new Heart in order of Nature before Faith and that Faith before Justification tho' not in time Mr. C. p. 22. When I had affirmed that in Adam's Law Life was promised to sinless Obedience c. and that Salvation is now impossible by that Law but that God in the Gospel promiseth Blessings on lower Terms viz. unfeigned Faith c. Mr. C. answers To talk of any obedience to that Law besides sinless in respect of that Law in its preceptive part is nonsence for sinful Obedience which you are going to plead for is Disobedience And p. 26. I roundly assert that no Law of God with a Sanction of Life and Death upon performance or non-performance of Obedience doth admit of the least imperfection in the said Obedience He oft speaks in this manner whence I think this is his Principle That God hath not promised any Benefit for Christ's sake upon any terms short of perfect Obedience and sincere Faith Love and Holiness because imperfect are formally downright Disobedience or Sin which is the same Rep. 1. I grant sincere Faith and Holiness be imperfect as to the preceptive part of Adam's Law 2. I grant that nothing imperfect can be a meritorious Righteousness
Death made with Men doth not consist in that viz. That we are justified before God and saved by Faith as it apprehends the Merit of Christ but in this that the Demand of perfect legal Righteousness being abrogated God accounts Faith it self and the imperfect Obedience of Faith for or instead of the perfect Obedience of the Law and graciously judgeth this worthy of the Reward of Eternal Life Which they justly brand as the Socinian Notion Reader I declare against this Error and have affirmed that Faith alone receives Christ and his Merits 2. That it 's the Righteousness of Christ alone which is the Meritorious or Material Cause of Justification 3. That our Faith Repentance or Works are not a jot of the material or meritorious Righteousness by or for which we are Justified They say Christ died that we might be saved if we believe I say Christ died that the Elect should believe and believing have Life through his Name To any one that knows the five Points wherein the Arminian Controversie consists I have said enough fully to acquit me I am positive for absolute certain Election for Christ's not dying alike for all For the Elect he died to secure their actual Reconciliation for others his Death is sufficient and real Offers of Salvation are made to them on the Terms of the Gospel notwithstanding their being condemned by the Law Again I say Man is corrupt and without the Grace of God he cannot believe All the Elect shall be though without violence brought by efficacious Grace to believe and finally persevere All which I oft assert in my Book An Account of some of Mr. C's Principles which he hath set up in opposition to mine I shall begin with Three of them and consider them together Mr. C. p. 24. The Essence of the Gospel is altogether Promise and Free Gift P. 28. The Gospel hath no Law-Sanction of its own but it only establisheth the Sanction of the Law by way of Promise to all that are saved P. 33. The Gospel as such is no Law hath no Sanction c. Which and many more places I may contract into this as his First Principle That the Gospel is in no sence a Law nor includes in it as any part thereof either any Precept nor any Promise upon any Condition on our part nor any Threatning If thou doubt the word Precept should not be added know the words above fully assert it And p. 23. he tells us The Precept of Faith is a Precept of the Law of Nature Mr. C. affirms p. 34. Whatsoever befalls Sinners retaining their sinful state and rejecting Grace is from the Law and not from the Gospel To talk of a Gospel-Threat is a Cataâ—…hresis at best and nothing else can save it from being a Bull. His Second Principles is The Gospel hath no Threatnings When my Question answer'd by him p. 32. was this Doth God promiscuously dispense these viz. Forgiveness Adoption Glory or any other promised Benefit given upon God's Terms I say Doth God dispense these without any regard to our being Believers or no Or whether our Faith be true or no Mr. C. answers I would know whether if God distribute his Free Grace to poor wretched worthless Creatures according to his Election and distinguishing Mercy doth he do it blindly because he finds no Reason in them Whence I may call this His Third Principle That God forgives adopts and glorifies Sinners without any respect to their being true Believers or no and Election and distinguishing Mercy be the only Rule by which he forgives adopts and glorifies Sinners as well as gives the First Grace To put the better gloss upon his Principle he saith p. 13. Doth God dispense Faith blindly c A. The Question was not whether God gave Faith absolutely but whether he gave Forgiveness and Glory promiscuously Nay he knows I oft-times affirm the former And in p. 21. he reviles me for saying That there must be a Work of the Spirit for conformity to the Rule of the Promise in the person to be pardoned Yea this third Principle must follow and is but the same as That the Gospel is no Law or stated Rule of Forgiveness Adoption and Glory And he affirms that Faith is a Precept of the Law and denies that any Precept of the Law is a Rule of Happiness with a Sanction p. 22 23. Repl. Not to insist how in the first Point in what he saith of the Sanction he excludes Forgiveness of Sin altogether yea and as he words it may bind the penal Curse on us He opposeth in these three Principles what he calls my 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 15th Paradoxes but had he considered the 4th and 13th he had answered his few seeming Arguments and prevented his gross misrepresentation of my Principles There he might have seen that I assert 1. There is a Certainty that the Elect shall obey the Terms of the Gospel and be infallibly saved 2. That it is Christ's Righteousness which is the alone meritorious Cause of a Believer's Justification and Salvation and that our complyance with the Terms of the Gospel by the Grace of God is no more than our answering that Rule by which God bestows on us Justification and Salvation for the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ. He that cannot distinguish between the Righteousness for which we are saved and a complyance with that Rectoral Method wherein God doth save us for that Righteousness and the Interest arising from that method complied with had better sit still than meddle with these Disputes Reader tho' I did not once call the Gospel a Law in all my Book and only said in my Preface that the Apostle called it a Law of Faith with respect to what I had discoursed yet because the whole of Mr. C's Book runs on this I shall insist most on this Head 1. by explaining the word Law then 2. in what sence it is not a Law 3. shew in what sence it is a Law which I shall prove c. 4. answer his Objections 5. produce some Testimonies 1. As to the name or word Law It hath pleased God to call the way of his application of Grace to fallen Sinners by various names and by that variety to help our Apprehensions which one name would not so well contribute to It 's called a Law a Covenant a Testament a Promise a Word c. none of them exclude the others and are easily reduced to each other A Promise of God that sets down an Order in conferring Benefits wherein he enjoins any Duty on Mans part in that Order hath the nature of a Law yea tho' he engage to enable the Person to do that Duty We must also consider that God in some respects varies these Terms from their common use among men both his Dominion and his Grace abating their rigid Sence He calls it a Law but yet his Mercy resolves thereby to confer such Benefits as brings the Law
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
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
He is the Author of eternal Salvation to all them that obey him If a man keep my Sayings he shall never see death He that doth my Commandments and keepeth them he loveth me and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live For as the Father hath life in himself so hath he given the Son to have life in himself and hath given him Authority to execute Iudgment also because he is the Son of Man He that heareth my word and believeth him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation It seems too that Church-Censures bind nothing of eternal danger even when rightly administred Dr. Owens in his Treatise of the Sabbath says near these words That our worshipping Christ in his Ordinances on Earth is the Condition of our being with him in Heaven 4. The Reason for all this is strange such Obedience is part of the Life promised then he rendred the Elect Libertines when he made such Promises He promised to make the Elect obedient therefore he cannot command them to be so Pursuant to his Promise he 'll make them obedient therefore the Terms to be obeyed are no foederal Conditions of other Blessings promised on those Terms because he 'l see they shall believe therefore he must not thus enact Believe and thou shalt be saved 5. But is there no distinction admittable in the word Life It 's sometimes put for Grace in us sometimes for Glory consummated sometimes it 's put strictly for the saving priviledge part of the Covenant as consequent to the Terms of it and that believing ye might have Life In this sence he saw I took it And doth God in every Promise of Life in this sence promise Obedience to the Terms of it 6. A few lines after these he determines the Judgment committed to Christ It 's not Legislation at all nay all of it is not Gospel-Iudgment he might have said none of it for with him the Gospel is no Law and so no Rule of Judgment Nay worst of all his Judgment is only to destroy not to save i. e. his Reward as Redeemer is to be Executioner of Adam's Law without conditional Offers of Pardon to any that are not saved for if there be no foederal Sanction in the Gospel there can be no conditional Offer to any that are not saved nay to none that are saved Now Reader see how Christ as Redeemer is honoured by Mr. C. He shall be of use to excuse us from loyal subjection while himself is dethroned as to the rectoral way of the application of his Merits This very point of Christ's regal Authority as Redeemer hath been defended by our Divines hitherto and I am sure he 'l take vengeance on them who obey not his Gospel I might instance others of his Principles which I suppose agree with Dr. Crisp as in his Description of Faith which he hints p. 36. and I have heard him more fully define it by assurance of our Pardon In that place he makes Faith of no use but to claim Possession to which it seems we had as full a Title before we believed And p. 17. Mr. C. After the manner of imputation in foro justitiae our Sins shall never be laid on us viz. the Elect qua-Elect Which I will prove against you when you will Rep. Let 's understand the Question for it is too confused What is this After the manner of imputation in foro c Do you mean the Elect shall never come to God's Bar of Judgment before they believe and are forgiven If so I grant it But if you mean that the past Sentence of God binds not the Sins of the Elect upon them while they are Unbelievers and that this Act of his by his Word is not an Imputation in foro divinae justitiae I freely accept your Challenge so that you will engage to avoid unruly Passions And it 's well if those Effects of Electing Love which Paul had applied to him in the Womb are not semen quoddam electionis which Calvin so condemns Of the same sort is what Mr. C. saith p. 34. of 2 Cor. 5. 18. Rep. 1 God is so reconciled that no want of atonement shall prevent Peace 2. That upon this atonement God offers Peace on the lowest Terms 3. That the Elect shall in time be enabled to obey those Terms and be actually reconciled 4. But the whole Canon of the Word and unopposed in this place assures me that the Elect are in a state of Wrath till they believe yea were God actually reconciled to them he could not suffer them to remain Enemies in their Minds by wicked Works and a total absence of his Spirit But I have not room for these and the like Mr. C. p. 10. After a certain zealous Neonomian had taken his Leave of us And p. 22. you play the Iugler more He saith Quoniam Christus Mediator c. being that both Christ the Mediator and Faith in Christ are only means of the restauration of Man to God by Holiness and Love Therefore it must doubtlesly be said that from the nature of the thing Faith Holiness and the Love of God are more necessary to Salvation than either Faith in Christ or the Sacrifice of Christ himself There 's a â—…one for you to pick. Rep. These are Mr. Baxter's words and had I been in his stead I should not have given so much occasion to simple Readers to startle but being the only seeming Difficulty Mr. C. hath put me to except the exercise of Patience I 'll see if the Offence may be prevented 1. Mr. B. doth not here compare the causal Influence of Christ's Satisfaction with our Holiness nor the use of Faith in Christ with Faith in God as the way of Life is now appointed by the Divine Will If any man had asked Mr. B. Is Holiness as meritorious of Salvation as Christ's Satisfaction is he would have answered No for Christ's Satisfaction is the sole meritorious cause of Salvation and Holiness is none at all If you had ask'd Mr. B. Is Faith-Love to God of that use to receive Christ for our Justification as Faith in Christ is he would have answer'd No Faith in Christ is in it self most apâ—… and by the Lord appointed to this use to receive Christ. Both these he ofâ—… affirms 2. Mr. B. here speaks only of the comparative necessity of these to Salvation with respect to the nature of the thing it self that is as he explains himself it cannot be a Salvation without Holiness at least habitual it 's a Contradiction as it would be to say Salvation without Salvation It is not whether is more necessary now to my obtaining Salvation as if I should ask whether is more necessary to the Essence of Man his Humanity or Christ's Satisfaction you would say from the nature of the thing
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-law The Law as natural in fâ—…lnmen not the 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