A DEFENCE OF Gospel-Truth. Being a REPLY to Mr. CHANCY's First Part. AND As an Explication of the Points in Debate, may serve for a Reply to all other Answers.  
Wherein the Mistaken may at least see that,  

I. I affirm that we are Justified for or by Christ's Righteousness alone, and not by Works.  
II. That we are Justified as soon as we truly Believe.  
III. That the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer, and not only the Effects of it.  
IV. That Gospel-Conditions are not our Justifying Righteousness, which Legal Works were to be.  
V. How the Gospel is a Law, explained and proved, & c.  
VI That I am not for the Popish or Arminian Doctrine of Justification, & c. as stated by our Divines.  
VII. That all I contend for is the way which God hath appointed for the application of Christ's Merits, and dispensing the Effects of Free Grace, and for a Gospel-Ministry suited to this purpose.   
By DANIEL WILLIAMS.  
LONDON:  
Printed for john Dunton at the Raven in the Poultry, 1693.   

TO THE READER.  
HAving, by the Good Hand of GOD, contributed so much to the restauration of Peace in the dissenting Congregations in Dublin, and somewhat to the Union here, a Reason may be expected how I become engaged in the present Debates; with grief of Heart I shall nakedly render it. Soon 
The Reasons of my Sermon at P. H. above a year since.  after the reprinting of Dr. Crisp's Works, his Errors that lay hid for many Years appeared with open Face: Many pleading, that there are no Humbling or preparatory Works in order to Conversion, Saving Faith is nothing but a Persuasion that our Sins are pardoned; yea, we are justified before we are born; Christ was accounted the very Blasphemer at God's Bar; Sin cannot hurt the Believer; Men have nothing to do in order to Salvation; no assurance by Signs from Sanctification, etc.  
Eleven Counties the Flame broke soon into, under the conduct of Mr. Davies, and several others; the faithful Ministers were deserted as Legalists, Churches divided, and Town and Country filled with Debates and Noise. These Errors and Disorders were imputed to the Body of Nonconformists, and Attempts against our Liberty thereupon threatened. Dr. Crisp's Son puts out a Book of his own to abett some of his Father's Opinions, and therein reflects on me by Name, and other Books to this purpose were set forth; hereupon once, and but once, I delivered at Pinners-Hall that which is the Appendix to my Book, hoping that a plain state of the Differences might convince some well-meaning People, or at least vindicate us, that we were not Papists, Arminians, etc. as these represented us, nor Antinomians, as by others we were all accused. In that Sermon I charged no person; yea, to prevent a jealousy that I might intend Mr. Cole, etc. I inserted this; It's true, there are some small Differences among the Orthodox, in wording some of these things, but shall we hereby give advantage to such Errors, & c? A great Clamour is thereupon contrived, and in his next turn, Mr. Cole, with great severity, exposed us to vulgar notice, affirming many Notions that some worthy Divines were startled at: Some Friends of Mr. Coles proposed to me a Meeting with him, in the presence of Dr. B. Mr. M. and Mr. H. In this Meeting it was agreed, that I should read my Sermon, after which Mr. Cole declared he had no Exception, and so we were agreed (which was now the second time.) Mr. Cole, in his turn at P. H. publicly declared there was no real Difference, as Mr. H. also did, and I repeated it with great satisfaction, hoping that the Err●…neous would be less confident, when they lost that Cover which they made of his Name. This Calm did not long endure, for Mr. Cole, (I fear 
Why I printed my Book, about six months since.  by Instigation) revived at P. H. the same Reflections, and Dr. Bat●…s practically preaching the Necessity of Repentance to the Forgiveness of Sin, Mr. Cole soon after brake out into the wont Exclamations, and charged us as Opposers of Christ's Righteousness in justification, etc. and I was accounted by most as the chief Mark levelled at. Friends entreated me to take no notice of these Reflections in my Sermons there; and tho' thus oft provoked, I never expressed any Resentments in any Discourse there since that first: Nevertheless many assured me of the necessity of printing somewhat to clear ourselves, and if possible to stem this Tide; People's Mouths were filled with the grossest Misrepresentations of our Doctrines; Ministers were accused as Legalists, when they only preached that men had somewhat to do if they would be saved; if a man did but plead with Sinners from Gospel-Threats, or argue Obedience and Duties, he was no Gospel-Preacher: Yea, some arrived to that daringness, as publicly to assert there were but three or four Ministers of Christ in London; the Reverend Mr. Mead himself escaped not the Title of a Legalist. These things caused in me many sad Thoughts, and at last I was convinced, unless we should prostitute our Ministry, suffer the infecting of our People, which would end in Divisions, (as I found attempted on some of my own) and be all guilty, and branded abroad as Complyers, by our silence; something must be published. I was sensible of the Trouble, Reproach, and Hazards attending it, especially since I was informed that some, out of the Union, were the Spring in this Affair, who having failed in their Unchristian Methods to oppose that Agreement, it seems judged by the Notions of some few (of whom I was ignorant) that either these Opinions must prevail, by our silence, or that the Union would be endangered if we appeared against them. At last I found the effects of Mr. Davies' and others Practices, abroad, and in the City; that the hazard to our Peace would grow, by further delay, especially seeing as yet so very few, if any of the United Brethren, were suspected to abett these Errors, and Mr. Cole, with all the rest that appeared their Advocates, in City and Country, were not of the Union. Nay, I believed if some others did not act Mr. Cole, he could not be offended with what I should write, he having at three meetings expressed himself so reconciled to my Principles, and then disowned what I should oppose. The reason why I desired any Testimony to my Book, was because the People do oft value Names more than Arguments, the Opposites (so unscrupulous in their Clamours) might prejudice men against the Truths, as if I was singular. And considering the delay of 〈◊〉 Testimony against Mr. Davies, this might be some Antidote, till we arrived at more. Yea, I heard also Mr. Cole was printing when I was about mine. These are the Considerations which induced me to print my Book at the desire of several Brethren, and I have Peace in this, that it appeared an absolute Duty. Some object▪ Why I did not get some of the brethren's Hands, 
Vulgar Objections against my Book answered.  formerly called Congregational, and it looks like forming a Party, etc. A. I did ask some of them that I thought would not scruple it, particularly Mr. Mead, who did object nothing against it, but a prudential Consideration; and the same answer he made to Dr. Bates, when he first asked him; and before the second Edition came out, I telling him what use his Hand might have been of, he made the like answer, and made then to me no Objection against the Book, but that he wished I had left out that of the third to the Phil. All which I mentioned to some, with real respect to him and those Brethren. But since Mr. C's Book was published, Mr. M. tells me and others, he is not of my judgement; but I know not wherein, except in my sense of that Text. Yet there are others that forbore subscribing, who declare no disagreement; and he must quite alter his useful way of Preaching, if he much differ from me. Others ask why I raked into Dr. Crisp's Ashes. A. It was needful I should instance some Author, for they said nobody affirmed those things I mentioned in my Sermon. I chose Dr. C. before another, not from Prejudice, but because he was reprinted with an unhappy Front, his Works seemed the Standard of the propagators of these Errors. This Book was taking with many, recommended to People by Mr. trail and others, as I can prove, and he must never be answered, if not after his Death; and tho' I treat him with all respect, yet I wonder his Works should be so applauded now, when most of our great Divines opposed them heretofore: Yea, as Mr. Nesbit from cre●…lible Hands informs me, the Assembly of Divines desired to have them burnt. Obj. You are said to misquote him. A. I cannot find I mistook one word, except that once I set Justify instead of Pardon, which is altered in the second Edition Obj. You misrepresent his Sense. A. Not that I know; ●…nd what Mr. C. instanceth, I have fully proved it must be his sense, tho' I inform you in my Book he oft speaks Contradictions, but the most I mention he labours to prove, and his Scheme enforceth it. Obj. You take Bits of Sentences. A. I still give one full period, and it's only to avoid swelling my Book that I mentioned no more in other Clauses; yea, in what is material I oft set his words at large, and if it be needful, I shall put him in a fuller light. Many Obj. My Book was written against Mr. Cole. A. I had no Eye to him at all, except in the Digression about Repentance, which was much the same as I delivered at a third meeting to compose the Debate between Dr. Bates and him, (tho' since then he broke out against us twice) this I preface in my Book with these words: Herein I have to do with men of more orthodox Principles than Dr. Crisp. And Mr. Cole must know, these words did refer to him; yea, notwithstanding many strange Passages, I hope he doth not hold most of those Opinions; nor can he agree with Mr. Chancy, unless he disagree with what he hath oft said, yea, and printed. Obj. It's more than hinted, that I intent in that Book to reflect on all them called Congregational. A. I am sure I abhor such an Intention; nay, did not I pitch on Testimonies from among them, to oppose these Errors? I know many of their Ministers, whom I think free from the least disposition towards them; the New England Synod effectually opposed them; 
The History thereof is worth the buying, Mr. Parkhurst lately reprinted it.  Mr. Flavel and Mr. Job have written well against them; I cite Bulkley, Dr. owen's, etc. who are fully for the opposite Truths; and tho' I sent Mr. M. word, that in the mind I was in, I would forbear Testimonies from his Writings, but that I would not bind myself for any time, yet I have since met with great reason to cite him, as one fully for the Truth: Yea, Mr. N. (tho' I never requested it) in my House declared, That if Mr. M. and three more such had subscribed, he would not have been unwilling to do it; and he desired me to add (Congregational) to the Divines in and about this City who forbear to subscribe only from prudential Considerations which I refused. He remembreth the latter part, and owneth it; and he told Mr. Hume, that if one Passage or two were rectified, he would subscribe my Book. It's true, some clamorous People, that cry up these Opinions, happen to be of that Persuasion, but I hope far the greater part are better principled; and many seem on the wrong side only from Misrepresentations. Obj. Why do you use the word Rector? A. It's a proper word, used by Dr. Owen's, Mr. Charnock, and most. This Book hath met with various entertainment, with many it hath pleased God to grant it acceptance, and many Ministers out of the Country offered their Subscriptions; but of the four seeming Answers to it, I'll give these hints. To Mr. B. I am obliged, for his Christian usage, and while he allows, that I speak the Language of Time, and of the Dispensation I am under, I will comply with his Proposal, not to enter the Lists, unless I have occasion to prove my Sense of Phil. 3. which I find patronised by Augustin. Of Mr. Keach I would but ask, 1. Doth not he believe that persons are bound to agree to the Covenant of Grace, and thereby engaged to love God, and sincerely obey him; and is not refusing to agree to this Covenant the damning Sin? yea, is not this Refusal the Heart of Unbelief? And that's all I there affirm. 2. Is his Spirit in a right frame, when he shall bring these words in my Catechism, to prove that we are not justified upon believing, till we do Good Works, when in that short Catechism there is this; Q. Is not a Believer pardoned, before he can put forth any other Act of Obedience? A. Tho' true Faith is a certain Principle of Obedience, yet so soon as we believe, we are pardoned, even before there can be time to put forth any other Acts of Obedience. Yea, how oft do I say in my Book, that no Act of ours is a jot of the Righteousness for or by which we are justified, but that is Christ's alone; and yet this person fixeth the quite contrary on me, and so batters in the dark, and warneth all from hearing me: The Lord humble and forgive such. The Letter from the City, etc. seems rather to design a Turn, than argue a Truth; for as it weakly saith some things true; and others erroneous, so throughout he belies their Principles whom he exposeth; if it be wilfully, let his own serious Reviews give him his Character; if ignorantly, why should he intermeddle? There are few Books written that pretend so much, which may be so easily and much exposed. Mr. C. is the Author I here deal with: I have long read Books, and from five years old have had no Employment besides my Studies; yea, before nineteen I was regularly admitted a Preacher, yet I never met with a Tract parallel to his, for abusive Language, violent Rage, and uncharitable Censures. Many great Divines dissuade me from a Reply, assuring me it was at best needless▪ with their Advice I had complied, but that I find the Ignorant believe his Misrepresentation of my Principle: It's amazing what Eye they read with, if they read at all. What's become of Truth or Ingenuity, that Professors dare affix these Doctrines to me, which I a thousand times disown, and never can ascribe any Passages to ground them on, but are still forced to cry, This is your meaning, against my plain words and entire Scheme; as thou wilt see in this Reply. Mr. C. saith I juggle and equivocate; when I declare I still speak my mind, and must be the most inconsistent Fool, if it were not so. But what should induce me to juggle or equivocate? I value not the Purses of any, and in God's Cause I fear not the Abilities of the whole Party; yea, by more of God's presence I shall be reconciled to their fiery and clamorous Tongues, which is their only formidable strength, tho' the liberty they take doth not evidence a good Cause or a Christian Spirit. They give out, that I oft meet with Noblemen about a great Affair, when I never spoke with one of these Noblemen, nor ever was once in any Meeting about that matter. They assert Mr. How said, he had not put his Hand to my Book, but that I assured him Mr. M. would do the same; when Mr. H affirms he never said any such thing, but that after he had signed, he desired me to ask Mr. M's Hand. Others say, that Hands were affixed without their leave, which is too gross to reply to. Nay, they turn the effects of my sinking Distempers to my reproach; the worst I wish them is Forgiveness, and more Charity and Wisdom. Obj. They say some of the first Subscribers did not read the whole Book. A. The whole substance of the Book is in the Truths and Errors which they did peruse. Obj. Do not some of the Subscribers recant? A. Tho' they have been abused, yet the only one that to me seemed willing that his Name had been left out, and that only because of the noise. I offered to publish, that he desired it, but he hath forborn any such desire. Two of these Authors pretend to great Piety in their Party above others, the Lord increase it in all; but I am persuaded they call many Serious ones of their Party, who live under the power of the contrary Truth, and understand not the Errors of those for whose persons they may have regard. There be a far greater number of humble, meek, heavenly Christians, that abhor these Errors, which they observe to alter much the Christian Calm and tender Frame of such, that I hope are upright in the Substance. And I heartily desire all of us would lay these Texts to Heart, 1 Cor. 13. Though I have all Faith, and have not Charity, I am nothing. jam. 1. 26. If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his Tongue, but deceiveth his own Heart, that man's Religion is vain. jam. 3. 13, to 18. But the Wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated. And it's evident, notwithstanding what Mr. C. saith of Passions, p. 12. that a holy Fear, with a siducial Consent to Christ, t●…ds more to make a man's state safe, and his walk exact, than sudden Confidence or easy Persuasions. It's true, Assurance should be endeavoured in our working out our Salvation with trembling and with fear; yet Mr. Sedgwick was a man I'll believe before Mr. C. or the Letter, and he saith, In my Conscience this is the general Opinion of ungodly men; they hear Christ died to take away Sin, and to make Peace for Sinners, and therefore they will take no thought after Christ, but will live basely and boldly in their sinful ways, etc. but Christ never yet made such a Reconciliation, that all Sinners whatsoever, though they live in Unbelief and Impenitency, shall share in it, but only penitent Sinners, and believing Sinners. S. of Cou. p. 258.  
I shall represent the true state of the points in debate, that if any men will engage me to Edification, and with Truth, they may be directed. The Controversy with Dr. C. my Book doth it so plainly, that I hope all may see it there; but the present Specimen more especially shall refer to Mr. C. who differs from many that help the noise, though they will not see it.  
1. It is not whether a certain number of Sinners are of Free Grace elected to Faith 
Part of the Controversy between Mr. C. and me stated, which appears fully in his Principles, as in the following Book.  and justification, which I affirm but whether the Elect are required by the Gospel to believe, that they may be justified; which Mr. C. denies, and I affirm. 2. It is not whether the Gospel be such a Law, as that Acts of Obedience to it stand in the place of legal Works. so as that for them we are saved, which I deny, but whether the Gospel doth assure Salvation for Christ's Merits to such as obey it, and threaten an exclusion from this Salvation against all such as disobey it. This Mr. C. denies, and I affirm. 3. It is not whether we are justified by our Faith, or any Act of ours, as if they, as Works or Qualifications, were a jot of that Righteousness for which, or by which we are justified; this I deny; but whether God hath fixed this as the Revealed Gospel-Rule, that a man must be a penitent Believer, whom God will justify for Christ's Righteousness. This Mr. C. denies, and I affirm. 4. It is not whether the Faith and Forgiveness of the Elect be the Fruits of Election and Distinguishing Mercy, which I affirm; but whether God hath a revealed Rule, by which as Paternal Ruler he gives Pardon and Glory to Believers for Christ's sake, and judicially withholds them from others, whom he condemns not for their being unelected, but for their final Impenitency and Unbelief. This Mr. C. denies, and I affirm. To other of his Citations under his Third Principle add this, p. 32. If you understand Judicial in respect of any Duty, Grace, or Qualification found in us, tho' wrought by the Spirit, I abhor it. 5. It is not whether we are immediately justified upon believing, before any Works, which follow the first Act of Saving Faith; this I affirm; but whether if Faith should be ineffectual to Acts of sincere Holiness, and to prevent Apostasy and utter Ungodliness, would we be subject to Condemnation by the Gospel-Rule. This Mr. C. denies, and I affirm. 6. It is not whether Holiness or Good Works are necessary to Salvation▪ this they and I affirm, but whether God doth require them as indispensible means of obtaining the possession of Salvation through Christ; and declares, that the total want of them, and much more their Contraries, shall expose to Misery. This Mr. C. must deny, and the Necessity they speak of is only a Physical Necessity, not a moral. Note, 〈◊〉 two last Questions refer to the Adult that have time. 7. It is not whether justification, Adoption, and Glorification be Acts of God's Free Grace, which I affirm, but whether i●…●…eased God to leave himself at liberty to justify the Unbeliever, while such, and glorify the Unbelieving and Wicked, and also to damn the penitent godly Believer. This Mr. C. affirms▪ and I deny. This is these men's Free Grace, while they deny the Gospel-Rule and Law. 8. It is not whether God hath, as to us, absolutely promised and cove●…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 ●… Con●…tion of Pardon and Glory, and supposeth this true Consent in the actual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…f th●…se Benefits. This Mr. C. denies and I affirm. 9 It is not whether ●…uth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only Grace by which we receive and rest on Christ and his Righteousness for justification, and that it is Christ received by Faith doth justify, which is the Sense of Protestants, when they say we are justified by Faith alone; this I affirm; but whether he that can truly believe to justification, 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 justification; 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 justification. This Mr. C. and the Letter, etc. deny, and I affirm with the Assembly. 11. It is not whether our sincere Faith, Love, etc. are imperfect, and so can be no meriting Righteousness, which I affirm, but whether they are disobedien●… 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, etc. are all Lies, and tending to ruin 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'll 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 judgement, 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 show 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. etc. 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 public person as a Mediator in his Undertake, 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, ●…s that we were in Law sense 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 enjoin no Terms of the application thereof to us for justification 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 th●… 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 applied 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 we ourselves, as Elect, did legally, by Christ as our Proxy, satisfy and merit all, and without the interposal of the Gospel-Rule, we have a legal Title to Glory by Adam's Covenant. This I deny, as what excludes Forgiveness, makes Christ's Sufferings needless, denies any proper Satisfaction, and destroys Christianity. 5. Nor whether we all sinned and died in Adam, and in Christ are all made alive; which I affirm, owning Christ's Influence as both real, yea, and public, as before explained; but whether we were in Christ before Faith, as we were seminally in Adam before we were born, which his foederal Headship did suppose. The being thus in Christ before Faith I deny. These express my Thoughts, which I doubt not (by Christ's help) to maintain against all these Opposers, while I expect nothing but a gross exposal of themselves, when their Conceits are forced out of their cloudy Expressions. Reader, I had reason to instance some minute things, though with men of Wisdom and Fairness a Cause dep●…nds on Arguments, and not personal Respects. join with me in earnest Prayer, that Truth and Love may flourish, and that Christ's Cause may be managed with a Christian Spirit, which I have endeavoured, and not exposed nor reviled my Adversary. I am thy Servant in the Kingdom and Gospel of our Blessed Lord,  
DANIEL WILLIAMS.   

ERRATA.  
P. 1. l. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 14. l. 18. deal for.   

A DEFENCE OF Gospel-Truth,  
THE Reverend Opposer of my Book having as yet offered so little of Argument against my Assertions, my Reply must be short to what he hath said; and shall therefore choose another method than what his Book prescribes. His unusual Reflections I dare not return, being awed by Him who chargeth me not to render railing for railing, 1 Pet. three 9 and hath declared, that the Wrath of Man worketh not the Righteousness of God: Happy they, and likely to arrive at Truth, that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eph. iv. 15. truthing it in love. The weight of the Points in debate will not allow me to be Pedantic; nor can I bid at childish Jests, without suspecting my Mind in a Case unfit for Serious Thoughts, or the Aids of the Spirit in search for Truth; neither is it allowed Tit. two. 7. in Doctrine showing Gravity, etc. I 
The Method.  shall therefore proceed in this method: 1. Show how he mistakes and misrepresents my Principles against the plain Words of my Book, even where I mention them as my positive Judgement. 2. I shall endeavour to make the most material things more evident to the ordinary Reader. 3. I shall instance some of Mr. Chancy's Principles, which he asserts, and labour to let thee see where we differ, and what's the Judgement of others in these things. 4. I shall briefly reply to what else is material in his Book, that falls not under the former Heads.  

Some Instances wherein Mr. C. misrepresents my Principles against my plainest words in my Book.  
I. Mr. C. saith of the Athenian Society, I doubt not but they are of your Opinion in Doctrinals; and then chargeth them, as being against an election of a determinate number of men to Eternal Life; and adds, I doubt not you will be found to do so.  
Repl. These Gentlemen were pleased, in answer to a kind Letter of 
Election asserted.  Mr. crisps, to give their Thoughts of my Book, and your Reply to what they have said of Election, affecteth not their Assertion. But, by what words can I express my own Judgement more fully then? P. 66. I affirm, There is a ●…romise of the first Grace made to Christ for the Elect, and by virtue of that Promise they consent, P. 3. ch. 1. I affirm, That certain Persons freely-elected by him shall certainly be justified and adopted; and that these persons are the Objects of God's Love of goodwill, even while they are Si●…hers; 〈◊〉 that God continues his Purpose of doing them good, notwithstanding their Provocations; and Christ hath made full a●…onement for Sin, and merited Eternal Life for the Elect, which shall be in God's time and way applied. There is a great difference between an Elect Sinner, and others. As to what they shall be in time, chap. 20. p. 210. God hath elected a certain number, etc. and so the Gospel shall not be in vain to all. See the same oft repeated, p. 66, 16, 210, 105.  
II. Mr. C. represents ●…e, 〈◊〉 p. 3. The 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is abrogated, transiit in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 〈◊〉 aside ●…he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and of no use to us at all. So p. 21. We have nothing to do with it, it's out of doors.  
Repl. He would insinuate that I say, That the preceptive part of the 
The Law not abrogated.  Law is not a Rule of Manners, nor that the transgression of it makes us guilty, nor that men, whilst they reject the Gospel, are not at all under the Curse of the Law. All which I abhor. And though this Point fell not in my way to handle, yet there wants not Passages to this purpose: P. 198. The holiest Action of the holiest Saint needs Forgiveness. Chap. 21. p. 225. It's legal Preaching to be always pressing the Duties of the Law of Nature, but neglect preaching Christ, etc. where I allow it sometimes. Again, in the same Page I condemn saying, That our best Obedience doth not deserve Wrath by the Law, as a Rule of Misery and Happiness; or that it doth not need forgiveness. P. 125. I affirm the Law to be a Rule of Duty. Cap. 12. p. 107. the Gospel declareth all condemned till they do believe; it declares they are so, and denounceth they shall be so, etc. And again, They that believe, their Condemnation is reversed: See p. 57 Reader, thou mayest read me still affirming the Misery even of the Elect, by the Law, till they are justified by Christ.  
It's true, I do think that 1. The Sentence of the Law cannot hinder the relief of any Soul by Christ, who complieth with the Gospel. 2. Nor that it is possible for any man to be saved by the Law of Innocency. By Forgiveness is our Blessedness, and not by our sinless Obedience: And so far I'll own it, but not in the three former senses.  
III. Mr. C. tells me, p. 20. That when I said Christ's Sufferings were the Foundation of our Pardon; that our Sins are forgiven for Christ's Sufferings, and without them Sin cannot be forgiven. Your Fundamentally is only a remote Causality, etc. all that we have of your meaning, is a poor causa sine qua non. And within a few lines you mean, By something else besides them, not by the immediate application of them, but mediate and remote, à causa sine qua non.  
Repl. The plain meaning of what he thus exposeth is, that the Elect were not discharged and actually justified at the time when Christ suffered: Which is proved p. 17. etc. But it's strange, that any one that read this or the following Passages, should infer either, 1. That Christ is only a causa sine qua non, which is no Cause; 2. Or that his Righteousness is not the sole meritorious or material Cause of our Pardon, which in judicial acts are the same; 3. Or that Christ's Sufferings are not immediately applied to our Pardon; 4. Or that Pardon is by any act of ours as a joint meritorious Cause with Christ; each of which, I hope, the following Passages will clear me in. P. 16. I affirm, When we are pardoned, the whole meritorious 
Christ's Righteousness the sole meritorious Cause or material Righteousness in justification; and it is applied to Believers.  Cause of Pardon is the Atonement of Christ, and what is required of Sinners, is only a meetness to receive the Effects of it. P. 39 I affirm, That Justification, and all other Benefits, be the Fruits of Christ's Righteousness, as the only meritorious Cause of them. P. 40. We are, for the sake of Christ's Righteousness delivered from the guilt of Sin, and entitled to Life, and accepted with God against all excluding Bars. P. 41. Christ was he by whose Merits he forgives us, but he never was forgiven; we are forgiven, and never had Merits of our own to forgive ourselves: And it's enough that we were pardoned and adopted for his sake, when we deserved endless Woe, and are never capable of making the least atonement. P. 43. Faith owns the Foundation of our Plea to be in Christ, from whom are derived to us that Pardon and Right to Life which are the effects of his Righteousness; for this we are justified, for that Righteousness which is in Christ we are acquitted and adopted; the efficient Merit is in him, the Effect of the judicial Absolution for that Merit, is in us: The Righteousness is still in Christ, for the sake whereof we are absolved or justified: God hath for Christ's sake forgiven us, but not for the sake of what is in ourselves, etc. and now being absolved or made righteous in a Law sense, we have as much matter of glorying as absolved acquitted Sinners can have. We are justified by his Righteousness; that is, for that we are forgiven, and also entitled to Life, which we had forfeited ourselves, but we are not made innocent, nor so esteemed; we are not accounted them who made the atonement; we still take hold of Christ's Righteousness, that by it we may be forgiven; and this is our Blessedness, and our Gospel-Righteousness, which all such refuse who reject Redeeming Love from a Conceit of their own Merits, or refuse the Terms of the Gospel, which by the Promise do make us capable of being justified and saved for the Merits of Christ; yet these still remain his Merits, though thus beneficial to us in their Application, as the procuring cause of all our Good. P. 44. We still need Pardon, and continue justified by the efficacy of the Righteousness of another, and must look to Christ as▪ the only Subject of it all our days. Our justified state is a continuance of the blessed Effects of the Righteousness of Christ, from first to last; that Cause is still productive of Supplies, as our Gild returns, or Necessities and Capacities renew or grow, but our Redemption is ever in Christ. P. 249. Pardon is not the Effect of those Graces, but of the Promise in the Virtue of Christ's Blood, or of his Blood applied for Forgiveness by the Promise. Reader, if thou regardest Truth, dost not thou find Christ's Sufferings to be a real Cause of Pardon, a sole meritorious or material Cause, all other Causes of that kind excluded, and these Sufferings and Christ's Righteousness immediately applied? See p. 247. We are justified only by Christ's Merits, as the sole procuring Cause or Righteousness, for which we are justified.  
V. Mr. C. p. 21. The use of Christ's Sufferings is to compound with God for Sinners, upon the account of the Old Law, and put a Bar upon his Proceedings, according to that, and procure another Law, by the Righteousness whereof we are justified, which Righteousness is our own inherent Righteousness, and not Christ's. And p. 30. Faith doth not justify us by applying Christ's Righteousness, etc. but by its own Virtue, as being a Righteousness itself, etc. but Christ's Righteousness hath nothing to do here, it's our own Faith and Repentance is the Righteousness, in conformity to the Rule of Promise, and that's Latin for the New Law. So p. 15. We are not at all entitled to this Blessing by Christ, but by our own Obedience you mean, etc.  
Repl. I am represented as if I thought, 1. That Christ served only to excuse us from perfect Obedience, but that our Pardon and Glory, given 
Gospel-Conditions not the Righteousness for which we are justified, nor of the same nature as legal Works.  by the Promise, were not the immediate Effects of his Merits. 2. That he merited only that we might merit by our Faith. 3. That our Faith and Repentance are the meritorious Cause of our Pardon and Glory by the New Law, and so, that Gospel-Conditions are of the same use to our Justification, as Works were under the Law; that is, to be the Righteousness for which we are justified and saved. All which I disown, and expressly declare, 1. That Christ hath satisfied Justice, and merited Pardon and Glory; these have their Being only on his account, and he hath a Right to give them. 2. When the Sinner partakes of these Mercies, he partakes of them as the fruits of his Death, and for his sake. 3. God in Christ, as our Ruler, hath declared a Way and Order how he will dispense these Benefits to us, and enjoins our compliance with that Order. If we believe (tho' Faith be his Gift) he will forgive for Christ's sake, otherwise he declares he will not. 4. Gospel-Conditions have no other use to our Interest in these Benefits, than a compliance with this stated Rule of the Distribution of Pardon and Glory, which are merited by Christ, and given only for his sake. This is my plain meaning in all he hath objected against, consult my words in the Epistle, and what I have repeated in the last Head, and these following in my Book. Cap. 7. p. 39 I affirm, That Christ by his Righteousness merited for all the Elect, that they should in his time and way be certainly partakers of its Saving Effects, and did not only purchase a conditional Grant of those Effects, viz. that Proposition, He that believeth shall be saved. P. 1. I affirm, The whole meritorious Cause and Price of Justification, Adoption, and Eternal Life were perfect, when Christ finished the Work of Satisfaction. Cap. 3 p. 16. I affirm, That when we are pardoned, the whole meritorious Cause of that Pardon is that atonement, and what is required of Sinners, is only a Meetness to receive the Effects of it. Cap. 10. p. 84. I deny, that preparatory Qualifications do merit True Grace; and that Faith or Repentance do merit an Interest in Christ. I say, their whole use depends on Christ's Ordination. P. 45. we are reputed righteous, for the sake of what Christ did, and not for the merit of what we have done. P. 61. I deny the performance of the Conditions of the Covenant to be a purchasing Price, or meritorious of the Benefits promised on such Conditions: This I deny, for Christ alone paid the Price, and it's the Covenant-Promise gives an Interest in the Benefits, to such as perform the Conditions. Cap. 8. p. 53, 54. When I had shown how all Satisfaction, etc. were provided and adjusted in the Covenant of Redemption, I declare, that by the Covenant of Grace I mean the way that God hath ordained, to apply to Sinners that Salvation which is prepared by Christ, and which he will enable the Elect to comply with. Same Pag. I affirm the Conditions do not merit the Blessings promised. P. 55. I affirm, it's from God's Will in the Promise that they are made to be Conditions; he connected the Benefit and the Duty; though he chose Conditions that were fit, yet their fitness would not have availed to our Interest in the Benefits, unless he had promised they should so avail, etc. And the Covenant, though conditional, is a disposition of Grace: There's Grace in giving Ability to perform the Conditions, as well as in bestowing the Benefits: God's enjoining one in order to the other, makes not the Benefit to be less of Grace; but it is a Display of God's Wisdom, in conferring the Benefit suitably to the nature and state of Man in this Life, etc. P. 45. Our Pardon and Acceptance is firm and lasting, and will no more fail us than the Righteousness of Christ will fail, it being the meritorious Cause and Security thereof, and the Benefits can abate to none, who answers the Gospel-rule of its Application. P. 57 These Conditions make us capable of no Happiness, but what Christ hath bought and prepared for us, etc. P. 58. The Use and Interest of Gospel-Conditions is not from the conformity of them to the preceptive part of the Law, (though in a degree there be that) but from their conformity, to the Rule of the Grace of the Promise, the promise of Pardon through Christ being to the penitent Believers, and no other. Repentance and Faith become necessary and useful Conditions of this Pardon, by the order of God in that gracious Promise; but by the Covenant of Works, the mere Work gave an Interest in the Reward, as it was obedience to the Precept, by a Sanction that had Goodness, but no such Grace in it. See p. 61, & 225. I deny that Faith, etc. are in the same place as Works were under the Law, How many more places could I cite? but I shall refer thee to what follows, as to the point of Merit. See p. 225, 247.  
VI Mr. C. p. 30, 31. He looks whether or no we have fully performed the Conditions, and upon finding them, he judicially gives the Promise, i. e. in away of Reward to the Works performed. Whether they be perfect or imperfect it's no matter; the Reward is of Debt, and not of Grace, etc. And what can this be, but a declared judgement, that he is de congruo, deserving Pardon, and I think ex condigno too, before he is pardoned, etc.  
Repl. The scope of these and the like Passages, is to render me one that thinks that Faith or other Graces did merit the pardon of our Sins; which is contrary to my declared Judgement; as may be seen in what I have above cited, and in these following Passages, Cap. 12. p, 102, 103. Tho Faith be no way a meritorious Cause of a Sinner's Justification, etc. Note, 
Gospel-Conditions no way meritorious of justification or Salvation, nor other workingconditions, but a mere conformity to the Gospel way of receiving the Gifts of Christ.  1. There is a Righteousness for which a man is justified, that is only Christ's Righteousness; this is the Foundation of the Promise, and the Merit of the Blessing promised: Nothing can add to it or mingle with it; it's sufficient, and alone sufficient to satisfy Justice, atone for Gild, and merit Acceptance and Eternal Life. 2. There is to be considered, what the condition of the person is, whom this Mercy is promised to; he is one that hath this True Grace of Faith, etc. Christ's Righteousness shall not be imputed to this use, unless we believe, etc. and this Faith being a conformity to the Rule of the Promise, some call it a subordinate Righteousness, not meaning any Righteousness for which a man is forgiven, for it is Christ's Righteousness alone for which God justifies us: But it's our answering the Rule by which Christ applieth his Righteousness for our remission, and a Right to Life, and his Promise is the ground of our Title. P. 104. I deny that Faith or any Grace be a jot of the meriting Righteousness for which we are justified. I deny that Faith, or any other Grace add anything to the value of Christ's Merits: Yea, I add, That if Christ's Righteousness could be applied for Pardon, to the vilest Sinner, before he believes, it would justify him; but God hath declared, it shall not be applied to Unbelievers. P. 120. Neither Holiness, sincere Obedience, or good Works, are in the least the meritorious Righteousness whereby Salvation is caused, or for which this, or any Blessing, becomes due to us, as of Debt, etc. but He appoints these as the Way and Means of a Believer's obtaining Salvation, etc. P. 125. I deny that any Holiness, internal or external, any Obedience, work, or Duty, do at all merit the Promise, or is the meritorious Cause or Righteousness for which any promised Mercy is bestowed: And I own, that all is of Gift, tho' given in an order suitable to our condition, as Subjects in a state of Trial. P. 137. Nothing of these merit Heaven, but he that merited Heaven, hath peremptorily appointed these to bring us thither. P. 155. We ought to renounce every Thought of purchasing from God any Benefit for what we do. P. 210. We must teach the best man to renounce all the Grace he hath, and Good he performs, as if being the least atonement for Sin, or least purchase of Life, or any addition of Merit to a Christ, or sharing in what is peculiar to him. P. 225. I condemn it as Legal to preach, that our Faith, Holiness, or Good Works stand in the same place now, as perfect Obedience did under the Law, viz. to render the Reward to be of Debt, or be the meritorious Righteousness for which we are justified. P. 244. I do renounce all that Saints have or do, as any atonement for Sin, or purchasing Price of the least Benefit, much less Salvation.  
Judge, Reader, if I can say more to exclude all Opinion of Merit.  
VII. Mr. C. p. 31. you, do here not a little insinuate what I know lies in your Breast; That there is no specific difference between Grace and mere moral Endowments. And it appears so upon all your Hypotheses, for you declare, there ought to be such and such Qualifications, to entitle a man to the Promise of Grace, or Grace in the Promise, before he hath the Promise. The same p. 32.  
Repl. Here I am charged, 1. as if I thought there were no specific difference between Saving Grace and mere Moral Endowments. I suppose by Moral Endowments he 〈◊〉 such as the unconverted have; to which I answer, There is a moral specific difference, the one is Saving, the other is not; the one is from the effectual Work of the Spirit, whereby the Soul is truly regenerated, the other is not. And this difference thou wilt see me own, as far as I had occasion. 2. I am charged, as that I hold there must be Qualifications in a Sinner, to entitle him to the first Grace, or to the Promise of it. But as there is not a tittle leading to either in the words he citys, so I pray weigh the places under each Head.  
1. There is a specific difference between Grace and mere moral Endowments. P. 224. I condemn it as legal to press men to Faith and Repentance, 
A moral specific difference between true Grace and mere moral Endowments.  and other Duties, as if to be performed in our strength, without the Grace of Christ, and influences of the Spirit. P. 57 The Conditions of the Covenant of Grace are performed by the Grace of Christ, freely given to Sinners. Cap. 11. p. 90. Every man is without Christ, till he be effectually called; but when by this Call the Spirit of God inclineth and enableth him willingly to accept of Christ, as a Head and Saviour, a man becomes partaker of those Influences and Privileges which are peculiar to the Members of the Lord Jesus. Cap. 11. p. 92. I affirm, that Christ's giving us the Spirit of Grace doth begin this Union, and the Spirit given, in order to Saving Operations, produceth this Faith, whereby the Union is consummated. P. 83. I affirm, There may be Knowledge, Assent, Humbling, etc. and yet a Soul fail of an interest in Christ, for want of true Conversion.  
2. See how positive I am, that there are no Qualifications to entitle a man 
The First Grace absolutely given.  to the First Grace, or the Promise of it. Tho' I wonder that he makes no difference between the Promise of Grace, which is absolute, and Promises to Grace, which are conditional. Cap. 10. p. 83. I affirm, The worst Sinners are often the Objects of God's effectual Calling, in order to an Interest in Christ. Cap. 8. p. 61. I affirm, the First Grace is absolutely given, though dispensed ordinarily in the due use of Means. P. 66, The Gospel or Covenant tells us, that there is a Promise of the First Grace made to Christ, for the Elect, and by virtue of that Promise the Elect do consent to the Covenant; and this Gospel or Covenant is the Means whereby that Faith is wrought.  
VIII. Mr. C. It is this Doctrine, viz. of Imputation, that you are still bantering; it's that you have the greatest pick at.  
Repl. Reader, weigh my plain words; Cap. 7. p. 37. The Mediatorial Righteousness of Christ is so imputed to true Believers, as that for the sake thereof they are pardoned, and accepted unto Life-eternal, it being reckoned to them, and pleadable by them for these uses, as if they had personally done and suffered what Christ did, as Mediator for them, whereby they are delivered from the Curse, and no other atonement, nor meriting price of Saving Benefits, can be demanded from them. P. 39 I affirm, That besides these Effects (viz. all the saving Effects of Christ's Death) being made 
Christ's Righteousness is imputed.  ours, the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to true Believers, as what was always undertaken, and designed for their Salvation, and is now effectual to their actual Pardon and acceptance to Life▪ yea, is pleadable by them▪ as their Security, and is as useful to their Happiness, as if themselves had done and suffered what Christ did. (And a few lines before) I affirm, That Christ's Sufferings and Obedience were so in our stead, that God cannot exact from us any other atonement for Sin, or price of any Gospel-Blessings. P. 43. Had not Christ suffered for us, we could not be absolved for the sake of his Obedience and Sufferings. The like may be seen p. ●…47.  
Reader, I would inform thee, that I can agree to any Expressions, to note Christ a Representative, Surety, Head, etc. that are consistent with Pardon of Sin, and our not being the persons in God's Account, who suffered and obeyed: But, I think, Forgiveness for the sake of what Christ did and suffered for us, is what we must take comfort in, and Christ suffered in the person of a Mediator.  
IX. Mr. C. p. 1. For the Doctrine of justification especially, we are in a manner returned to Egypt, that of justification by Works being brought into the room of justification by Faith.  
Repl. Here, and in many places, I am arraigned, as being for Justification by Works, and not by Faith; which must be to import, 1. That I am for Works being joined with Faith, to our admission into a state of Justification. 2. That Faith and other things do justify us, as the Righteousness for or by which we are justified. As to the last, review what is cited under the 3, 4, 5, 6 misrepresented Principles, and sure thou wilt see that it's Christ's Righteousness, and not ours, which is that for and by which alone we are justified, as the sole Merit. The former then remaineth as a Charge; as to which, see if I do not positively assert, that we are justified as soon as we truly believe. Cap. 12. p. 104. I affirm, that we are justified 
justified by Faith before Works.  the same moment as we truly believe in Christ, and the Blessing is not suspended for any time longer. This I affirm, because God justifies us by the Promise, as his Instrument; and this Promise declares, that He will justify him that believes. It's Christ, truly believed on, doth justify us, and a Christ so believed on cannot but justify us. P. 247. We say we are upon repenting and believing put into a justified State, before any other Work●…▪ Reader, I did, to prevent this mistake, preface that Chap. 13 of the Necessity of Holiness and Good Works, with these words. P. 120. Note, that whatever is spoken in this Chapter of any Act of Grace, except penitent Believing, refers not to the forgiveness of Sin, or the Sinner's admission into a justified state; the Benefits I here treat of▪ are the not forfeiture of Pardon, the possession of Heaven, and particular Blessings, as increase of Peace, Joy. Returns of Prayer, etc. So▪ p. 113.  
Obj. The only Pretence for this Charge, must be, That I make Repentance necessary to Forgiveness.  
Ans. But, 1. I expressly deny Repentance to be any part of the Righteousness for which we are forgiven. It's no Merit, etc. this thou mayest see 
Gospel ●…ons no 〈◊〉 of justification.  in a hundred places in my Book, some are cited in the 4, 5, 6 Heads. 2. I deny it to be any cause of Forgiveness. I say in p. 119. I own myself to be among them who deny Repentance, of any Grace in M●…n, to be a Cause of Forgiveness. ●…. I deny that Justification is equally ascribed to Repentance, as to Faith, etc. See p. 113. I deny Justification to be equally 
justification by Faith alone, as the 〈◊〉 Receiving▪ Condition  ascribed to Faith and Repentance, for we are said to be justified by Faith; which imports, that Repentance is but a Disposing Condition, and Faith the Receiving Condition: Repentance without Faith is unavailable, as Faith without Repentance is impossible. Faith seems to complete all, and in a manner comprehend all. Now Reader, thou seest that all I say, is, That Faith alone receives Forgiveness by Christ, or Christ for Forgiveness: But that Repentance of Heart must be in that Soul, who shall obtain Forgiveness, see my Reasons Cap. 12. from p. 115, to 119. By the way note. If it can be true, as he saith p. 16. That I mean Works are necessary to Salvation, as working Conditions; when I exclude all Graces and Works, as any Cause at all.  
X. Mr. Ch. p. 29. What a sad case is a poor Sinner in, if he make shift to scramble, by his imperfect Conditions, into Covenant! He is like every day to be turned out again; and when he hath done the best he can, he must never believe that he shall go to Heaven, till he lie a dying.  
Repl. Here my Principles are represented as against the perseverance of the Elect Believer: But I shall cite a few places, and leave it to thy Judgement. Cap. 7. p. 40. I affirm, That Christ by his Righteousness merited, 
All Elect Believers shall persevere.  and by his Spirit doth renew the Hearts of his Members, and will, in time, so communicate of his Grace to them, that they shall be perfectly holy, even without Spot and Blemish: And the Spots and Blemishes remaining in a godly man, do consist with his justified state, and shall not cast him out of God's Favour. P. 138. Do not say, the Elect Believer will not fall away, I think the same; yet is it the less true, that even he shall perish if he fall away: Nay, doth not God by these Threats contribute to keep him from Apostasy? And p. 173. I deny that a Principle of Life, given at first conversion, will finally fail to exert itself in due Humbling for repeated Enormities, and in holy Resolves. And p. 248. God sees no Sin in Believers, so as to cast them out of a Justified state. P. 66. The Gospel secures the Perseverance of Believers in that true Faith, and the necessary effects and operations of it, and thereby secures those Benefits as unforfeited. Many more places might be produced; as p. 37, etc.  
XI. Mr. C. p. 16. The great Quarrel you have with him, is, That he (viz. Dr. Crisp) makes it so much his business to vindicate the Honour of Free Grace, and of the Lord jesus, in our whole Salvation. P. 35. According to your own Principles, it's a question whether you have not put a Bar upon the Grace of God, by making so daring and audacious an opposition to it, as you have done in this Book.  
Repl. This severe Charge is, that I 1. oppose the Honour of Christ; 2. I make an audacious opposition, to the Grace of God, even to a doubt, whether I am guilty of the Sin against the Holy Ghost: But I hope the places following will convince thee of his Mistake.  
1. I do not oppose the Honour of Christ, though I would keep the Crown upon his Head. See p. 55. Christ as a Priest hath merited all, but as a King 
Christ not opposed, but ex●…ted.  or Priest upon his Throne, he dispenseth all. And p. 209. We must teach, that Christ hath purchased all Saving Benefits, and that men must look to him as the Author of Salvation, and Giver of that Grace whereby we obey the Terms of Life. Cap. 22. p. 236. I am willing to own any thing that lays Man low; and exalts Christ, as the only Atonement, the only Purchaser of all our Blessings, the only Procurer of our Acceptance, the Author and Finisher of all Grace. Nothing can add to his satisfaction or fullness; Pardon▪ Peace, Life, all are the effects of his sole Merits; we must do all in his Name▪ act in his Strength, daily live on him for all Supplies, and look to him for Acceptance, without whose Incense the best man and the best action were an Abomination▪ What I contend for is his Government, so wisely contrived to apply his Blessings to Men, in a state of Trial. Reader, look back to what is cited before, 4, 5, 6 Heads, and I am sure my Book is full of such Passages.  
2. I do not oppose the Free Grace of God: See Cap. 23. p. 240, etc. I have affirmed▪ and would admit the fullest Expressions to testify, that in 
Free Grace honoured, and not opposed.  these is the Free Grace of God in Truth Of mere Grace he elected some certain Sinners to Life, upon no moving foreseen Condition, but yet to obtain it through Sanctification of the Spirit to Obedience, and sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus. Of mere love to Sinners no way deserving it, he gave his Son to die for them, who also undertook to bring all the Elect to Salvation, in the way appointed between the Father and him. He without any thing in Man to deserve it, gave his Gospel, and thereby offereth in the virtue of his Son's Blood Pardon, and Eternal Life to every one that will repent, and truly believe, and no penitent persevering Believer shall miss of Life by a failure of this Promise. He freely, and of mere Grace, bestows Faith and Repentance; yea, gives his Spirit to create these, and any other good Work in worthless vile Sinners; and though he will not forgive any that finally refuse to believe and repent, nor save any ungodly apostate man▪ yet Pardon and Life are his Free Gift, and no Grace nor Duty merits them, they being no more than the required Conditions or Means of our partaking of them, as the Gifts of God through Christ; and so he hereby honours his own Government, and no way indulgeth the Boastings of Men. P. 244. This Grace I adore, and own the best to merit nothing, to forfeit all, yea, to deserve Hell by the Law of Works. And I do renounce all that Saints have or do, as any a●…onement for Sin, or Purchasing-price of the least Salvation, etc. Very many other places I might add, and have said nothing inconsistent herewith, unless that I mu●…t be arraigned, because I think, that since God hath published his Will, that he will forgive all such, and none but such as believe and repent, and will damn all that remain unbelieving and impenitent; that therefore He is not alike free to forgive the Unbeliever and Impenitent, whilst they remain such, and to condemn the penitent Believer, when he is by Grace made such: Tho' I declare, He will make all the Elect to become penitent Believers, and then forgive them.  
XII. Mr. C. Truly for your comparing Christ and Holiness in the matter of justification, 'tis perfect stuff. P. 16. You mean, as a working Condition, whereby you put Works in the place of Christ; and mean as your Oracle speaks, etc. p. 30.  
Repl. Here, as well as in other places; I am represented to compare Christ and Holiness in Justification, yea, to put Works, as working Conditions, in the place of Christ. I have already instanced, that I denied any 
Holiness not compared with Christ, nor Works s●…t in 〈◊〉 place.  Grace or Work to be any Cause at all, 9th Head; also, that Christ's Righteousness is the sole meritorious Cause or Matter of our Justification, which is imputed to us 4, 5, 6 Heads; and that our Works follow Faith and Pardon, and neither Faith nor Works are any Price, Atonement, or moving or procuring Cause, 6, 11 Heads, and elsewhere; yea, and that we are to renounce a Thought of this. Do I then oppose Christ, or compare any Holiness with him? I shall add, Cap. 19 p. 198. I own we should esteem the sincere Holiness of a Believer's Heart and Actions to be Dung, if compared with Christ, as meritorious of Justification. And, p. 202. Who must not own, that compared with Christ, the best thing in us is vile, yea, compared with his Righteousness? And p. 210. We must teach the best man to renounce all the Grace he hath, and Good he doth, as it being the least atonement for Sin, or least purchase of Life, or any addition of Merit to Christ, or sharing in what is peculiar to him. And Cap. 21. p. 225. I condemn any that preach, that our best Obedience doth not deserve Wrath by the Law, or that it doth not need Forgiveness, or is any Supplement of Christ's Righteousness; yea, or to neglect to call men to renounce all in themselves, as any atonement for Sin, or cause of Pardon; and that we must look to Christ as the only Propitiation, Purchaser of all our Blessings, and Cause of the acceptance of our Persons and Performances.  
Reader, I have given thee a few of those many places. Having finished this first point proposed, I will appeal to thy Conscience, whether I can with any shadow of Justice be charged with those Principles which this Brother fixeth upon me. I hope he did not wilfully expose me in the face of such Evidence. The words in my Preface lead not to the least suspicion, yea, are positive to the contrary; and therefore how he saith this is my sense, when I must not only equivocate, but grossly contradict myself, and that in places where I state the Question, must increase the Wonder: Neither is there the least pretence, except that I assert, that though Pardon and Salvation are all Free Gifts, and the Merits of Christ are imputed as the sole meritorious Cause of all, yet God, as our Ruler, hath appointed a Method in the Gospel for the dispensing of them, and doth confer them in that Method▪ and ordains a Gospel-Ministry in a consistency therewith, and in a subserviency thereto. This Scheme any man may see in my very Preface and morethrough the whole Book. 2. I shall attempt, if possible, to make my sense intelligible to the most vulgar Apprehension, to this end I premise.  
1. God may be considered in his Dispensations towards fallen men, as a 
The 〈◊〉 of the Ele●…, ●…f God be considered as mere Proprietor.  mere Proprietor and Benefactor, and not as Rector or Ruler; and so men must be considered merely as Creature-Objects of his Benefits, and not at all as rational Subjects to be now governed, and hereafter judged. If you look at God thus absolutely conferring Benefits, than the way is this: He eternally elects to Glory a certain number of men, whom he sore saw undone by Adam's Fall; he appoints his Son to undertake their recovery, as the sole covenanting Party with him, in the Covenant of Redemption he was to satisfy Justice, merit Glory, and make them physically meet for it.  
This is all true, and sometimes prophetically declared thus, and the event as to the Elect is, as certain as if God dealt no otherwise with Man on this side Death. But if this be the whole Method of GOD with Men, as some account it, how much of the Bible is unintelligible and vain, how much is contradicted, and a great part of God's manifold Wisdom obscured and denied, which shines forth in his present Paternal Dominion as Redeemer?  
2. God may be considered as a Ruler, Proprietor, and Benefactor conjunctly: We may look at him as communicating his Benefits in a way of Government, and that in many things not exclusive of his absolute Propriety. That this is his Method, I have proved in my Book. Cap. 8, 13, 20. 
The state of fallen Men, as GOD is considered a paternal Ruler.  and other Chapters, and may hereafter more confirm it. Herein God connects Benefits with Duties, offers Pardon and Glory upon Terms, deals with Men as Subjects whom he now governs, and will hereafter judge without respect of Persons, and to that end hath set down his Rules, by which he now sentence●…h by the Word, and will at the great day do it by the Person of Christ; all which suppose Christ's Merits, and the Ability to obey, and Benefits given for his sake alone.  
It's true, he discovers his absolute Propriety, in not giving the same Means or the same internal Grace to all; which will, no doubt, fully appear to be equal. He doth also discover himself peculiarly beneficent to his Elect, (for whom Christ merited all) and infallibly brings about his purpose concerning them, by making them obedient to the Conditions of whatever saving Benefits his Gospel promiseth upon Conditions: But yet he dispenseth the promised Benefits as a just Rector or Ruler, according to the Offers made to all. Pursuant hereto, our Ministry is appointed to propose Blessings to all in the same way, and upon the same Terms, and to assure all, that upon those Terms, and no other, they shall obtain those Benefits for the sake of Christ. Can any think we dare make the same Offers to the Devils, as to every man; or to the Damned, as we can to all men alive? Dare we say to them after Death, If you will now believe, you shall yet be saved; turn now, and you shall yet live?  
On the other hand, dare we say to an Elect Unbeliever, if we knew him, Elect, thou shalt be forgiven, though thou dost not believe, thy Unbelief is no Bar to thy Salvation, by any Threatening of God declared against thee? Is Sentence passed on all men in Adam, or on the Elect in Christ's Person, that God deals with neither in a way of Government, as in any state of Trial for Eternity? There's an end of that Preaching which God hath fitted and most blessed to the conversion of Souls, if this be true: Mr. Chancy's Father, in Doct. of justific. p. 117. Mind you your Duty, God hath ordained the End with the Means; and therefore, though it were revealed to thee from Heaven, that thou shalt certainly be saved; yet I might truly say to thee, except thou believe, and repent, thou shalt perish, etc. The Offer of Christ in the Gospel, this shows what he would have us to do, even to repent and believe. Mr. Norton, Orth. Evang. shows, They (might) say to a Judas, If thou believe, thou shalt be saved; and to a John, If thou believe not, thou shalt be damned, p. 89, 90.  
Having premised these things, I shall familiarly deliver my real Thoughts as to what men ignorantly accuse me of, and pitch upon Forgiveness of Sin, 
A plain account of my judgement by Questions and Answers.  as a word most intelligible to ordinary Readers. Q. Who forgiveth Sin? A. It's God in Christ forgives Sin. Q. What is it for God to forgive our Sins? A. To absolve us from obligation to endure those undoing Punishments, due for the Sins which he forgives. Q. For what doth God forgive our Sins? A. Only for the Merits and Righteousness of Christ imputed to us. Q. Whose Sins doth God forgive? A. The Believer's Sins, though he be a Sinner. Q. Is our Faith the Righteousness for or by which we are forgiven? A. No, this would put up Faith in the room of Christ. Q. Doth God accept of Faith, or any imperfect Obedience, instead of perfect legal Obedience, as the Righteousness for or by which he counts us worthy of Pardon and Eternal Life, as if He for Christ's sake had abrogated the Law for this end? A. No, for this were to exclude Christ's Merits from being the immediate procuring Cause of our Pardon and Eternal Life; which with all Saving Blessings are the Fruits of his Merits and Satisfaction. Q. Is not Faith, or any thing in Man, the Cause of Forgiveness? A. No, because Forgiveness is a Mercy, which no Grace or Act of ours hath any causal Influence into. Q. Is Faith, or any Act of ours, any Price of Forgiveness? A. No, Forgiveness is a Free Gift, and of Free Grace and Mercy. Q. Is Faith, or any Act of ours, a foreseen Motive to incline God to purpose, offer, or give us Forgiveness for it? A. No, it's of mere Grace that God resolved, and for Christ's sake actually forgives us when we believe. Q. Will God certainly forgive a Sinner when he believes? A. Yes, because he hath promised to do so. Q. Will God forgive all the Elect? A. Yes, when they do believe. Q. Did God decree, and did Christ merit that the Elect might be only capable of being forgiven if they do believe? A. No, for God decreed, and Christ merited, that the Elect should certainly believe, and so be infallibly forgiven. Q. Will not God forgive the Elect before they do believe? A. No, because he hath not promised to forgive any, while they are Unbelievers; yea, He hath declared he will forgive no Unbeliever. Q. What is that Faith in Christ which you persuade to? A. Such a Trust in Christ my crucified Saviour, as brings me to receive a whole Christ, in opposition to all Rivals, for Justification, Sanctification, and Glory; relying on his Merits, Fullness, Power, and Care to perform in his own way, what he hath promised, and I stand in need of. Q. Must not we receive Forgiveness before we receive Christ himself? A. No, we must receive Christ himself, and with him his Benefits, though I must first believe, that there is Forgiveness in him for me, as well as for other Sinners, if I will accept of him. Q. How come we to believe? A. By the Work of the Spirit in our effectual Calling. Q. Have we not an Interest in Christ, as Members of him, before we do believe? A. No, we have no claim to the Privileges of Christ's Members, until we believe: But yet, when the Spirit effectually calls us, Christ thereby takes hold of us, to make us Members, and by Faith we receive him for our Head, and so have the Privileges and Benefits of his Members, as in Marriage both Parties consent, before the Wife hath claim to the Privileges of a Wife. Q. Doth not Faith entitle us to Forgiveness? A. No; yet by Faith I have a certain Interest in Forgiveness. Q. What doth entitle us to Forgiveness? A. The Promises of God entitle us to Forgiveness for Christ's sake, when we do believe. Q. Hath God declared any Rule by which he gives Forgiveness to one rather than another? A. Yes, his Gospel, wherein he declares, he will forgive them that believe. Q. What use is Faith of to Forgiveness? A. Not to merit, not to buy, not to cause Forgiveness; but it answers that Gospel-Rule by which God applies Christ's Righteousness for our participation of this, as one of the effects of his Death. Q. Have we a Right to Forgiveness for Christ's sake upon our believing? A. The Promise gives us a Right to Forgiveness by Christ's Merits, when we believe. Q. When God forgives us, doth he judge us to be Believers? A. Yes, for he hath declared he will forgive none but Believers. Q. Will God hereafter more publicly declare us to be Believers? A. Yes, 〈◊〉 in the day of Judgement, where he will publicly pass that Sentence, which he by the Gospel now passeth upon every Soul. Q. Is it any thing in the nature of Faith, as a Work whereby a Believer comes to be forgiven, rather than an Unbeliever? A. No, tho' God did think fit to choose this Grace, as fittest to honour Christ, make use of his Promise, etc. yet its availableness is from God's Ordination and Promise, wherein he hath made Faith a Condition of Forgiveness. Q. Why do not you use the word Instrument? A. Besides the improperness of that word as the Act of a Sinner, who is the Object of God's justifying Act, which is a forensick or judicial Act, I think it ascribes too much to Faith as a Work and like not to hear it made a Cause, and to have a causal influence on Forgiveness; yet I believe the Learned mean no more by it than a moral Instrument, which is the same with a Condition, and therefore they use these words promiscuously. Q. But do not they say we are forgiven by Faith only as it is related to Christ's Righteousness, & c? A. So do I say, and add, that the use of any other Gospel-Condition of any other Benefit, is only as that Condition relates to Christ: But how comes Faith related to Christ's Righteousness, but as the Promise declareth, if thou believe thou shalt be forgiven for Christ's Righteousness imputed. Q. But are not we justified by Faith? A. No otherwise than as God hath declared Christ's Righteousness shall justify them that believe. Q. Doth not Faith take hold of, or look to, approve of, rely on, and accept of Christ and his Righteousness for Pardon? A. Yes, and therein is its fitness above any other Grace: But that would not forgive us, if it were not ordained by the Will of God, that they who thus take hold of Christ and his Righteousness, should be justified by the Righteousness of Christ, when they take hold of it. Q. But do not you affirm, that Repentance is necessary to our being forgiven? A. Yes; not to Pardon in itself, but to our obtaining it; and have proved this Cap. 12. but I do not put it in the same place with Faith, no●… do I insist upon the whole of Repentance, but I affirm, that no man will look to Christ, that seeth not his own Misery; and no man doth accept of Christ, that doth not purpose to leave his Sin and Idols; neither do in a manner any solid Writers deny the presence and necessity of so much of it with Faith, which Faith is the great Term of the Covenant, and includes so much of Repentance as I insist on. Q. Shall the Elect fall from a state of Forgiveness? A. No, the Decree, the Intercession of Christ, the Promise of Perseverance, yea, and Forgiveness itself, do all assure a perseverance in Grace, and so a continuance in a pardoned estate. Q. What do you trust in, as that for which God will accept of you, and save you? A. Only in the Righteousness of the Lord Jesus. Q. Do not you trust in your own inherent Righteousness, as that for which God will save you? A. I abhor such a Thought. Q What stress do you lay on Good Works? A. Not as necessary to my justified state, into which I am admitted upon my first believing: 2. Nor as any Righteousness for which God will save me. Q. What stress then do you lay? A. No more than as they evidence my Faith to be true, execute my first believing Consent, prevent their Contraries, which the Gospel threatens with Misery, and answer the Rule of any Gospel-promise, that God hath made, and will execute for Christ's sake, to the upright person. Q. Do you think that we are justified by our Good Works at the last day, as if they were the Righteousness by which we shall be saved at the last day? A. No, I would tremble at such a Thought, and declare it's Christ's Righteousness alone, and unmixed, that I hope to be saved for and by. Q. What are your Thoughts then as to our inherent Righteousness and Good Works, as they fall under Christ's Judgement at the last day? A. My whole Heart is, 1. That if a man truly believe, and die before he hath opportunity to do more, he shall be sentenced Happy as a Believer, notwithstanding he was prevented by Death from professing the Truth, and proceeding in Holiness, performing Acts of Worship, etc. 2. God hath declared, that none shall at last be saved by Christ's Righteousness, that are Infidels, Ungodly, utterly unprofitable, or Apostates: And therefore all that God will then save for Christ's Merits, must truly be, and will be declared to be no Infidels, Ungodly, utterly unprofitable, nor total Apostates, but the contrary; and they shall be judged free from the guilt of final Infidelity. 3. The most eminent in Faith, Holiness, Sufferings, and Labours, shall be adjudged to greater degrees of Glory, which added degrees will be as truly the effects of Christ's sole Merits, as the lesser degrees. All this is exactly consonant to my Book, and my full Persuasion.  
Because I see that well-meaning People are imposed on, by a noise of Popery and Arminianism, I shall let thee see how our Protestant and Orthodox Divines do represent and oppose the Popish and Arminian Points in this matter; and so thou mayst judge how the Antinomians secure their destructive Errors by this clamour. The sum of the Popish Principles our Divines 
Popish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  oppose may be thus reduced: They think that, 1. by Attrition, (or a 〈◊〉 legal fea●… of Punishments) Men do ex congruo (or meetness) merit Charity and Faith, which be the beginning of Sanctification, and that this begun Sanctification is all our first Justification. 2. That whatever be the efficiency of the Spirit in working Faith, it is determinable by Man's free Will, whether any believe or no. 3. That upon our improvement and exercise of this first Charity and Faith, we truly and properly merit the increase of Holiness, and Eternal Glory, and that ex condigno. This they call the second Justification. 4. That by the Absolution of the Priest on Confession, in the Sacrament of Penance, our Sins of Age are forgiven; as original Sin was by Baptism, and venial Sins, and temporal Punishments of mortal Sins by Satisfaction, and Indulgences; and all in a way of merit.  
The Points that can be at all pretended as my Concern, I'll give you, as stated by Dr. Ames, in his Bellarminus Enervatus, with r●…y own Answers to his Questions, Tom. 3. lib. 5. Q Whether Prayer, Fasting, or Alms are satisfactory Works? A. I plainly deny it oft p. 240. Q. Do our Works truly and properly make satisfaction to God, for that Obligation to Punishment which remaineth to be expiated? A. I say, No; for we make no satisfaction by any thing. Tom. 4. p. 109. Q Whether Faith alone justifieth? A. I say, Yes; that is, we are justified by Faith alone, as that which alone receives Christ, and before Works of Obedience: But yet I think Ames well explains this, p. 112. Something may be before Pardon, as a pre-requisite Disposition, so that it be not the cause of Pardon. And this is all I say of Repentance, and agree with him in p. 112. Repentance taken for legal Humiliation goes before justification, as a Disposition in Order pre-requisite, but not as a Cause. 2. Evangelical Repentance is taken for Conversion, of which Faith is a principal part. Yea, add, That a great part of Repentance is the effect of Justification. 3. I agree with him in the next words: Quocunque modo, etc. Which-ever way Repentance is taken, neither Grief nor detestation of Sin is the cause of justification. Nay more, I agree with Aims in his Account of Faith, cap. 2. p. 101. Fides specialis misericordiae duplici ratione vocatur, etc. Faith of special Mercy (which is Trust or Reliance) is taken in two respects, 1. whereby it apprehends Christ, or cleaves to him, for apprehending special Mercy by him: 2. As it apprehends special Mercy as already bestowed. In the first sense it goes before justification; in the latter sense it follows justification,  
Lib. 6. Cap. 1. He treats of imputed Righteousness; and p. 139. saith, that this is the Protestant Judgement; Christi justitiam catenus imputari, etc. Christ's Righteousness is so far imputed to us, that by the virtue thereof we are as much esteemed just before God, as if we had somewhat in ourselves, wherewith we might be esteemed just before him. P. 205. Q. An opera bona, etc. Are the Good Works of Men truly and properly the Merits of Eternal Life? A. I positively and oft deny it, and dare not assert, that Condecency which Aims and others do.  
Reader, if thou art a man of any Skill in these things, thou wilt find that they oppose the Papists concerning our Graces and Works, only as merirorious, and causal of Saving Benefits; and I deny them to be either. See even Chemnit. Exam. par. 1. p. 172. Davenant. de justit. actuali, cap. 30. q. 1. arg. 1. Ames Bellarm. Eneru. tom. 4. lib. 6. Downam of justif. p. 15.   

I shall now show thee what our Calvinists and Orthodox Divines oppose the Arminians in, as to this Doctrine of Justification.  
The Synod of Dort. in their Canons, Part 1. p. 289. of the Errors under the 
Arminian justification, as our Divines state it.  Head De Morte Christi, thus condemn the Arminians; Qui docent foedus illud novum gratiae, etc. That teach, that the Covenant of Grace which the Father, upon the intervention of Christ's 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 itself, 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 Controversy 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, etc. Which, and many more places, I may contract into this as his  
First Principle. That the Gospel is in no sense a Law, nor includes in it as 
Mr. C's first Principle.  any part thereof, either any Precept, nor any Promise upon any Condition on our part, nor any Threatening. 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 Cata●…hresis at best, and nothing else can save it from being a Bull.  
His Second Principles is, The Gospel hath no threatenings. 
Mr. C's 2d Principle.   
When my Question answered 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 
Mr. C's 3d Principle.  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 ofttimes 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 compliance 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 compliance 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 sense it is not a Law; 3. show in what sense 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 
The word Law of Grace same as the Covenant.  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, etc. 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 Man's 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 Sense. He calls it a Law, but yet his Mercy resolves thereby to confer such Benefits, as brings the Law down to a Promise. He calls it a Promise, but his Dominion renders the Term enjoined a Duty, and so be raiseth up the Promise to a Law. The word Covenant implies the certain performance on his part, in the way he sets down, and our restipulation to that way. In the very word Testament, as he notes the ratification of the Covenant by Christ's Death, so it excludes not the appointed Condition of the Legatees, to whom he makes a disposition of the Benefits: So that the Word, the Law of Grace, or the Law of Faith, is no other than the Covenant of Grace, the Gospel-Promise of Salvation, the Testament of Christ, or the Word of the Gospel, or the Gospel itself. Whereas Mr. C. exposeth it as a New Gospel and New Law; it's the first 
How for a new Law, and yet no new Gospel.  Gospel GOD delivered to Men, for he never promised to give Glory by Christ to any unbelieving impenitent person. A new Law indeed it is, as being a little younger than the Law of Innocency, which condemns for the least Sin, and gives Life to none but the Perfect; by which Law no man but Christ was ever justified, and by whose answering it for us we shall be justified in a Gospel-way. 
Heb. 11. 4, 6.  But yet it is a Law older than Cain or Abel, otherwise Abel's Sacrifice had been no more acceptable than Cain's, which by Faith it was; and which Faith in Christ must have been commanded, as well as the Sacrifice; though the brief account which Moses gives, of above two thousand years, doth not express it, nor was it 
Gen. 4. 7, 11.  needful. Yea, God's Words to Cain imply it as Mr. Ball on Covenant, p. 43. saith, These are a Promise of the Covenant, that took place after the Fall.  
2. I do not say, the Gospel is a Law in the following sense. 1. I do not say that the 
How the Gospel is not a Law.  Gospel includes nothing besides this Law; it gives us an account of the Covenant of Redemption, and the absolute Promises: There be many Prophecies the History of our Blessed Lord, & c. Doctrinal Truths, Prophecies, & c. yet these may be called Adjuncts. 2. Nor do I judge it a Law in that sense our Divines fix on the Socinians and Arminians, viz. as if Acts of Obedience to this Law are the Righteousness for which we are justified or saved; as Perfect Obedience was under the Law of Adam. This I deny, for we have no Righteousness for which we are justified or saved, but Christ's, and the Fruits of that are we blessed with, upon complying with the Gospel. Our Faith or inherent Righteousness, & c. are not the paying a Farthing of Debt to the Creditor, but our submitting to that way by which we have Forgiveness of all the Debt, and are Partakers of Glory; both which God had in his Eye, as to be purchased by Christ, before he fixed on this way for our obtaining them. 3. Nor do I take it in the Popish sense, which the Socinians and Arminians espouse, but true Protestants oppose, viz. as if the moral Law were not perfect in its kind, but that the spiritual extensive sense of the Precepts were new Precepts of our Lord; and that the Old Testament did not include the Gospel-Precepts of Faith in Christ, and Repentance for Pardon, as well as the New, though it did not discover the Objects and Motives, & c. so clearly. 4. It is not a Law that supposeth a moral ability in Sinners to perform its Precepts; that was necessary in God's Dealings with Men as his Creatures, just come out of his Hand; but not so, when he deals with Man about his recovery, when he had virtually sinned in Adam, forfeited all, yea, had undone himself. Whatever Mr. C. saith p. 23. I affirm, if the Subject be rational, or have natural Power: If such Ability comes so with this Law, that the Elect are made effectually able, and others are wilfully faulty if they finally rebel, it's enough to justify the Divine Order. Will not and cannot are distinct things with Mr. Fenner, in his Book of Wilful Impenitency. Yea, with D. Owen's on Ps. 130. p. 248. 5. It is not a Law that extinguisheth the Law of Nature which hath its special Precepts, and which in genere upon Gospel Revelation, requires what the Gospel requires, and condemns for Faults against the special Precepts of the Gospel, tho' it condemns not so, as to bar the Relief which the Gospel affords, nor promiseth Life upon those Terms, which the Gospel doth. The Gospel in a large sense takes the Law as subservient to its gracious designs; tho' Mr. C. weakly infers p. 24, 25. that therefore the whole Precept is hereby made the Condition. 6. Neither doth this Law require any thing of us as a Condition of Christ's coming into the World as a Redeemer, it supposeth that, nor yet any Condition of the first Grace to the Elect. This the Covenant of Redemption secures; and it is assured to the Catholic Church by Promise. 8. Nor is it a Law, Obedience whereto renders any promised Blessing a Debt. All is free tho' sure: It's free, as to Man's Procurement or Price, yet it is as sure by Promise, as if it were a Debt; but the Price was Christ's Obedience and Sufferings, and all comes to us of Gift, yet in that way which God appoints to give it.  
2. I mean by the Gospel being a Law, that God in Christ our Redeemer doth 
How the Gospel is a Law.  by the Gospel expressly command Sinners to receive Christ with a true operative Faith, and promiseth, that tho' they are condemned by Adam's Law, yet upon their so believing, they shall be united to Christ, and justified by his Righteousness; and that persevering in Faith by sincere Holiness, they shall be saved for his sake. He also threatens, that if any shall die unbelieving, impenitent, ungodly Rejecters of his Grace, they shall be barred from these Benefits, and they shall perish without relief, and have sorer Punishments, than if these gracious Offers had not been made to them: This is the Law of Faith. I'll add one Caution to this Account, which is too needful. Give me but the Assemblies Description of Faith, Conf. cap. 14. and I desire to use no word as expressive of the Terms of the Gospel, besides Faith, but men now define Faith by such a small part of it, as requires Caution for the sake of Souls.  
1. Here we have all the Essentials of a Law. God is our Ruler, and we his Subjects; 
1 jam. 4. 12.  his Will is revealed in a way of Government; here's his 
2 1 joh. 3. 23  Precept which binds us to Duty; here's a 
3 Mark 16. ●…5, 16.  Promise made to such as do comply; and here's a Threatening denounced against such as finally rebel; Preach the Gospel to every Creature, he that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned. 2. Yet this is a Law of Grace; it's made by our Redeemer for fallen Man, all the Benefits of it are founded on Christ's Righteousness, as the immediate cause of them: Effectual Ability to perform the Duty, is provided for all the Elect, and declared in the Gospel, and God doth not fix on these terms for any Worth in them, or profit to him. 3. The Gospel is the Instrument or Sign by which this Will of God is expressed: This is not the Language of God in Adam's Law; if this were not superadded to that, we had been utterly miserable. 4. This fixeth that Rule of the Promise which Mr. C. p. 33. is at a loss to know. God promiseth he will justify him that truly believes, and save the upright in Heart: Hereby he that in Truth believes, and is upright, answers that Rule which the Unbelievers and Hypocrites do not, and so God doth not hereby promise to save them; yea, he declares they shall not have an Interest in these Mercies, because they continue such, and condemns them as such at last: It's Faith, not Infidelity; it's Faith in Truth, not Faith in Perfection, nor Hypocrisy.  
I shall offer thee some few Reasons why I say this is some part of the Essence of the Gospel, and that God hath fixed this Rule therein.  
R. 1. The Gospel is oft called a Law by the Spirit of God, Isa. 42. 4. He 
Proved that the Gospel is a Law.  shall not fall, nor be discouraged, till he have set Judgement in the Earth, and the Isles shall wait for my Law, Mic. 4. 2. Many Nations shall come, etc. for the Law shall go forth of Zion, etc. Rom. 3. 27. The Law of Faith, Rom. 10. 31. The Law of Righteousness, the Law of Liberty, jam. 1. 25. & 2. 12. A converting Law, Psal. 19 7. The Law of Christ, Gal. 6. 2. The best Commentators expound these to be the Gospel; yea, many say, this is that Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ, Rom. 8 2. Many more places might be added.  
R. 2. men's Behaviour towards the Gospel is expressed by words that denote it to be a Law, Rom. 10. 16. They have not obeyed the Gospel, 2 Cor. 9 13. Your professed Subjection to the Gospel. 2 Thess. 1. 8. To take vengeance on them that obey not the Gospel. 1 Pet. 4. 17. What will the end of them be that obey not the Gospel?  
R. 3. Justification is a judicial Act, and therefore it must be by a Law, if we allow God to be a Ruler when He doth it. We dispute this against the Papists, who deny it to be a forensick Term. It's true, the Righteousness for which we are justified, is Christ's, which answered the Law of Innocency, but the application of it to one man rather than another, and to the same man at one time, and not before, is by the Gospel. It's not the voice of the Law of Works, that the believing Sinner shall be justified for Christ's Righteousness, Rom. 3. 26. So Gal. 3. 22. And I might show, that in Justification is a Right to Impunity; And can any thing but a Law give this? for Condemnation by Law cannot be reversed without a Law.  
R. 4. The Gospel gives a Right to its Benefits upon believing, joh. 1. 12. to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe in his Name. What did God by his Gospel give to these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Right, a Title to be the Sons of God. Very many places of this kind might be urged: And little do men see what follows from denying this Gospel-Rule, when we read such Places as they were worthy, Rev. 3. 4. 
1 1 Thess. 1. 5. 11.  the Reward, 
2 Col. 2. 18. Heb. 11. 26. Mat. 6. 4.  a Right to the Tree of Life. 
3 Rev. 22. 14.  Are these Terms proper from the mere nature of men's Actions? That's Popish Merit. Or from the Law of Works? That's false, and anti-Evangelical. But it's safe to say it's a Gospel Worthiness, Reward, Right, etc. God having for Christ's sake promised to give Blessings in such a way. The Gospel-Law is so entirely founded on Christ, and refers to him so fully, that there is no more than an inviolable Connexion between Terms and Benefits; there's no boasting when the Claim is strongest; yea, not boasting, but ascribing all to Christ, is one of the great Terms.  
R. 5. If God hath no Gospel-Rule beside Election and Distinguishing Mercy to confer Glory by, than God will not, nay, cannot forgive or save the Non-Elect, though they should believe in Christ. Say not they will not believe, that makes no alteration, as to the Point in hand: Hath not God declared he will save them if they believe? That is his Law; and their rejecting his Salvation 
john 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. john 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. Heb. 2. 3.  God arraigneth them for: He is condemned because he hath not believed, etc. What an allay to their Misery would it be to think! Tho' I had believed, I had not escaped this Woe: I have lost neither Christ nor Heaven by my Unbelief. Read God's Pleas with all Sinners; remember Christ's Tears over lost jerusalem. 
.  What do Men speak of a Day of Grace, that Men may sin away? Nay, what are the serious Pleas of Ministers with every Soul, to believe and repent? All are delusive Mockery; whilst God is as free to pardon the Elect, whether he believes or no, He is at liberty to damn others, though they should believe; nay, He is sure to do it, should they believe, because they are not Elect. If this leads not to Hobbism, I see nothing. I own that Forgiveness is an Act of Sovereignty; that is, he is free to give Faith and Forgiveness upon it to whom he will: But they that think God hath left himself absolutely free to forgive the Adult, whether they believe or no, and to condemn the Believer, seem to forget their Bible. Would men of this Principle but preach according to their Scheme, I think their Influence would abate, with all that seriously mind Heaven, not withstanding Mr. C. says, that Pardon will not leave them impenitent.  
R. 6. The Apostles, with all the Saints, may be arraigned as fallen from Grace, and turned from the Gospel, if it be no Rule according to which God applies 
See my Book Cap. 20.  Christ's Righteousness for Justification. How could Peter say, Repent, and be baptised for the remission of Sin, etc. when the People cried, What shall we do? How could Paul answer the Goaler's Question, What shall I do to be saved? Believe 
Acts 2. 37, 38.  on the Lord jesus Christ, and thou shal●… be saved? This is not an Advice to Signs, but to appointed Terms; q. d. God hath commanded you to repent and 
Acts 16. 30, 31.  believe, and hath enacted, that if you do so, the Blood of Christ shall wash and save you. So Gal. 2. 16. We have believed that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ. They believed for this very end. If any say it was Christ justified, it's true, but it was upon believing. Faith is not the justifying Righteousness, but it is the Condition of our being justified by this Righteousness, and the Saints did ill to believe to this end, if God had not enacted it to this end: Nor could they do it in this assurance, that they should be justified when they believed, if God had not promised it upon believing. Had Pardon come by an absolute Promise, they acted very legally in believing that they might be pardoned. Mr. C. may as justly say of them as of me, They set up a new Gospel.  
R. 7. The Gospel is at least part of the Rule by which Christ will judge the World at the last day. That it must be a Law, if it be a Rule of Judgement, I suppose none will deny, unless they'll deny that Christ is a Judge: The Work of that day is not to try Christ, whether he fulfilled all 〈◊〉 Righteousness, nor yet whether his Righteousness was impured to all that did believe, but by solemn Sentence to decide the Cause of all men, to silence all false Apologies, and publicly 
Of the judgment-day.  adjudge all to their eternal place, unto the Glory of Justice and Mercy. That day supposeth all justified or not by the Gospel, Christ then changeth no man's state; the Godly stand there pardoned and entitled to Life by Christ's Righteousness imputed; the Wicked are there without any Interest in Christ; these wicked ones, if they pretend to sinless Innocency, they are cast upon the least Sin, by the Law of Adam: But if they plead God's general Mercy, it will be evident that Mercy adjusted its Rule in the Gospel. If they plead Hopes from Christ as a Redeemer, and the Offers he made, they are convinced by that Book, that Christ saved none but such as repent and believe. If they plead they did believe and profess his Name, Christ will convince them, that his Gospel required a true Faith, operative in sincere and persevering Obedience, the want whereof he will charge upon them; as you see in Mat. cap. 7. cap. 22. & 25, etc. and so leaves them subject to the Law of Adam, without Relief by the Gospel; yea, heightens their Condemnation for disobeying the Gospel: But if they yet plead, But Lord, thou savest some that were Unbelievers as well as we, at least, they were not such Believers as did yield sincere Obedience: This Plea Christ will confound by solemn Declaration of the true Faith and Sincerity of all them whom he now saves, and so will evidence, that his Judgement is without respect of persons, and that his Righteousness is no Plea for any finally unbelieving, ungodly Hypocrite, whom his Gospel condemned. If the Damned or Satan should plead, But they were Sinners, though not unbelieving Hypocrites; the Answer of Christ will be, I have satisfied the Law for them, and so Justice cannot suffer by my washing them in my Blood, nor hinder their being glorious for my sake.  
I humbly think this is being judged according to our Works, Rev. 20. 12, 13. This is being justified by our Words, Mat. 12. 37. And what james most intends jam. 2. 24. I hope none can doubt, but this proves the Gospel is part of the Rule of Judgement, and it's plain, God will judge the Secrets of all Hearts by my Gospel, Rom. 2. 16. And the word that I have spoken to you, that shall judge you. This is one of the 
* joh. 12. 48. Of Iust. p. 10. Rev. 20. 12.  Books that shall then be opened, saith Mr. Ch. Father. And how awful is that day, when the closest Hypocrite will be discovered, and yet the doubtful Christian adjudged sincere! But blessed be God, the Saints Plea will be managed by Christ himself.  
Reader, it's hard reconciling the account we have of the Day of Judgement, by any thing below what I have delivered, and were not the Gospel to be a Rule of Judgement, I cannot see how that could be a judgment-day, it must be only an Execution-day, for by the Law of Adam no Believer could be acquitted; that Law must be altered by the Lawgiver, to admit a Satisfaction, and it's by the Gospel only he hath enacted the way how this Satisfaction shall be applied. By that first Law these Unbelievers (yea, all men) were condemned virtually in Adam when he was judged upon his Fall, and that Sentence seized them as soon as they had a Being, there needed no other. It would help thy Thoughts, if thou wilt accommodate some of the Circumstances of the last Judgement to them that shall be alive at that time. I might multiply Arguments to prove the Gospel to be a Law. Whatever proves the Covenant to be conditional, proves the Gospel to be a Law. Nothing keeps the most sincere Godliness, or Act of a Saint here from being downright a Sin, if the Gospel be no Law, for they are not legally perfect, and so are Sins, I see not how any man can have grounded Hopes of Glory, if the Gospel be no Law; and they that deny it, and say Faith is but a Sign, must set up Works above Faith, for they are more evidencing Signs than an internal Act of Faith: Yea, how can Christ be our King, if his Gospel be no Law? Many more might be added, were there room, but I shall omit the rest, except what will occur in my Answer to Mr. C's Objections which follow.  
I. Mr. C. objects, p. 5. Whoever is justified by a Law, is fallen from Grace, 
Mr. C's Obj. the Article is wanting.  Gal. 3. 11. It should be read a Law, not the Law; it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the emphatical Particle is not put in, and so it's every Law is excluded.  
Repl. Upon such Cobwebs, in the face of the plain scope of the Bible, doth this Cause stand. Where's the Argument? Because in a few places the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not put in, therefore the Apostle excludes even every Law, when he doth plainly exclude only one sort, as appears by the whole Context. Nay, when he at the same time affirms another Species, under that general, Rom. 3. 27. But farther note, 1. Where the Article is elsewhere omitted, the word it refers to doth not exclude every sort of Law, Rom. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Will you render this? For the Gentiles, which have not a Law, or not any Law, the Article is wanting, but sure they had some Law, even the Law of Nature. 2. Where the Article is wanting, it doth not infer, that every kind under the general word are alike intended; Rom. 2. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Is not there the written Mosaic Law set in opposition to the Law of Nature unwritten? Yet the Article is wanting, Rom. 5. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Law was added; Was it no special Law? Sure there was some Law before. So Gal. 4. 4. Gal. 3. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Justice shall live by Faith. Is this any sort of Faith? Will a temporary or historical Faith serve? Yes, by Mr. C's Rule. 3. The Article is oft added to the word Law, in the very Subject before us, Gal. 3. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But the Law is not of Faith. V. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Is the Law against the Promises? and v. 24. Rom. 10. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Moses describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law. 4. The Socinians evade the force of joh. 1. 1. and so deny the Deity of Christ, even by Mr. C's Argument: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Article is wanting to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore it's to be thus rendered: The word was a God, not the God, a God by Office, for that is a God, but not by Essence, which would be the God. 5. The Context doth manifestly specify this Law, and not exclude every Law. It's true, the Gospel argues à fortiori against Justification by the Law of Innocency, yet he directly speaks of Moses' Law; as any may see in reading the places, Mr. C's Proof is taken from Gal. 3. 11. And doth not the Apostle, v. 17. say, The Law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul the Covenant, etc. Was it every Law that was given 430 years after Abram? So from Rom. 3. 28. & cap. 4. And is not the Apostle in the three Chapters express, That that Law was the Jewish Law, or at most the Law of Nature together with it: But more of this last hereafter. Reader, Mr. C. seems fond of this Argument from the Article, and thence oft repeats it; but do thou but read one Book in the Greek Testament, by his Rule, viz. that where the Article is omitted from a word in negative Propositions, there every Species is excluded; yea, bring it down to Names, and where the Article is omitted, than it is any Peter, any john who is there spoken of.  
Obj. II. Mr. C. oft objects, as p. 5. Works performed under a Law-Sanction, are legal Works, and do make the Covenant enjoining them a Covenant of Works. And a few lines before saith he, The performance of Duty as Terms enforced by a Law-Sanction, 
A Sanction makes it a Covenant of Works.  is a Covenant of Works; so that such men are Preachers of a Law, no matter what Law. P. 21. The preceptive Will of God with the Sanction of Rewards, promised upon the things required, and Threats of Punishment upon the non-performance, is always a Law or Covenant of Works. This runs through his Book, and he oft saith, The Gospel hath no Sanction, and if we say so, we make i●… a Covenant of Works. P. 10. Christ is of no effect to him that is justified by a Law.  
Repl. 1 He oft seems not to understand what a Sanction is; for p. 24. he takes it to be mere Life and Death, considered abstractedly, but not as determining 
A Law Sanction.  the way of giving of the one, or inflicting of the other: Whereas a Sanction consummates a Law, and determineth what the Benefit or Penalty shall be, and the certain Connexion between the Benefit and the Condition, and between the Penalty and the want of that Condition, etc. Now will any, except Mr. C. say, That God hath not by the Gospel given Assurance, that upon believing we shall be saved? Have not we God's Word, Oath, and Seals for this? 2. A Law-Sanction doth not exclude the greatest Mercy and Grace, in conferring the Benefit. It's true, 
Every Sanction excludes not Grace.  that if the Condition be in itself meritorious, then in that respect the Benefit is of Debt, and was made a Condition in the Covenant, because of its condignity, if exactly proportionable, or congruity if less valuable: But God chooseth a Condition, that hath ●…o merit either of Congruity or Condignity; nay, the Benefits are purchased by Christ, qua good things in themselves, and they be freely given, tho' in this way. Is it not a gracious Law, though a Law, that If fallen wretches will duly accept of my Son, they shall have Life by him; and this I command them to do? 3. His Mistake seems to be in his Notion of Reward, and in his upon and not upon performance of the Condition. Gospel-Benefits are no Reward of Debt, and yet 
The Gospel Sanction infers not merit.  they are given in a way of reward. The Benefits are given not for our Faith, yet upon believing; not upon it as a meriting consideration, yet upon it as that the presence whereof is made necessary by the Gospel, this having required Faith, and confined the Benefit to him that believes. If a man says, I'll give you a thousand pounds if you will come to my House and fetch it; is it not a free Gift, though the poor man must come if he will have it? And the Giver is yet bound by his Promise to give it if he come, and not bound to give it if he refuse to come. Do not say receiving Pardon is only naturally necessary, and not as a Condition enjoined, for God might have applied Christ's Merits for Pardon, though the Sinner consented not. A Lunatic may be pardoned by a King; and the Rich man might have sent the thousand pound to the Poor man's House, whether he came for it or no; but Christ resolved to show his governing Authority in the displays of Grace, and excite to Duty by Motives from Benefits, though the Benefits shall be so given, as that what we do shall be no cause or Merit of them. 4. Hath 
The new Covenant hath a Sanction.  the Gospel Covenant no Sanction? What think you of Heb. 8. 6? He is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which was established upon better Promises. I hope he'll grant this Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, in a greater opposition to the first Covenant with Adam, though more immediately opposed to the Jewish Covenant; yet this second Covenant hath a Law-Sanction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sancitum est, saith Beza. It's a greatest part of the new Name Mr. C. hath reproached the Gospel with; here's a Law, a Law-Sanction which the new Covenant is consummated by. Men skilled in the Socinian Controversies lay the stress of the Cause of Truth upon Arguments from Condemnation and Justification, being God's Rectoral Acts, but what a loss will they be at, if God do not 〈◊〉 by a or any Law? as Mr. C. 
Of justif. 166, 167.  saith p. 18. Where's Dr. Owen's Law of justification? Yea, We must part with the Force of Rom. 5. 19 5. But why must it needs become a Law or Covenant 
A Sanction doth not make the Gospel a Law of Works.  of Works merely by a Sanction? The great difference between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, lies in this: What is the Righteousness for which we are saved? Is it the Righteousness of Works, or the Righteousness of Christ? But it is not how we come to obtain Salvation by Christ's Righteousness. Doth God make our Faith or Sincerity to be our Justifying Righteousness? If he saith, If thou truly believe, I will justify thee by Christ's Righteousness, but if thou believe not, thou shalt remain condemned; something might be said (tho' not enough) if we were to believe by our own Strength, but that is not so More might be said, yea, enough, if our Faith and Sincerity were to be the Righteousness for which we are pardoned, or entitled to Life; but neither is it any thing like that, nor doth the Gospel design it, nor its Law-Sanction at all infer it. It's 
 one thing to be justified for Faith, as a Work or inherent Qualification, (though it be such a Qualification) it's another thing to be justified by it, as a mere Condition: I abhor the former, and will (through God's Grace) die by the latter. In the first sense, it's only that for which I am justified; in the last sense, 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 
* Gal. of coming to Christ, p. 170.  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 
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.  justifies not as receiving, but it's Christ received justifieth. I say the same, but yet I ask, Will Christ justify 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 justify 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 justify him that believes. 6. The Apostle doth expressly tell us, that the Gospel-Law is not a Law of Works, Rom. 3. 27. Where is Boasting then? Is it excluded? 
Paul affirms the Gospel to be a Law yet not a Law of Works.  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 threatened 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 sense, 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'll admit a Solution of his Objection from Mr. Bulkley of New England, The 
Bulkley, of Gospel Covenant, p. 325.  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 Lawgiver, to give a Law of Works to justify ourselves by it, yet He is a Lawgiver, to give us a Law of Faith, commanding us to believe, etc. 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, than 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 
Ball, of the Covenant, p. 17.  made of Free Love, and calls for nothing at our hands, but what comes from, and shall be rewarded of mere 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. 2●…. Moreover, all the preceptive Will of God, then or afterward 
Mr. C. obj. No Law but the Law of Innocency.  to be revealed, was enjoined 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, etc. 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 show what a gross sense 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 Lawgiver 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 always 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 
The Gospel is not the law of Adam.  of Christ) evidence, that the Law of Nature or Works is not a hindrance to the Gospel's 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. 
The Gospel differs in its Precepts from Adam's Law.  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, etc. The Faith that Mr. C. saith Adam was wounded in, was merely 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 reliance on him? Of which more by and by.  
Is it not strange that Mr. C. saith, The Law never brings us to God, than Faith doth not, for its part of the Law, etc. But let's hear what others speak. Mr. Hooker of New E. p. 337. saith, I flatly deny that Adam, if the Lord Jesus 
Mr. Hooker Souls Effect. Calling.  had been revealed to him, was able to believe in him, and so to rest upon him, etc. 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, etc. 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 joh. 3. 23. Rom. 3. 28. Mr. Bulkley, p. 327. lays down this; That Faith in 
Bulkley of Gospel Covenant.  Christ unto Justification and Salvation, the Commandment enjoining 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: 
D. Goodwin in 2 vol. of the Creatures, etc. lib. 2. cap. 7. p. 5●…. to 63.  As to the Principle, Objects, Light, etc. 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, etc. and therefore it would be strange, that if the Principle of Faith in him, which then was not of general use, should be supernatural, etc. 2. For him to have a supernatural Principle of Faith, as we have, was in him superfluous and vain. This he shows, 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, etc. 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, than the Law did bind to its own dissolution. But I suppose this may serve to show, 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 show 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 
The Law as in Innocency not the Gospel-law.  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 ministered 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 sense 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 a●…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 
The Law as natural in f●…lnmen, not the Gospel-law.  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 sense binds all the Heathens, and its Precepts are engraven naturally upon their Hearts, and God and his Works considered 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 sense indeed the Law commands all Duty in general, but it doth not deny 
The general Law of Nature ●…inders not the Gospel to be a Law.  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 threatenings, which he shall pronounce at any time for Sin, but determineth neither the sort nor degree of the threatened 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 
The Moral Law now the Gospel.  Israel, as taken into the Covenant of Grace, I shall not think fit to say more to than this; Though the carnal jews 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. 
Wittichius Epist. ad Rom.  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 
Calvin on Psal. 19 10. That the Law was the Gospel in David's s●…nce. Ball, Cou. ●…15.  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▪ etc. and sums up all in these words, Haec diversa legis acceptatio, etc. This different acceptation of the Law easily reconciles the seeming difference in the words of David and Paul, because Paul's purpose is to show what the Law of itself (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, 
Ball on Cou. from 102, to 120.  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 required in the Law at Sinai.  
2. The Sanction of the Gospel is not the same with the Law of Innocency; 
The sanction of the Gospel differs from Adam's law.  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 
The Promises differ.  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 
D. Goodw. vol. 2. lib. 2. p. 46, etc.  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, 
D. Goodw. p. 45. ubi supra.  The Reward of the Law was in a just sense 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 justify 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 threatening part of the Gospel differs from that in Adam's Law. 1. The 
The threatenings differ.  Evils threatened 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 barred from them, because of our wicked refusal, when they were sincerely offered us after our Apostasy. 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 increasing 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 threatened 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 
Other Differences.  as mere 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 fixing us in our happy estate, in the Gospel he deals with us in order to our recovery from a lost estate; in that there was no Mediator, in this there is a Mediator, who also is our King-Redeemer. Many more might be added.  
Reader, weigh all these things, and if the Gospel must be a special Law, so that it be not the Law of Innocency, what can be more plain, than that it is not the same with the Law of Innocency or Nature either. I could farther demonstrate, that the very appropriation of Faith (tho' it were a legal Precept) to be the grand Condition of Salvation, doth argue the Gospel's being a distinct Law▪ for otherwise any Duty would be of equal use: But because Mr. C. charges me as a New gospeler, I'll give thee a few of the hundreds that oppose his three former Errors, and consent to my Paradoxes as orthodox.   

TESTIMONIES that 1st the GOSPEL is a LAW.  
Our Divines in the Synod of Dort. say, par. 2. p. 104. Ex sacris literis, etc. It's 
Calvin and Wittichius see before, Syned of Dort. acta Synodi.  evident from the Scriptures, that some are judged and condemned for Sins committed only against the Light of Nature, who yet are excused for not performing the Law of Faith, through invincible Ignorance, which Excuse can have no place where God publisheth this Law, and men are required to obey it. Many other places from this Synod might be added.  
Willet saith, p. 888. We exclude not every Law, but the Law of Works; but 
Willet Synopsis papismi  the Law of Faith is not the Law of Works. And p. 635. The Publican finding Mercy, and departing justified, no doubt had also an express purpose in himself for ever to forsake his Sin, for otherwise he could not have been justified, nor found remission of Sin; for this is the Law and perpetual Rule of Forgiveness, Ezek. 18. 21. 
Steph. de Br●…is, in Rom. 3. 27. Hooker of N. England.   
Lex evangelica clamans, the Gospel-law cries, Believe, and thou shalt be saved.  
Hooker of Effect. Calling, p. 338. saith, I answer, 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, as he proves fully.  
Saith p. 328. Hereto agree the words of the Apostle, Rom. 3. 27. where the 
B●…lkley of●… Covenant,  Apostle distinguisheth between the Law of Works and the Law of Faith; by the Law of Works understanding the Moral Law, by the Law of Faith understanding the Gospel, etc. he adds, Here are two distinct Laws, having two distinct Commandments, as two distinct Conditions of the two Covenants. This he proves at large.  
P. 102, to 122. proves the Law as given to Israel was the Gospel Covenant 
Mr. Ball of the Covenset forth by Mr. Ash.  for Substance: P. 113. saith, Faith in Christ is not commanded in the Moral Law, as it was engraven in the Heart of Adam in the state of Innocency, but as it was given to Israel, to be a Rule of Life to a People in Covenant, it was presupposed and commanded.  
Lib. 2. Cap. 1. proves at large, that God published a new Law as Redeemer to 
Lawson Theopolitic.  Man upon his Fall.  
P. 17. Christ will proceed at the Day of Judgement according to a double Law, 
Dr. Wallis of God's Sov●…raignty.  the Moral Law, and the Law of Faith; the Moral Law saith, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the Law to do it. Now by this Law we are all cast; but the Law of Faith affords to Mankind a mitigation of the Moral Law, and begins where the other ends, God having sent his only begotten Son to this end, that whosoever believes on him should not perish (notwithstanding the Condemnation of the Moral Law) but have everlasting Life. Much like the favourable Law amongst us, which affords the Benefit of Clergy, etc. P. 19 Those therefore whom Christ shall then acquit, are acquitted by the Gospel, or Law of Faith; those whom he condem●…s, he condemns by both Laws.  
P. 230. They that really believe Forgiveness in God, do thereby obtain Forgiveness. 
Dr. owen's on Ps. 130.  Believing gives an interest in it, it brings it home to the Soul concerned. This is the inviolable Law of the Gospel; Believing and Forgiveness are inseparably conjoined. P. 139. he saith, Repentance was no Duty to Adam in Eden, it is none for the Angels in Heaven, nor for the Damned in Hell, what then may be the Language of this Appointment? O Sinners! come and deal with God by Repentance, etc. It's true, many do deceive themselves, they raise themselves unto an expectation of Immunity, not on Gospel-grounds: But God deceives none, whoever comes to him on his Proposal of Repentance, shall find Forgiveness. It's said of some, He will laugh at their Calamity, etc. But who are they? Only such as refuse his Call to Repentance, with the Promises of Acceptation annexed. See p. 254.  
P. 375. Faith is the only Condition of the Covenant of Grace, which is therefore 
Downam on justif.  called the Law of Faith.  
P. 7. The Covenant of Grace, the Apostle calls it the Law of Faith, and it is 
Sedgwick of the Covenant.  especially expressed thus, He that believes shall be saved.  
P. 308. The Precept of Believing is a Gospel-Precept only, and the Punishment for Unbelief is threatened and inflicted in relation to the Gospel; as he oft shows at large, and in p. 10. instanceth in five things a great difference between Faith in Adam and Gospel-Faith, one of which is, that tho' there was a kind of Faith in Adam, yet it was not to be the Condition of that Covenant, etc. But the Faith required in the Covenant of Grace comes in purposely as the Condition of Life, and Justification for the Sinner.  
P. 18. Oh saith the Law, such Duties have been omitted, such Sins have been 
Dr. Jacomb on Rom. 8.  committed, such Sabbaths have been profaned, etc. such Tenders of Grace have been slighted, (Here (saith he) the Gospel▪ Law comes in as an Accuser too.) And p. 55, & 553. You must so confide and rely on Christ's one most perfect and all-sufficient Sacrifice, as yet withal to be careful that you, on your part, do perform those Gospel-Conditions, which God enjoins and requires of you, in order to Remission, Justification, and Glorification, etc. The whole Business of Merit and Satisfaction lies upon Christ, but as to Believing and Repenting, the two grand Gospel-Conditions, they lie upon yourselves, (with respect to the Act, tho' not the Power) and must be done by yourselves; yea, and the doing of these is as necessary on your parts, under the notion of Conditions, as suffering and dying was on Christ's part under the notion of Merit: And it is most certain, that the latter without the former will not profit you, because Christ never designed to impute, or make over his Merit to any, further than as they should make good these Conditions of Faith and Repentance. P. 553. he shows the Rock of Popery is to trust in these as Merits, and the Rock of Antinomianism is to deny that respect to Holiness, Obedience, Faith, and Repentance which is due to them, as Means and Conditions. P. 157. you read Rom. 3. 27. the Law of Faith, and the Law of Works, very opposite and contrary Laws.  
P. 610. Unbelief is disobedience to the Law of Faith, when discovered to Men; 
Mr Charnock, 2 ●…ol.  therefore it is our Sin (not the Sin of Heathens, as that is disobedience to any Law) which is against that Law when revealed and known. See p. 314. The Law of Christ requires Belief in the Satisfaction he hath wrought, for the Law of Christ is not as the Law at the Creation was, etc. p. 683.  
P. 190. Vocatur lex, etc. The Covenant of Grace is called the Law of Faith, 
Turretin Instit. Theol. par. 2. Mr. M. Mead Early Obedience.  because Faith is therein prescribed to us as the Condition of the Covenant.  
P. 146. There is a legal necessity that he that continues in his Lusts and Unregeneracy must perish, and that because of the Will and Law of God. As God wills the Salvation of all that will turn to God and obey him, so he wills the Damnation of all that will not, but hold fast their Lusts and refuse to return. As He hath made a Law, that whosoever will come to Christ, and take up his yoke, shall find rest to his Soul, and shall livefor ever; so He hath declared it as peremptorily, that he that slights Christ, and will not hearken to him, nor obey him, shall be utterly cast off. P. 148, 102, 103. It is He that with the Father hath established this, as the great Condition of Salvation, bearing the Yoke. So that it is the standing Law of Heaven, whoever will be saved, must take up Christ's Yoke: This is the way to Blessedness, and there is no other. Bear the Yoke of Christ and be blessed, cast that off, and he will cast you off; submit and be saved, reject it and Christ will reject you: This is the unalterable Condition of Salvation, and there is no other. Things are so settled in the eternal Compact between the Father and the Son, about the Case of Man, that the Blood of Christ itself cannot stead us, nor the Mercy of God (infinite as it is) benefit us, without this Condition be performed by us. P. 202. In the day of Judgement God will not proceed with Men upon Election and Reprobation, but upon Obedience or Disobedience to his Law, Rom. 2. 7, 8, 9, etc. God will vindicate the justice of his Proceedings in that day, by making the Word the Rule of his Judgement to all that are under it, joh. 12.48. P. 165. God hath not absolutely promised Salvation and Eternal Life to any, but he hath annexed it to certain Dispositions and Qualifications, without which we shall never share in the Blessing promised. P. 119. Mat, 5. 8, etc. P. 72. None can be saved by all which Christ hath done and suffered, but upon these Conditions, and they are Self-denial, Faith, Repentance, taking up the Cross, Obedience; these are the unalterable Conditions of Salvation, and these Conditions of Salvation are the Yoke of Christ. These Passages of this worthy Divine amount to no more than what Dr. Ames saith.  
P. 189. Bellarmin objecting Mat. 11. 29. My yoke is easy; Ames answers, Pro 
Ames Bellarm. E●…er. Tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 7.  lege, etc. There's nothing said in these words concerning the Law, simply taken, and the perfect observation of it; but they speak of the Gospel, that is, of Faith and new Obedience, that's the easy Yoke of Christ. I could bring an hundred places out of Dr. Manton, wherein he calls the Gospel a Law, and proves it. 
Mant. most frequently. See 2 Serm▪ o●… Rom. 8.   
Altingius proves, that the Repentance required of us is a Gospel▪ Command, and not required by the Law. Peraeus, Peter Martyr, yea, Chamier himself, affirm the Gospel to be a Law of Faith. Indeed who deny it, except a few Lutherans, who also deny the Doctrine of Perseverance, and three or four ●…ranaker Divines, who are followed by several of the Cocceians, but not by all of them? See more Proof of this under the next two Heads. I shall subjoin the Assembly of Divines. Q. What doth God require of us, & c? A. To escape the Wrath and Curse of God, due to us for Sin: God requireth of us Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance unto life, 
Assembly of Divin●…s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  with the diligent use of all the outward means, whereby God communicates to us the Benefits of Redemption. Reader▪ 1. Is not that Sign or Instrument whereby God requires these things, to this end, a Law of God? What's a Law if that be not? Is it the Counsel of a Fellow-Subject? No, it's God's commanding Act, he requires these. 2. Doth God require these of us to this end in the Law of Adam, or in the Gospel? Was innocent Man to escape the Curse due to him? No, it was not upon him; that Law did not suppose him undone; it must then be the Voice of God by the Gospel to fallen Man. The Gospel enjoins these Duties to this end, with a Promise that we shall not fail of this end, if we omit none of these Duties. Here's the Gospel-Law.   

II. TESTIMONIES that the GOSPEL hath its proper threatenings.  
P. 90. The best Persuasion we can arrive at, concerning the Spiritual Condition 
D. owen's, on Heb. c. 6. v. 9  of any, leaves room for Gospel-threatning, etc. And p. 91. Whatever we (Ministers) may conceive of the state of any such, they are not to balk or wave the delivery and pressing of any Evangelical Warnings, or the severest threatenings contained in the Gospel. P. 91. Others should not think they are hardly dealt with, when they are pressed and urged with the severest▪ threatenings of the Gospel▪ See him on Cap. 4. Heb. v. 1, 2. P. 217, 180, 181, 182, on Ps. 130. p. 266. he 
On Ps. 130.  that believeth not shall be damned: That's a hard word, many men cannot endure to hear of it; they would not have it named by their good-wills, etc. But let not men deceive themselves; this is the softest word that Mercy and Love itself, that Christ, that the Gospel speaks to despisers of Forgiveness, etc. Mr▪ Mead: It's 
Epist. before the Almost-Christian.  sad, but certain, that the Gospel inflicts a Death of its own, as well as the Law.  
P. 121. There be many threatenings annexed to the Covenant of Reconciliation, 
Gilaspie, Ark of the Covenant.  threatenings of Gospel-Vengeance to the Transgressor's of the Covenant, but there are no threatenings in the Covenant of Suretyship, nothing denounced against the man Christ, etc. How many places might I collect from Mr. C's Father? 
Mr. Chancy of 〈◊〉.  P. 124. Ye Unbelievers! your Curse is doubled, and your Condemnation is the Condemnation. john 3. 19 the Law pronounceth a Curse for breaking of it, but the Gospel a far greater for not receiving Christ, and your Life and Salvation which is offered to you through him. P. 303, This Gospel-Iustice, which is the most terrible.  
P. 309. The Gospel is so far from promising Life, by the Death of Christ, to 
〈◊〉 on the Cou.  impenitent and unbelieving persons, that it threatens and seals Death, and Wrath, and Condemnation to them, john 3. 36, 18, etc. If you read the Canons of the Synod of Dort. you'll find Evangelii minas, the threatenings of the Gospel. This 
Acta 〈◊〉. par. 1. p. 313.  point is so obvious in all orthodox Writers, that I forbear more Testimonies. But why are Gospel-threatning a Bull? No doubt, because the Gospel is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, glad tidings. And indeed, is it bad news that Sinners shall be saved, if they repent and believe, and many shall believe? Will nothing be glad tidings, but that they shall be saved, tho' they neither repent nor believe? This indeed was a Message unfit for God to send; and tho' Mr. C. calls it a Bull, Christ hath solemnly declared, as the Lord of the N. Testament, that they who believe not, the Wrath of God abideth in them. This cannot be a Threatening of Adam's Law, for those threatenings respected every Sin. It is true; the Unbeliever is damned for other Sins, by rejecting Christ, but what makes those Sins damning to him in the event, notwithstanding the Offers of Life? Is it every Sin will do this? Will a vain Thought exclude a man from Pardon, as much and as surely as final Unbelief? Surely no: But yet the Threatening of Adam's Law denounced Death against any Sin, as much and as certainly as against final Infidelity, and so did not appropriate Death to Infidelity, as the Gospel-Threatning doth. Besides, is it an abiding of Wrath on us, which Adam's Law threatened? No, it was the first bringing of Wrath on them that were free before.   

III. TESTIMONIES that God hath declared a fixed Rule, by which He pardons, adopts, and glorifies Sinners, which Rule is his Gospel, and not his Secret Decree.  
To prevent mistake, know, that I speak not of the first Grace, which He gives to all the Elect, but I speak of Pardon and Glory, which he hath promised upon Terms, and judicially denies to them that refuse Christ.  
They put this Q. How is the Grace of God, & c? A. The Grace of God is manifested 
Assembly of Divines larger Catech.  in the second Covenant, in that He freely provideth and offereth to Sinners a Mediator, and Life and Salvation by him, and requiring Faith as the Condition, to interest them in him, etc. Here thou seest Faith is a Condition, and a Condition required, and this required to interest us in Christ: No Interest, but in conforming to this Rule, that requires Faith to this end.  
He, De Christo gr●…tis justificante, p. 244. Conditio vero, etc. The Condition 
Mr. Fox, that wrote the Book of Martyrs.  whereby we are properly justified, is this; That we believe in Christ, and cleave to him by a constant profession, etc. P. 251, 252. I ask, When Salvation is promised freely for Christ's sake, will the absolute Promise save all men promis●…uously for the sake of Christ, without the limit of any Condition? I think no such thing: Go on then. When this Promise belongs but to some, and that only upon a certain Condition who then are those on whom this Promise properly falls? Thou must say, the Believer, etc. P. 297. Q. What Sinners are justified by Christ? A. Those who▪ inclined by a serious remorse, bewail their Sins, and displeased at themselves, do recollect themselves with their whole Soul, and are converted to Christ with an entire Faith, these are the only Sinners whom Faith without Works doth justify. And p▪ 311. Repentance prepares the Matter to receive Justification, but the cause of Justification is Faith.  
Consult these Canons of the Synod of Dort. p. 289. The Promise of the Gospel 
〈◊〉 Synod. par. 1.  is, that whoever believeth on Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting Life; which Promise, with the Command of Faith and Repentance, aught to be declared, and proposed promiscuously, and without distinction to all men, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the Gospel. But the reason why many that are called by the Gospel do not repent nor believe on Christ, but perish in their Unbelief, is not truly any want or insufficiency of Christ's Sacrifice offered on the Cro●…s but through their own fault. And the Synod adds, p. 302. Quotquot autem, etc. But as many as are called by the Gospel are seriously called, for God doth seriously and most truly declare in his Word what is pleasing to him, viz. That they that are called should come to him, and unfeignedly promiseth Rest for their Souls, and eternal Life to all that come and believe.  
I have cited these, to show, that God sets down this general common Rule to all in his Gospel: It's not one Rule to the Elect, and another to the Non-elect, it's the same to all. Would the Reprobate obey the Call of the Gospel, he should have Eternal Life: And the Elect do obey this Call, and thereupon obtain Eternal Life. I could give very many instances out of this Book, where Faith is called 
Act a Synod. par. 2.  the Condition. P. 105, Salvation is the thing promised in the new Covenant; neither is it promised, but upon the Condition of Faith. Seeing therefore that all men have not Faith in Christ, under which alone Condition is Salvation promised, it is certain that Christ's Death hath not purchased the Restauration to a state of Grace and Salvation for all men, but only for Believers. See p. 12. God willeth that the obtaining of Life should be suspended, on condition of foregoing Faith. 
Dr. owen's on Heb. cap. 6.   
P. 76, 77. When the Gospel is preached to Men, an Experiment is made, how they will prove as to Faith and Obedience; if they acquit themselves in these, they receive the Blessing of Eternal Life from God. And p. 14. There is no Interest in Christ or Christian Religion to be obtained, without Repentance from dead Works. See p. 12, 13, 14. The removal hereof (viz. Enmity of our Minds by wicked Works) consists in this, Repentance; for that is our turning unto God upon the Terms of Peace tendered to us, etc. All Doctrines, Notions, and Persuasions, that tend to alleviate the necessity of Personal Repentance, etc. are pernicious to the Souls of Men, etc. P. 15. It hath an absolute inconsistency with the especial Righteousness of His Nature (Christ) and which he exerciseth as supreme Rector, and Judge of all, that any such should stand in his sight, etc. and for the Lord Jesus, it would plainly make him the Minister of Sin, etc. and the Gospel doth openly propose Pardon of all sorts of Sin, to all sorts of persons, that shall believe and obey it. If the Gospel did this without annexing to its Promise the Condition of Repentance, never was there, nor can there be so great an Encouragement to all sorts of Sin and Wickedness. He on Ps. 130. p. 141. And this Connexion 
Dr. owen's on Ps. 130.  of Repentance and Forgiveness, is that Principle from whence God convinceth a stubborn unbelieving People, that all his ways and dealings with Sinners are just, Ezek. 18. 25. and should there be any failure in it, they could not be so, if out of love to Sin, or the power of Unbelief, he refuse to close with him on these Terms, his Condemnation is just. P. 136. After the Angels had sinned, God never once called them to Repentance, he would not deceive them, but let them know what they were to look for at his Hands: He hath no Forgiveness for them, and therefore would require no Repentance of them. It is not, nor ever was, a Duty encumbent on them to repent, nor is it so unto the Damned in Hell; God requires it not of them, nor is it their Duty, there being no Forgiveness for them. What should move them to repent? Why should it be their Duty so to do? Assignation then of Repentance is a revelation of Forgiveness: God would not call upon a sinful Creature to humble itself, and bewail its Sin, if there were no way of recovery or relief. Pray see him p. 151, etc. P. 184. he saith, Whence is it that men perish in and for their Sins? Is it for want of Mercy, Goodness, Grace, or Patience in God? Is it through any defect in the Mediation of the Lord Christ? Is it for want of the mightiest Encouragements, and most infallible Assurances, that with God there is Forgiveness? Not at all, but merely on the account of their own obstinacy, stubbornness, and perverseness; they will not, they hate the Light, they will not come to Christ, that they may have Life. See his awful denunciation of the Curse against all that resolve to continue in the neglect of this Salvation, 
Dr. owen's of the satisfaction of Christ.  p. 272. I'll add one Passage of his, p. 144. the satisfaction made for Sin being not made by the Sinner himself, there must of necessity be a Rule, and Law-Constitution, how the Sinner may come to be interessed in it, and made partaker of it, for the consequent of the Freedom of one by the Suffering of another, is not natural or necessary, but must proceed from a Law-Constitution, Compact, and Agreement. Now the way constituted and appointed, is that of Faith, or Believing, as explained in the Scripture. If Men believe not, they are no less liable to the Punishment due to their Sins, than if no satisfaction at all were made for Sinners. 
Dr. Manton on the Hebrews.   
P. 624. he asks, whether there be any Terms or no Terms in the Covenant; he answers, Surely there are. How shall poor Creatures make out their Interest therein, unless God hath declared upon what Conditions we shall be possessed of the Privileges, & c? If God hath once declared the Conditions, if we would have the benefit, we must consent to them. In the last part, p. 127. he tells us, the Conditions of the Covenant are Faith, Repentance, and new Obedience.  
P. 374. Nothing can be objected against the Conditions He requires, viz. 
Charnock vol. 2.  Repentance and Faith. Can any Malefactor expect Peace with his Sword in his Hand? And is it not fit there should be such Conditions to justify God? since we were the guilty Offenders, can there be less, than to cast away our Weapons, bewail our Sins, receive the Mediator, and serve him with newness of life? They are such reasonable Conditions, that the Honour of God would not be provided for, nor have a salvo without them. See p. 692, 349, etc.  
P. 36. Make sure of true saving justifying Faith, etc. it secures from this (Condemnation) 
Dr. Jacomb on Rom. 8.  both as it is the Grace which unites to Christ, and also as it is the great Condition of the Gospel, upon which it promiseth Life and Salvation, etc. He may set down what Condition he pleases, in order to the giving out of his Grace, which when they are performed, he is engaged to make good what he promiseth upon them.  
How oft doth he tell us, that God requires of every man Faith to be the Condition, 
Dr. Preston of new Cou.  to be Partaker of the Covenant. P. 114. and p. 143. he saith, The Condition required of us is the doing this, viz. to repent, to serve the Lord in newness of Life.  
Bulkley by very many Arguments, from p. 278, to 298. doth prove the Gospel-Covenant 
Bulkley on the Coven.  to be conditional, P. 280. The Lord doth not say to any Soul, I will save you, and bring you to Life, though you continue impenitent and unbelieving; but commands and works us to repent, and believe, and then promises, that in the way of Faith and Repentance he will save us. Had I room, I would give thee full proof, that Davenant, Pemble, Perkins, Twiss, Scharpius, Zanchius, Rollock, Wendelin, Altingius, Burgess, Blake, New-England Synod, Turretin, Synod of Dort. with hundreds more, do positively affirm the Gospel-Covenant to require a Condition on our part, and so fix this Gospel-Rule. Mr. Chancy's Father urgeth it, p. 79, 
Mr. C. on justif.  132, 123, & 116. where he shows what we must do to obtain the Propitiation. So 117.  
Mr. Rutherford affirms, That to deny there be Conditions, is to belly the Gospel; 
Rutherford Survey of Antinomianism, par. 2.  and adds, That Good Works are Conditions without which we cannot be saved, p. 38. and p. 36. It is a new Heresy of Antinomians, to deny a conditional Gospel; it is all one as to belly the Holy Ghost, who saith, He that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not is condemned already. Or they may say, whether Men believe or no, they may be saved, as Dr. Crisp saith.  
P. 445. If not, then be wise, and 〈◊〉 from the Wrath to come; and there is 
Mr. Mead, Early Obedience.  but one way, and that is by closing with Jesus Christ, and giving yourselves up to an entire subjection to his Yoke: There is no way to escape Wrath, and secure Eternal Life but this. P. 276. Consider where you will lay the blame of your Destruction; you cannot lay it upon God, for he gave Christ to redeem and save you; you cannot lay it upon Christ, for he would have gathered you, and you would not, he never cast you off till you cast him off; you cannot lay it upon the Spirit, for he would have convinced, and converted, and sanctified you, and you have resisted and quenched him; you cannot lay it upon your Ministers, for they have set before you Life and Death, and declared to you the danger of Sin, and necessity of Holiness, but you would not believe their Report, etc. So that you can lay the blame no where, but upon a cursed corrupt Heart; thy Destruction is of thyself. See what he saith of Conditions, and decree, under the Head the Gospel is a Law.  
P. 182, 183, 184, etc. proves the Covenant to be conditional, that without Faith 
Mr. Obad. Sedgwick of the Cou.  there is no relation in a way of Covenant 'twixt God and us; and that upon Faith God becomes our God in Covenant, and answers Objections. P. 188, 189. he speaks to Sinners presuming of the many Promises of Salvation, etc. Oh but Sirs, there is a Condition in the Bond, which he oft repeats. P. 430. when he had proved Repentance was necessary to the remission of Sin, he adds, Whereas they say this is Popish and Legal, they speak ignorantly, if not maliciously, etc. it is as Popish to say Repentance is required for Assurance, as for Remission, for both are Acts of Grace. 
Beza, Epist. 20.   
Conjunctas autem, etc. But Repentance and Remission of Sin are joined together, and truly so, that Repentance goes before Forgiveness: This partly the Word of God teacheth, yea, Reason itself, and common Sense, however corrupt, doth 
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.  manifest it; he proves this fully. So Calvin, God forgives no Sins but such as Men are displeased with themselves for, etc.  
The excellent Mr. Clerkson will help thee to resolve some seeming difference thou findest among Authors, who in one place seem to deny the Covenant to be conditional, and in other places affirm it. See p. 132, 133, 134. After he had asserted the first Grace to be absolute, viz. in Effectual Calling, etc. he adds, The subsequent Blessings of the Covenant, those that follow the first, are in some sense conditional, and so offered and promised in a conditional form, and yet are nevertheless gracious. There are Terms and Conditions, taking the word Conditions in a Latitude, as comprising Qualifications, Adjuncts, and necessary Antecedents, which do no way derogate from Grace, neither detract from its freeness, nor obscure, but rather illustrate it, Rom. 10. 8, 9, 10. Rev. 3. upon such Terms are justification, Adoption, and Salvation offered, and not offered but upon Terms, and yet most freely▪ and graciously, etc. and not only Faith, but holiness of Heart and Life, and perseverance therein, are the Terms upon which Salvation is promised, etc. P. 134. And hath constituted an Order amongst them, so that one must go before another; we must believe before we are justified, and be holy before we can see God, and hath appointed one of them to be the means or way to obtain the other: We are justified by Faith, we are created unto good Works, that we should walk in them; Acts of holy Obedience are the way wherein we must walk to Salvation. So that here is an antecedence of some Duty, and that necessary by divine Appointment and Command, and this tending to obtain the Favour freely offered. And by this we may understand what a Condition is, in a sense very innocent, and no way injurious to Grace: It is an Antecedent necessarily required, as the way to attain or arrive at what is promised. And in this sense it must not be denied there are Conditions in the Gospel, and its Promises, unless we will deny that there are Duties necessary to Salvation, and made necessary by Divine Command, for such a Condition is nothing but something of a Command joined with a Promise in a conditional form, etc. He commands all to Repent, and He promiseth Pardon; put this Promise and that Command together, and it becomes a conditional Promise, If you repent you shall have Pardon, 1 john 1. 9 But p. 137, 138, 140. he justly excludes meritorious, natural, and legal Conditions. By which Legal he means not whatever is commanded with an annexed Promise, for that were to contradict all here cited; but such Conditions as do entitle us to the Benefit, as the very Righteousness for which we merit or obtain them; which I have oft denied Gospel-Conditions to be. And so he explains himself.  
Reader, it's evident what a number of Men fall under Mr. C's Curse, as well as I, and judge thou what reason he hath to pretend to the old Gospel, and arraign us for a new one. My Paradoxes appear the common Sentiment of the notedly Orthodox, while his Principles must be content with the Patronage of new sangled Antinomians. The Testimonies under the 1, & 2. Principles prove this Rule. Because the Paradoxes may be entire, I'll add the 10th, viz. the Wedding Garment, 
Of the Wedding Garment.  Mat. 22. 11. is true Uniting Faith; of which Mr. C. p. 32. your saying the Wedding Garment was Faith, and not the Righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith, ●…is a wretched wresting and abuse of Scripture, etc. Repl. 1. Doth a true Uniting Faith exclude Christ's Righteousness, or include it? Keep to this Rule when you speak of being justified by Faith, and what will become of the Object justifying? 2. Is it Christ's way to condemn Men, merely because they have not a Privilege, or else because they neglected the Terms on which that Privilege was promised? The former was mere Misery, and no Fault; the latter is a Fault by which he is obnoxious to that Misery, and therefore fittest to ground a Sentence on. 3. I'll join two, to help to bear this Calumny; Fox, p. 343. Sed per 
Mr. Fox de Christo justificant●….  solam fidem, etc. But by Faith alone; therefore Faith is that Garment made white in the Blood of the Lamb, which properly clothes us for the Wedding. And Mr. Gale, p. 197. Should you this night hear the Cry, Behold, the Bridegroom cometh, 
Mr. Gale of Christ's Coming.  are you ready to enter into the Wedding-Chamber? Have you the Wedding-Garment of Faith and Holiness?  
As to Phil. 3. 8. I have tried stronger Arguments than Mr. C. is like to offer, 
Augustin expounds Phil. 3. 8. as I 〈◊〉.  and yet my sense of that Text is not altered, and fear not to defend it in due time.  
Mr. C. p. 27 As for the Notion, that the Covenant of Redemption is a distinct Covenant 
Mr. C's Fourth Principle, No Covenant ●…fi Redemption distinct from the Covenant of Grace with Men. Rutherford Covenant opened. Ark of the Coven. Sedgwick of Coven. Bulkley of Covenant.  from the Covenant of Grace; I deny it.  
Repl. By the Covenant of Grace is meant the Gospel-Covenant made with Men. Mr. R. proves, that the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace are two distinct Covenants, p. 308, to 313. So doth Mr. Gilaspie, Cap. 1. 2. and shows the Difference between these two Covenants, cap. 5. The same is proved by Mr. Sedgwick, p. 3, 4, 5. and by Bulkley, p. 29, to 32. It's affirmed by Mr. Norton, Orth. Evan. p. 113. It's oft asserted by Dr. Owen's, by Mr. Mead, in 
Mr. Mead. The Author of the City 〈◊〉.  his Book of Early Obedience, p. 72. etc. and Sermon for Mr. Rosewell. Nay, the Author of the Letter grants it, p. 24.  
Reader, I shall not now descend to argue this Point, only hint to thee, that the Parties are distinct, the Terms are distinct, the Promises are distincts moreover, one hath no Mediator, the other hath, etc. It's true, some worthy Divines formerly speak of these two Covenants as if one, which rendered their Notions less plain; but yet they did not deny, but affirm, that there was part of that Covenant to be actually engaged and performed by Man, tho' giving Ability was undertaken by Christ in the other part of it; and also, that as it was promised to him, that upon Man's compliance with the Conditions, they should be Partakers of the Benefits; so 〈◊〉 it was a Promise made to them upon compliance with the Terms. Whereas Mr. C. asks me, Do not we plead Redemption, or the Promise made in Christ? Repl. I had said, that the Promises of the First Grace were pleadable only by Christ, as the stipulating Party: And what's that to Redemption? But can he think that unregenerate men can plead a personal Right to the First Grace? And it's Right that is included in the word pleadable.  
Mr. C. p. 29. Pardon is not promised to Faith and Repentance, as things distinct 
Fifth Principle. Pardon is the cause of Faith, and not Faith the Condition of Pardon, etc.  from the Promise, but Pardon is promised, together with Faith and Repentance, to the Sinner, etc. Pardon is rather the Condition of Faith and Repentance, and much more, having a causal Influence thereunto, than Faith and Repentance of Pardon, etc. 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 
The first Promise considered.  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, than it belonged 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, than 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 enjoined, 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 conjoined 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, 
Pardon not the caus●… of conditional Faith.  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, etc. 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. Owen's saith p. 306. We require 
Dr. Owen's Treatise of justif. Clerkson, Norton, Acta Synod. ●… par. p. 279, etc. Bulkley on the Coven. Sheppard's Sound Believer. Mr. C's Father of Iust. The Assemb.  Evangelical Faith, in order of Nature, antecedently to our justification, & c? R. Mr. Cl. p. 134. Norton, etc. 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 justification, and saith, the denial 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 
Mr. C's 6th Principle, no Conversion or effecteal Vocation b●…fore Pardon. This the 〈◊〉 Letter affi●…ms, which I 〈◊〉 regard here, in opposition to his denying an habitual change b●…f. Pardon.  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 Medicine 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, etc. And before the person be pardoned, he must be in a very sound and safe condition, etc. and there must be inherent Righteousness in the person to be pardoned, etc. 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, etc. 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 sense of the Letter from the City, p. 25, 30, etc.  
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 fullness in Christ for Sinners before they make use of it? 3. All Sinners are ungodly in a Gospel 
The Object of Pardon is a Believer, tho' ungodly, by Adam's Law.  sense, when God comes to call them effectually in order to Pardon; and they are ungodly in a legal sense 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 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 
The first Grace doth not make us sound, if abstracted from Christ and the Promise.  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, 
Effectual Vocation before Pardon in order of Nature.  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? 
Eph. 2. 5, 6. 2 Cor. 4. 3, ●….  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 enlightened Mind, before the Mind be enlightened? or, Can they see Christ before their Eye be opened? Is it an Act of 
John 1. 12.  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 bias 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 
Ps. 110. 3. Eph. 1. 19  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 profane, who persuade 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 unfe●…gned, while Villainy 
2 Tim. 15.  and Hypocrisy 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 
Testimonies that Vocation is before justification. The Assembly.  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 persuade and enable us to embrace jesus 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 justification, 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 enlightened with the Saving Knowledge of Christ. Their Wills are renewed; they are persuaded 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 
To deny it, is to join with the Arminians.  face us down, as if we differed 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 
Synod of Dort. Hooker. Mr. C's Father of Iust. Norton Orth. Evan. rutherford's Survey of Antin. par. 2  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 Cou. 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 Errors of this World; 3. The Gospel of Free Grace is preached to the Dead, the elect Heirs of Wrath, etc. 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, etc. 6. The stony Heart of mere 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 mere 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, etc. and that Salvation is now impossible by that Law; but that God in the Gospel promiseth Blessings on lower Terms, viz. unfeigned Faith, etc. Mr. C. answers, To talk of any obedience to that Law besides sinless, in respect of that 
Mr. C's 7th Principle; all sincere Graces and Actions are Sins, if they be not perfect.  Law in its preceptive part, is nonsense, 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 for which we are justified, etc. But yet I wonder, 1. that any man dare say that God hath promised no beneficial Effects of Christ's Merits upon any Terms 
The Gospel promiseth Benefits upon 〈◊〉 Grace, though imperfect.  short of Perfection, tho' not for them as the meriting Cause. joh. 13. 17. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. Mat. 8. 13, 15. If ye forgive, etc. Mar. 11. 25. If we confess our sins. 1 joh. 1. 9 He is just to forgive. Rom. 10. 9 If confess with thy mouth, and believe with thy heart, thou shalt be saved. What's Repentance unto Life, & c? It seems the meaning of these words is, If thou confess, and art sinlesly perfect, God will forgive. Or else, tho' I promise thus, yet I mean, that it's all as one, whether thou confess or not, believe or not, repent or not, it shall make no difference in thy Interest in the promised Forgiveness. 2. It's as strange, that the most sincere Action or Grace is Disobedience or Sin, because it is imperfect; Iniquity 
Sincere Graces not sins, though imperfect. Vid my Book, cap. 19  cleaves to them, but are they therefore Iniquity? Is there no Gospel mitigation, so as to admit sincere Grace to be true Grace, tho' it be not perfect Grace? It seems the Saints have weaker Vices, but no Graces; their Duties are something less Sins, but no obediential Acts; their Love is an abated Hatred, but not truly Love; they are mere Dung, only they do not smell so strong. Is not this to spit in the Face of the most of the Bible? It speaks oft of an inherent Righteousness, true Graces, real Godliness, and good Fruits; it praiseth Saints for these; but, it seems, we persuade People only to Disobedience, when we call them to believe; and they try themselves by their Sins, when they try themselves by marks of Sanctification, and there's no specific difference between the best and worst action they do; all is Disobedience, and but Disobedience. 3. And where's the strength of what is so roundly affirmed? viz. No Law of God with a Sanction admits of the least Imperfection in the said Obedience. Then if the Gospel, as including Adam's Precepts, commands Perfection, it cannot forgive any Imperfection; if it do not abate the Rule 
Every degree of Duty is not always the Condition of Benefits.  of Duty, it cannot confer any degree of its promised Mercy. But, Sir, you confound the extent of the Precept with that degree of Obedience to it, which is made the Condition of its promised Benefit: May not a humane Law command many things, and yet confine its Sanction to one part, yea, and vary its Threa●…s or Promises by many different circumstances in the Offenders, or Obeyers? Doth he indeed think that wherever God enjoins Duties, he denounceth his Threatening to all degrees of neglect of what he makes a Duty; or that it ceaseth to be a Duty at all, if the Sanction reach not every degree of omission? Mar. 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved. Is not it a Duty here to be baptised? Yes sure. But shall none be saved if they are not baptised, though they do believe? The Sanction than falls not on all the Precept, or none of the Unbaptized can be saved. The unsoundness of this Principle will appear to thee in most practical Books thou readest, and the Orthodox are positive in the contrary. What more common than the difference between legal and evangelical Obedience? It's stated by Sedgwick on the Cou. p. 652. 
Sedgwick. Jacomb. Rutherford. Ames. Mr. C. of justificat.  Dr. jacomb, Rom. 8. p. 23. Rutherford Ant. p. 8. Davenant on Colos. p. 17. Ames spends a Chapter to prove against Bellarmin, that our Good Works are not Sins quoad essentiam. Mr. C's Father, p. 130. Neither is that Obedience which is required of Believers, a strict and exact conformity to the Law, as it doth in itself require and demand a legal Obedience, but evangelical Obedience, which stands in the desire, resolution, and endeavour to obey God's revealed Will. And p. 222. saith, The imperfect Good Works that are done by the Faithful, are accounted Righteousness, or (as Mr. Calvin saith) are accounted for Righteousness, they being dipped in the Blood of Christ, i. e. they are accounted righteous actions, and so the Faithful shall be judged according to their Good Works, though not saved for them. Dr. owen's, p. 72. God hath abolished the Covenant of Works, by substituting a 
Dr. O. on Heb. 6.  new one in the room of it, because it could not expiate Sin, nor could approve of such an Obedience, as poor sanctified Sinners were able to yield unto God; for it requires Perfection, when the best they can attain to in this Life, is only Sincerity, etc. and in this Covenant God hath provided for the acceptance of sincere tho' imperfect Obedience, which the Law had no respect to.  
Mr. C. p. 23. Christ our Redeemer gives Commands, and exerts a Ki●…gly Power in Government of his Church, and hath judgement committed to him, but these are not the Gospel-Conditions 
Mr. C's 8th Principle.  of Life unto Sinners, propounded in the Gospel, God doth not require Obedience to the Laws of Christ in his Church, as foederal Conditions of Eternal Life. Such Obedience is part of the Life promised, etc.  
Repl. Not to expose the Passages before this, as if because the Gospel in a large sense includes all the moral Precepts, therefore taken in a strict sense, it makes all those Precepts and perfect Obedience to them the Condition of its peculiar Benefits; and as if Christ's Law did not bind a person morally impotent; and that Men must be first pardoned before they are obliged to submit to Christ; and that 
Christ is King, and his Laws bind under a Gospel-sanction.  there is no difference between such a taste of Pardoning Mercy, as assures us we shall have Pardon on Gospel-Terms, and our actually having that Pardon before those Terms be yielded to. At this rate he reasons throughout his Book, but I mind greater things than the discovery of his Weakness; therefore to his Principle I answer: He gives Christ, as Redeemer, a poor Kingdom; it's a Kingly Power, but it's of a low sort. 1. It's extent is small, it's bounded within his Church; it seems than he hath no Authority over them that are without, no, not to command them to be Church-Members. I thought, tho' he be acknowledged King by his Church, yet his Laws bind much farther. I am sure he damns others for disobeying him. But, 2. by these words He is not such a King as can make Laws in his 
Luke 19 14, 27.  very Church; He exerts a Kingly Power in governing of his Church: This is distinguished by Mr. C. from giving Commands. The sound of this Passage is, He giveth Commands as an Officer acting not in a proper Legislation. 3. Allow what he prescribes to be His Laws in any sense, yet there's no Salvation depends upon obeying them: Nothing He requires, yea, by his Revealed Gospel, are any Conditions of Life. He came to purchase Salvation, but he hath no Authority to enjoin the Terms of it. Whereas I read, 
1 Rom. 14. 9  that for this end he died, that he might be Lord of the dead, and of the living: 
2 Heb. 5. 9  He is the Author of eternal Salvation to all them that obey him: 
3 Joh. 8. 51.  If a man keep my Sayings, he shall never see death: 
4 Joh. 14. 21.  He that doth my Commandments, and keepeth them, he loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: 
5 Joh. 5. 24, 25, 26, 27.  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 judgement 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 administered. Dr. owen's, 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 rendered 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'll 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 privilege part of the Covenant, as consequent to the Terms of it, and that believing ye might have Life. In this sense he saw I took it: And doth God in 
Joh. 20. 31.  every Promise of Life in this sense, promise Obedience to the Terms of it? 6. A few lines after these he determines, the Judgement committed to Christ; It's not Legislation at all, nay, all of it is not Gospel-Iudgment (he might have said none 
Mr. C. p. 24.  of it, for with him the Gospel is no Law, and so no Rule of Judgement): Nay, worst of all, his Judgement 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 
* Icanes against Hammond; vide Charnock, vol. 2. p. 687. 2. Thes. 1. 8.  Divines hitherto, and I am sure he'll 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 
Mr. C's Challenge accepted.  never come to God's Bar of Judgement 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. 
Calv. Inst. lib. 3. cap. 24. sect. 10, 11.   
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 juggler more; He saith Quoniam & Christus Mediator, etc. 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 doubtlessly 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 ●…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 
Mr. Baxter explained.  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 asked Mr. B. Is Faith-Love to God of that use, to receive Christ for our Justification, as Faith in Christ is? he would have answered, No; Faith in Christ is in itself most ap●… and by the Lord appointed to this use to receive Christ. Both these he of●… affirms. 2. Mr. B. here speaks only of the comparative necessity of these to Salvation, with respect▪ to the nature of the thing itself; 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 man's Humanity is. 3. Nay, had Mr. B. spoken of the essential necessity of these to the obtaining Salvation, yet Mr. C. hath made him speak very orthodoxly; for p. 22. Mr. C. saith, When once a Transgressor is sentenced by the Law, he falls into the hands of Prerogative, and the Prince may do with him what he pleaseth. God also might have put Repentance into the Conditions of the Law of Works at first, and said, if thou dost not eat, or repent of thy eating, thou shalt have thy Reward. Now if, as he saith, Prerogative could save fallen Man, if God pleased, and what way He pleased; nay, that it was not inconsistent with God's Nature, to have made Repentance a Condition of Reward to sinning Man, in the first Law, without the interposal of Christ's Satisfaction, than Mr. B's words are plain; so that we can prove, that it is inconsistent with God's Perfections▪ to save a man that finally hates him, and is utterly void of all Holiness. And sure if, as Mr. C. saith, Christ's Satisfaction was not absolutely necessary to Salvation, Faith in Christ would have been less necessary.  
I am in Duty bound to resent that treatment the memory of this great Blessing of the Nation meets with: What could be more slightly mentioned of any Fellow, than he took his leave of us? or more falsely than he was a juggler; tho' I more so? Were his Enemies as free from crafty Tricks, Falsehood, and Selfishness as he was, a public Good would be more intended, and the power of Religion receive a greater Testimony. There be of them that say publicly Mr. B. is in Hell: I confess, I am not in all things of the same Judgement with this great Divine, nevertheless I must say, no man I ever knew expressed so much of God's Image, as consisting in Light, Holiness, and Love: many Thousands bless God for his Labours, which are so adapted to promote Christ indeed, and not an empty▪ Name of him; and I fear not to declare my assurance that his Name will flourish when the Antinomian E●…siasts shall fail to impose on the World by their Calumnies, Nonsense, and abusive Pretexts of Free Grace.  
Mr. C. p. 24. I never thought God gave a Rule to fin by. P. 28. To determine Rules of Sin 
A Rule of Sin and Misery is a proper expression.  and Misery, is to make the Gospel to approve of Sin and Misery, and its great design is to send men to Hell. Take your way of expression in what sense you please, it's so unscholar-like, that a Schoolboy should be whipped for it.  
Rep. Yet God hath given a ●…ule to abstain from Sin by. Doth not the Precept determine the nature and measure of Omissions, and the prohibition fix what are Sins of Commission? We say even rectum is norma sui & obliqui. I fear he knows not what a Rule is, or he would see it's as applicable to Sin as to Duty, for it alike adjusteth what both are. But let Turretin share in my Correction for saying ●…ex justi & ●…njusti regula; The Law is 
Turret. Inst. Theol. par. 2. p. 2.  a Rule of what is just and unjust. Alti●…gius shall have a ●…ash, Regula recti & obliqui index, It's well if Paul escape, I bade not known Sin, but by the Law, Rom. 7. 7. I had not known 
Altingius Expl. Catec. par. 2. p. 12.  Lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Yea▪ and a Rule of Misery is not less proper▪ Is not a Rule, as to the d●…bitum poenae, an authoritative constitution of what's due to us in a way of Punishment. Doth not the Rule determine what the kind, duration, and degrees of Misery shall be, and on whom it shall fall? Is not norma judicii, a Rule of Judgement, as well related to Condemnation as Absolution?  
I shall next vindicate myself from Mr. C's Charge▪ as if I did misrepresent Dr. Crisp. 
Mr. C. p. 14; 15. A Vindication from the charge of abusing Dr. Crisp. He means, sin can do no hurt.  Mr. C. you say, Dr. C. affirms Sin can do no hurt. A. He saith it very oft, and frequently attempts to prove it. C. You would have men understand that no person in Christ need fear to commit Sin. A▪ That's upon the account of any harm they shall receive by it, and that will go a great way with m●…st. C. But you would have them think that we mean Sin in its abstract nature is good. A. I never designed that in any words cited cut of him, for he saith Sin is a Lion; there's its nature, etc. he saith its a dead Lion, there's its calmness, and because it's dead▪ it's not to be feared; it had a Terror and Fearfulness, that's its Nature; Christ hath drank it all up, there's its h●…rmlesness: It's a Traitor▪ that's its Nature; it's bound hand and foot, there's its inability to Ha●…m▪ C. Dr. Crisp renders Sin innocent, that's your Expression p. 198. A. My Expression is, he had said much to render Sin innocent to the Elect; that's not to make it good, 〈◊〉 than it would be so to all as well as the Elect, but he hath said too much to ma●…e it harmless to the Elect. C. He declares plainly, the hurt he means is only the penal Effects of sin. A He saith not so, and yet those are the most of the Hurt that comes for Sin. C. He declares he speaks this not to encourage to sin. A. But doth it not more strongly encourage to Sin, to assure men there will come no hurt by Sin. C. He speaks of the sins of Believers, A. He might say it of all the Elect, for their Sins are no more theirs any time, than when they are Believers: It seems than you grant, that Believers Sins can do them no hurt. C. He speaks not of sins to be committed, these aught to be looked on as most odious. A. But not dangerous: But they are not Sins before committed, and pray whose Sins hurt them before they are committed? C. No real hurt. A. Imaginary hurt▪ is innocent, if the Fancy be sound. C. He speaks it only upon the account of some poor distressed Consciences, whose sins▪ lay much upon them. A. And must these be eased with lying Pillows? But pray consult his own words. He begins, p. 509. Well, what are the things we should not be afraid of? Perhaps I shall pitch upon things People are much afraid of. I must tell you, the People of God, they need not be afraid of their Sins; I do not say we must not be afraid to sin, but they need not be afraid of their Sins; there is no Sin they commit can possibly do them any hurt; therefore as they cannot hurt them, so there is no cause of fear in their Sins they have committed. Obj. Some will say this is strange, all the Evils in the World that come, they grow from the sinfulness of men; if a man may be afraid of any thing, he should be afraid of Sin. I answer, It's true, Sin naturally is a root bringing all manner of evil Fruit, but yet I say, whatever Sin in its own nature ' brings forth, yet the Sins of God's People they that 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 yourselves 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 ●…o a whole company very apt to drink poisoned Wine; if this Poison 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 Poison, but not to encourage you to drink the Poison; 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, though 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, etc. 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, though a Murderer) 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 Christ's, 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. crisps saying, that Graces and Holiness cannot do us the least 
Dr. C. intends no Graces or Works can do us any good.  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, though they be affirmed but as Means or Conditions antecedently necessary by divine appointment to obtain any Blessings for the sake of Christ's 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 though 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 sense, 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 justify 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.