and affirme one and the same sentence or proposition is plaine because I doe not in one place deny Christ hath not merited that faith should be our righteousnesse and iustifie vs and in another place say Christ hath merited that faith shall be our righteousnesse and iustifie vs for I onely say faith iustifies vs for the merit of Christ So that the same b Martin in Ram. logis l. 2 c. 2. Diasceps quando idem consequens de eodem antecedente affirmatur negatur consequent not being affirmed and denied of the same Antecedent in both propositions therefore can there be no contradiction betweene them and consequently no lie and therefore no periury But it may be the propositions in the seuerall bookes are the same in sense and effect therefore if in one place I deny that Christ hath merited that faith should iustifie vs and in another place affirme as much in effect then haue I contradicted and consequently periured and lied I answere I haue not in effect contradicted my selfe first because iustification in the first sentence is taken for our being iustified formally or for the nature and being thereof and for that very thing whereby man of a sinner is made iust and in this sense it is true I neuer wrote that Christ hath merited that faith should be our righteousnesse and iustifie vs. In the latter sentence iustification is taken efficiently for our being iustified as by an efficient cause and in this sence I might truely say without contradiction to the former the act of faith doth iustifie vs as the instrumentall efficient for the merit of Christ viz. apprehended thereby that is faith as an instrument apprehends and applies Chriâ—ts merits for our iustification by them and in this sense I say in my first Booke Trial pag. 178. â—in 1. Faith iustifies vs not as it is in vs but as it rests on Christ and in this sence speakes the Synod of Dort faith iustifies in as much as it apprehends the merits of Christ Synod of Dort in â—ng pa. 23. er 4 For euen as if I say a spoone feedes a childe my meaning is not that the spone is the foode and nourishment of the child but onely that it is the instrument whereby the foode and nourishment is reached and conueied to the childe and by which he receiues that food whereby he is nourished Euen so when I say Faith is our righteousnesse and iustifies vs I doe not meane that faith is that righteousnesse it selfe by which we shall be presented and stand righteous before God in his sight for that onely is the righteousnesse 〈◊〉 Christ actiue and passiue but that faith 〈◊〉 the instrument whereby the righteousnesse of Christ is reached and communicated vnto vs and whereby I receiue it to my iustification Of the manner of this participation and communion or imputation I haue declared my minde fully and plainely in the Defence Defence pa. 2â— to 30. to which I referre the Reader Secondly I answere In the first proposition my meaning is I neuer wrote that the merit of Christ is communicated to faith and that by communion therein faith iustifies vs as the Papists speake of the merits of our workes when they are dipt or died in Christs blood For then should faith either deserue or be the iustice whereby of sinners wee are made righteous both which are farre and â—uer were from my thoght the Lord knowes And in the second sentence my meaning is the merits of Christ come betweene our faith and iustification not to giue vertue vnto faith to iustifie vs but to leade vs vnto Christ by whose merit we may receiue that righteousnesse whereby of sinners we are made iust Triall pag. 199. and in this sense I say in my first Booke that faith iustifies vs rather then any other grace of God namely because it makes vs goe out of our selues to seeke to the all sufficiency of the death and obedience of Christ to rest and trust in him for iustification and saluation Ser. of saluation 〈◊〉 part the end according to the Homily as great and as godly a vertue as the liuely faith is yet it putteth vs from it selfe and remitteth or appointeth vs vnto Christ for to haue onely by him remission of our sinnes and iustification So that our faith in Christ as it were saith vnto vs thus It is not I that take away your sinnes but it is Christ onely and to him onely I send you for that purpose forsaking therein all your good vertues thoughts and workes and onely putting your trust in Christ The second instance by which he assayes to argue me of periury lying and contradiction is in my second Book I protest I neuer wrote in my first Booke that faith is our righteousnesse and yet in my first Booke I say faith is our righteousnesse I answere that this doth not argue me of periury lying and contradiction because I doe not speake of faith being our righteousnesse in the same sense and respect in both for in the first sentence righteousnesse must be taken properly and formally for that very iustice whereby men are made iust and righteous as by a forme and of sinners made righteous formally And in the second sentence righteousnesse is taken improperly for an attribute giuen to faith and it is the same with obedience which the Apostle Paule attributes to faith Romans 16.26 For beleeuing in Christ is obedience to that commandement of God which bids vs beleeue in Christ 1 Iohn 3.23 and not beleeuing in Christ is disobedience Iohn 3.36 and in this sense it is true faith is our righteousnesse Rom. 1.11 when it is wrought in vs as well as faith is ours when it is wrought in vs. And when I say faith is our righteousnesse I doe not meane it is the righteousnesse by which wee stand truely and formally righteous before GOD and in which wee shall bee presented pure and without spotte of sinne before Him but in this sense that it is all the righteousnesse and all the obedience which GOD workes in vs and requires of vs as an instrument apprehending to make vs capable of Christs righteousnesse According to the Doctrine of our Church Paul declareth here Rom. 3.25 Ser. of saluation part 1 toward the end nothing on the behalfe of man but onely a true and liuely faith Not that the act of faith is our formall righteousnesse and iustifies vs meritoriously for or by any worthinesse inherent in it selfe or infused thereunto by Christs merits but that it is called righteousnesse in a borrowed sense because it is only the instrument appointed by God whereby we are to apprehend and lay hold vpon Christs merits which are our righteousnesse and the onely meritorious cause of our iustification In the second accusation he doth argue me onely of lying and contradiction which he indeauours to do by this because in my second booke I say my first Booke was not a Treatise of
Faith is sinne because whatsoeuer is not of Christ is sinne for to be without faith and to be without Christ are all one The Apology I answere as touching acceptation vnto saluation it is all one in the euent to be without Christ the meritorious cause of saluation â—arke 16.16 as to bee without faith the instrumentall For a man cannot bee saued without either Mar. 16.16 But to all intents and purposes it is not all one to be without Christ and faith for it is not all one to the making of our actions to bee sinne in the nature of sin It is neither being without Christ nor faith that doth this for these only do cause that our actions bee not imputed for sinne vnto vs and not that they bee no sinns The sweruing from the law and Rule of God is that onely which makes an action sinfull The Exception Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne 1. Ioan. because whatsoeuer is done without spirituall life is sinne The Apology I answere How farre and in what sense faith in Christ is the spirituall life of Christians shall bee shewed God willing in the fourth obiection For the present it is enough for the answere of this obiection to say that it prooues idem per idem which is as much as to say it prooues nothing in the question for with them faith in Christ is the spirituall life of Christians as shall appeare in the fourth obiection and the spirituall life of Christians is faith as appeares by this obiection If with them faith be the spirituall life of Christians and if the spirituall life of Christians be faith then that Argument that prooues euery action sinfull that is done without spirituall life namely because it is done without faith and againe that Argument that prooues euery action sinfull that is done without faith namely because it is done without spiritual life I both their say arguments prooue nothing for vpon the matter in this question they begge the question The Tryall To conclude in answere to this Argument and for a reason of denying the consequence I sayd that though Repentance bee begun before faith yet it is not sinne for all that because a beliefe of the Gospel goes before faith in Christ yet is it not sinne The Exception This instance they offer to take away and giue three Reasons why an Historicall faith going before a sauing faith is sinne to which I will answere An Historicall faith without faith in Christ is sinne because it is no where alone required The Apology I answere First to the Antecedant that if 〈◊〉 by these wordes required alone be meant that a beliefe of the Gospel is so required alone in one place that there is no more else where required of men to their saluation then I confesse that a belief of the Gospel is no where required alone but if thereby be meant as it must be if it bee to purpose that there is no place of Scripture in which the duty of beleeuing the Gospell is onely taught and that in euery place where beleeuing the Gospell is onely taught beleeuing in Christ is taught also then I deny it for the Scripture doth not teach euery duty in euery place except wee shall obserue no rules of Art in expounding Scripture Secondly to the consequence I answer that though beleeuing the Gospell were no where alone required yet will it not be sinne for all that because it is a duty in the word commanded to be performed of all the Elect to make them capable of saluation and no such thing can be sinne God doth require of men that which is taught them and as it is taught and sometimes it may fall out a Preacher by occasion of his text or in a Catechisme lecture may onely teach men to beleeue the Gospell vpon Gods owne authority shall we say the Minister sinnes in teaching it alone or the people in learning it alone at that time not hauing then a sauing Faith Surely God is not a hard man that takes vp where he layes not downe Luk. 17.21 nor requires that which hee doeth not teach or offer to worke The Exception An Historicall Faith without Faith in Christ is sinne because God requires more Faith then this The Apology To the consequence I answere that though God require more Faith then the beliefe of the Gospell of them that shall be saued yet is not this sinne when it is alone without a sauing Faith for God requires more then godly sorrow of a Repentant sinner viz an vnfained purpose to leaue his sinnes and in time to practise new obedience Is therefore godly sorrow for sinne sinne indeed in a man because as yet hee hath not a godly purpose to leaue his sinnes wrought in him surely such Diuinitie can neuer doe good in the Church of Christ The Exception An historicall faith without faith in Christ is sinne because it may bee in Reprobates The Apology It cannot bee denied but a beliefe of the Gospell may bee in Reprobates yet will it therefore follow to bee sinne Math. was â—he gift of miracles sinne in the Reprobates because it was in them surely no. It is not the hauing of the gifts of the Spirit that makes them to bee sinne to reprobates or in them but the not vsing of them well to the honour of God and the good of the Church and it is their contenting of themselues onely with those when they should labour for other and more that causeth them to be sins in reprobates for as they be had so they come from God and as they come from God so they are good and as they are good they cannot be sinne though as they are in them not vsed at all or not well vsed or not enough vsed or abused they may prooue sinne in them yet simply because they are in them or as they are in them they are not and so much in answere to their Defence of their first obiection against my Doctrine of the precedency of Repentance vnto Faith in Christ The Triall Repentance is not begun before Faith in Christ The second Obiection because then it should proceede out of an heart vnpurified for the heart is purified by Faith Act. 15.9 To this I answered that it proues not the question because the proofe of it out of the Acts is not to purpose first because it doeth not at all speake of purifying by sanctification of which the question is but by iustification of which it is not secondly though it had spoken of purifying by sanctification yet doth it not prooue that Faith so purifieth the heart that till Faith in Christ come there is not so much as the least measure of this purifying begunne for so is the Antecedent to bee vnderstood The Exception To make their Argument good they bring reasons first they prooue that the Text in the Acts is to be vnderstood of purifying by sanctification from the filth of sinne as well as by
iustification from the guilt of sinne secondly they shew that though it could not bee prooued by that place of the Acts that Faith purifies in that manner yet by reason from other Scriptures doe they indeauour to prooue it to which I will answere in order The Text Acts 15 9. is to be vnderstood of purifying by sanctification as well as by iustification because it is Faith in Christs blood and Christs blood purifies both wayes The Apology The reason is not good because it takes for graunted that wheresoeuer the holy Ghost speakes of cleansing by Christs blood both must be vnderstood The contrary is cleare by these places Ro. 3.18 5.9 Eph. 1.7 1. Pet. 1 9. Ioa. 1.7.9 which must bee vnderstood onely of one viz purifying by iustification for though Legall purifyings taught both and Christs blood bee effectuall to the Elect in both kindes yet will it not follow to be so vnderstood euery where of both and that the holy Ghost meanes both and therefore not Act. 15.9 Besides the Text Acts 15.9 by the precedent subsequent matter shewes clearely it meanes but one viz iustification in that the words are an answer in part to a question that questioÌ„ was not whether sinners were sanctified but whether or no they were iustified by faith in Christ Men are not to make the Scripture a nose of waxe to say euery thing in euery place specially when it expounds it selfe directly of what purifying it speakes and the point of purifying by sanctification is not denied to faith simply for I confesse it may be prooued by another Text but onely to bee meant there viz Acts 15.9 The Exception Secondly the Text Acts 15.9 Is to be vnderstood of purifying by sanctification as wel as by iustification because it speaks of purifying by sauing and sauing comprehends sanctification as well as iustification The Apology The reason is not good because it is not true which is supposed that wheresoeuer the holy Ghost speakes of sauing viz spiritually he comprehends both for these Texts Rom. 5.9 1. Cor. 5.5 Io. 5.20 are vnderstood of sauing by iustification onely Indeed they that are saued are sanctified yet where sauing faith is attributed to any it doth not follow that there by sauing should be meant sactifying The Exception Thirdly Act. 15.9 must bee vnderstood of purifying both wayes because sanctification is directly attributed vnto faith Acts 26.18 The Apology I answere first that if it be a good rule to expound one Scripture by another and the darker by the plainer then may the Text Act. 26.18 be expounded by Acts 15.9 for the circumstances of the Text in the 26. chap. doe not shew of what purifying it meanes but the scope of the place in the 15. Acts doth And therefore the clearer Acts 15. should expound the darker in the 26. chapter the rather because in the 26. chapter sanctification is expressed by other wordes of turning them from darkenesse to light and from the power of Sathan to God and therefore for all this Acts 15.9 must not be vnderstood of purifying by sanctification Secondly I deny not but faith in some sense sanctifies vs viz as it teacheth it Tit. 2.11 as it stirres vp to it by the comforts thereof Rom 121. Ioa. 2. but neither will it be prooued from thence that therefore purifying Acts 15.9 must be meant of purifying by sanctification because it is so vnderstood Acts. 26 18. vnlesse the Apostle had in both places spoken of the same matter vpon the same occasion and to the same end in both which cannot bee verified of these two places in the Acts. Nor yet will it follow that before faith doe sanctifie the heart it is totally impure with the filth of sinne notwithstanding any graces of the Spirit wrought therein which is the point to be proued in the Antecedent Indeed vpon saying we are iustified by faith it will thereupon follow that wee are totally vniustified that is actually before we beleeue in Christ but in saying wee are sanctified by faith it will not thereupon follow that we are totally vnsanctified before faith come and the Reason is because faith by it office doeth more properly iustifie then sanctifie and iustification doeth not suscipere magis minus aâ— sanctification doth neither is wrought by parts and degrees as sanctification is The Exception In the last place they alleadge that many learned and sound Diuines doe expound Act. 15.9 of sanctification The Apology I grant it but not to prooue an absolute and totall impurity in mans heart before Faith as they doe but that there is not purity enough to saluation without Faith in Christ and that it stirres vp the heart of a man more to labour for an increase of sanctification begun But though they had yet doe not I thinke it reasonable or possible for euery Writer among the Protestants in these dayes to maintaine euery position in Diuinity of â—xposition of Scripture that hath beene giuen and deliuered by others in former times To conclude If a man bee elected in Christ and for his sake before he be actually in him or haue any faith in him why may they not for his sake also bee in part sanctified before Christ bee actually in them by Faith or Faith bee wrought in them actually The Exception The second thing vndertaken for the proofe of this their Argument is that by Reasons from other places of Scripture it may be prooued that Faith doeth sanctifie as well as iustifie though it cannot from Acts 15.9 The reasons they bring are three and I will answere them all briefely and in one answere Faith say thy doth purifie by sanctification as wâ—ll as by iustification first because it is Faith in Christs blood which purifies both wayes secondly because the larger Catechisme saith so thirdly because I my selfe say so in my Treatise The Apology To all these three Reasons I answere that neither any one singly nor all of them ioyntly prooue the point in question which is that Faith so sanctifies the heart that there is not so much as the least measure of sanctification begunne in the heart till faith bee wrought for at the most they prooue that which I deny not but confesse as well as they that faith in in Christ teacheth sanctification increaseth it and makes it acceptable to our saluation The Exception Obiect 1 Oh but say they before Christ bee in men there can bee no sanctification in them and before faith be in them Christ cannot be in them The Apology Solut. Before Faith be in men Christ is not in them actually by his sufficient sauing grace but Christ may be in men some way namely by his wisedome and enlightning grace before faith in Christ bee in them Before Christ bee in men there is not sanctification enough in measure nor sufficient vnto acceptation for our saluation wrought in vs but before Christ be in vs actually by faith sanctification may be begunne by the preparations and dispositions to
but by hearing faith preached which is the meaning of that place Gal. 3.2 For at the preaching of the Gospell the Doctrine of faith and vpon the beleeuing thereof were they giuen Act. 10.41.44 2. The spirit of adoption is not giuen before faith in Christ for that is the grace which instrumentally and so onely giues vs prerogatiue and title to our adoption euen as it onely but instrumentally onely receiues Christ and his benefits Eph. 1.13 Gal. 3.26 Rom. 8.13 3. The gifts and graces of the spirit sufficient to saluation are not giuen before faith in Christ Heb. 11.6 Rom. 5.1 2. 4. The gift of sanctification is not giuen before Faith in Christ But for all this will it not follow that before Faith in Christ the spirit is no way giuen the contrary may be seene in illumination and a beleefe of the Gospell for these are gifts of the spirit and therefore parts of spirituall life in some sense 1. because they are supernaturall all naturall men haue them not nor are they wrought by the worke of nature in any no not in the Elect 2. because blindenesse of minde and infidelity which is contrary thereto is a branch of spirituall death 3. The Spirit inhabitant cannot be in men before they haue faith in Christ but the Spirit assistant may and the exciting by assistance may Indeede Illumination and a beleefe of the Gospell are not spirituall life enough to saluation yet is it life enough by Gods blessing and further grace to produce Faith in Christ in the elect for within man and by the working of the Spirit there is no other worke but these and that which is wrought by these which perswades men to beleeue in Christ If illumination and a beleeue of the Gospell c. had no supernaturall life at all but were altogether dead workes then could they produce no such effect as faith and if they be not dead workes then haue they some life and if they haue some life then from the spirit and if from the spirit then may they be called branches of spirituall life and hee that hath them may be sayd to haue some spirituall life begunne in him because as hath beene sayd he hath some life in him more then naturall that is more then all naturall men haue The Exception There is no spirituall life begunne in men before Faith in Christ or faith in Christ is euery way the spirituall life of Christians because sanctification goes before iustification The Apology I answere in nature saanctification is begunne before iustification 1. because regeneration is begunne before iustification namely in illumination and other preparations as hath beene shewed before Secondly because faith it selfe is a sanctifying grace by their owne confession from Acts 15.9 and faith goes in nature before iustification Indeede iustification goes in nature before the perfection of our sanctification in all the parts of it and before the acceptation of it to saluation but iustification doth not go before any or euery measure of sanctification can any way be begunne The will of God in working is the Rule of perfection to the worke and then is it sayd to be perfect when it is wrought in part or in whole according to that perfection of parts or degrees which the Lord intends vnto it at seuerall times and by seuerall meanes The Lord is no way tied for shewing the perfection of his workemanshippe to finish a worke in all the parts of it at sundry times more then he is to finish it in all the degrees thereof at sundry times The Triall Repentance is not begunne before faith in Christ The fift Obiection because repentance is a proper effect and fruite of the Gospell The Exception This Argument is disclaimed therefore is it vaine to spend time about it for if they will not acknowledge and confesse it I haue no reason to confute it any further Onely I would haue the world beleeue I doe not faine an enemy and then flourish against him For two learned and godly Ministers whose worthy workes are in print haue vsed the same They which bring this proposition Repentance is the proper effect and fruite of the Gospell beleeued to prooue that repentance is not begun before iustifying faith must be vnderstood to meane by a beleefe of the Gospell either that beleefe which is faith in Christ or that onely which is an assent vnto the truth of the Gospell If they meane by a beleefe of the Gospell faith in Christ then must it be their argument which I haue propounded to prooue that repentance goes not before faith in Christ If they meane but an assent to the truth of the Doctrine of the Gospell then doe they meane that no other faith goes before repentance but that and then haue they two Diuines of our owne lesse on their side then they thought they had and I haue two more on mine for I hold that a beleefe of the Gospell goes before repentance and repentance before faith in Christ and let this be enough for that fift Obiection the sixt followes The Triall Repentance is not begunne before faith in Christ The sixt Obiection because it is not begunne before regeneration for regeneration is not begunne before faith in Christ This Argument was answered by denying the Antecedent viz. that Regeneration is not begunne before Faith in Christ and the reason of the consequence viz. that repentance is not begunne before regeneration The Exception For making good the Antecedent viz. this proposition regeneration is not begunne before faith in Christ they bring two reasons to which I will answere in order Regeneration is not begunne before Faith in Christ because it issues from Christ and from our vnion with him by faith 2. Corinth 5.17 Ephesians 2.10 Colo. 2.11 The Apology I answere first if by regeneration be meant our being made Gods children actually then I grant that our regeneration must needes flow from our vnion with him by faith but then it prooues not the Antecedent for the regeneration wee speake of is not our beeing actually made the sonnes of GOD but a worke of the Spirit beginning to fit vs for that but if by it they meane any or euery worke of the Spirit beginning to fit vs for regeneration and tending thereunto by GODS appointment as any worke of the Spirit in the vnderstanding or will of one that is elected to saluation to fit him for regeneration by faith then I say that such regeneration may be wrought before our actuall vnion with Christ by Faith and doth not issue from it It is true that Regeneration issues from Christ in the elect whether wee consider him as the efficient cause either by way of meriting it for vs or by working it in vs. Hebrewes 12.3 Ioan. 1.19 Ephesians 1.3 2.10 or as the finall cause Galath 4.19 But it is not true that regeneration so issues from Christ that there is not so much as any the least beginning of it wrought in
APOLOâ—â— FOR THE TRâ—â—TISE CALLâ—â— Triall of Faitâ— CONCERN◠〈…〉 The prâ—cedenc◠〈◊〉 â—tance for sinâ—◠〈…〉 Faith 〈…〉 AT WILL. CHIâ—â— Apâ—â— 22. â— Men Brethâ—â—n and 〈…〉 yee my Apology wâ—◠〈…〉 vnto you LONDâ—â— Printed by 〈…〉 SAMVEL 〈…〉 sold at 〈…〉 Chuâ—â—â—-yaâ—◠〈…〉 of the 〈◊〉 â—â—24 To the Courteous Reader IN a Defence of one point of my Triall of faith opposed by some I tooke occasion to write a briefe explication of a second contradicted by others In the conclusion of that explication I prayed the Reader to be content that of the later point as yet I sayd no more because as yet I saw no more By Gods prouidence I haue seene more since that time â—â—th the spectacles of some which oppose that Doctrine It remaines because those words implied a promise that now I write more of that matter because I vnderstand more thaâ— I say more because I see more But first when I say that now I see more my meaning is not that I am sâ—aggered in my iudgement by somewhat laâ—â—y seene that therfore now I vnderstanding question otherwise then I did at thâ—◠〈◊〉 but that now I know more of their 〈…〉 that oppose it then I did before and know better how to confirme mine owne opinion That this may appeare I pray the Christian Reader to remember the state of the question set downe in my Treatise in these wordes Repentance is begunne before faith in Christ and therein to consider two things first of whom I speake in this question secondly of what They of whom I speake are the Elect onely who onely are ordained by God to eternall life â—cts 23.48 and who for that purpose are appointed also to all the meanes effectually conducing thereunto from the beginning to the end in all the parts and degrees of the same For because this faith is onely wrought in them therefore is it called the faith of the elect Tit. 1.1 and because these only are in the euent saued by it therefore do they receiue the end of their faith 1 Peter 1.9 which is the saluation of their soules That whereof I speake is contained in the wordes of the Question before recited Wherein I pray further that two things may be considered First the Antecedent subiect matter of the question or the thing that is spoken of in this word Repentance Secondly the consequent predicat or saying that is affirmed of this Repentance in the rest of the words is begunne before faith in Christ for these termes must be rightly vnderstood First the subiect matter or thing spoken in that Question is Repentance Repentance and by repentance I meane not the practicall repentance of the conuersation or practise of the purpose of amendment of life in a constant conscionable and cheerefull course of new obedience but onely the repentance of the heart and by the repentance of the heart I do not vnderstand newnesse of heart or rectitude of Spirit or mortification Psalme 51.10 and viuification or habituall conuersion to God with the whole soule in all the powers and faculties of it ioyned with a good conscience which all are fruites and effects of faith in nature following it But by Repentance I meane onely hearty sorrow for past sinnes already committed and purpose first not to commit the very same sinnes if they were not already done but were againe to be committed and then consequently a purpose not to commit the like sinnes in kinde for time to come namely a purpose in truth without hypocrisy and dissimulation Repentance from dead workes being a qualification to fit men for beleefe in Christ beleeuing in Christ a qualification to fit them to receiue benefit by the promise of the Gospell vnto iustification and amendment of life or new obedience being a qualification to fit them to the further assurance of their iustification and of eternall life Secondly in the predicate or saying that is affirmed of this repentance three things are to be obserued 1. What is meant by being begunne 2. By Before 3. By Faith in Christ 1 Is begunne First by being begunne I doe not meane a being of repentance in the heart sufficient to saluation but onely a beginning of it in all the preparations thereunto as also a beginning of the habit it selfe so farre as concernes sorrow and purpose namely a being thereof in some measure without dissimulation and if it may be proued sufficiently that amendment of life is a part of repentance then I say repentance is begun in some part viz. in sorrow and purpose touching past sinnes before faith in Christ and finished in another viz. amendment of life after faith 2 Before Secondly by Before I doe not meane a precedency some space of time but in nature onely and in the order of causes Thirdly by faith in Christ I doe not meane a beleefe of the word and Gospell Faith in â—st for this of necessity must goe before repentance in as much as it is the meanes to driue and to draw thereunto Acts 2.32 Math. 11.68 Hebr. 11.6 but I vnderstand thereby a resting and relying vpon Christ with our whole hearts or a trusting to and putting confidence in the merits of the death and righteousnesse of Iesus Christ for and vnto saluation In the second place in that now I say more It is not because I thinke I haue not sayd enough all ready to the point it selfe for the prouing of it but because I haue not sayd enough to some for the perswading of them Nor yet because I haue not sufficiently answered the obiections which I knew but because I knew them not all then to the end I might haue answered them at the first for now I stoppe three or foure gapps with one bush and answere the Exceptions of more then one man As in these regards this further labour by way of Apology hath beene vndertaken not without some cause so in other respects it ought to be well construed accepted and vsed namely because the Lord knows my purpose herein is not to maintain my credit but the cause of God and the Doctrine of the Church of England nor to striue for Triumph and Victory but for Truth and verity muchlesse wilfully to oppose any that hold the contrary Least of all to detract from pretious faith or our blessed Sauiour in any the least measure or meaning â— Pet. 1.1 â—uke 1 42. â—om 9.5 Of my sincerity herein the Christian Reader may the rather be perswaded by considering these particulars 1. I labour not to darken my opposite with disgrace except it bee by clouding their names with silence but onely to cleare the point in question with a larger explication and confirmation 2. I seeke not to shift of the force of an argument by evasions but answer therevnto with direct solutions to my best vnderstanding 3. I study not to iustifie any thing that cannot be defended with truth and plainnes for I freely confesse the weakenesse
shew mercy and how God by the light and helpe of it draweth him forward vntill hee beleeue for his owne part and in his owne person for these be his very wordes in the beginning of that discourse hee doeth lay downe sixe seuerall workes of the Spirit in six seuerall sections of that fourth chapter the heads of them are these and they are more at large there discoursed of 1 God makes them to beleeue their misery and to be troubled in minde for it 2 They consult in this case what to doe 3 They are broken hearted and humbled 4 They haue a secrete desire of forgiuenesse 5 They conferre and aske pardon 6 They forsake all for it and highly â—rize it and then they come to apply Christ and the promise to themselues which his iudgement is a sauing faith In like manner and to the same eâ— Maister Baynes speaking Maister Baynes briefe directions to a godly life how the knoâ—ledge of misery by sin and redemption Christ workes on a man towards faith Christ he saith thus 1 Hee is drawne by the secret worke the spirit to beleeue that the doctrine taugâ— doth concerne him 2 The Lord directeth him to enter iâ— further consideration with himselfe of and â—bout his present state and consulteth what doe in this extremity 3 From the former consultation bâ—commeth to this holy resolution that he 〈◊〉 not returne to his old wayes but in all huâ—lity meekenesse and holinesse say with 〈◊〉 Paule Lord what shall I doe 4 By this meanes he comes to an vnfâ—ned desire of forgiuenesse 5 With earnest humble and particulâ— confession of his sinnes hee powreth oâ— prayers to God for the pardon of them Christ 6 He hauing found this pearle prize it as it is worth and therefore selleth all thâ— he hath and biddeth farewell to his sweetâ— delights for the obtayning of it and then 〈◊〉 commeth to apply the Gospell to himselfâ— and sealeth vp his saluation in his heart Neither is this the opinion of these learned and holy preachers but of many other in our owne Church Mr. Elton in his Catechisme the foure principle Modell of Diuinity page 274 to 279. Mr. Wheatly of Regeneration ch â—4 Mr. Perkins Catechisme the fourth principle and the state of a Christian Sect. 6. to 16. The next thing to be considered is their reasons whereby they would proue that some of those preparations which I mention do not goe before faith in Christ and they are two The Exception Those preparations doe not go before faith in Christ 1. Because they doe not draw all men to beleeue in Christ in whom they are wrought for say they Gods cords do draw and haue alwayes irresistably comming ioyned with them 2. Because I my selfe in my Treatise say that some of them are effects and fruites of faith following it Therefore cannot they goe before it as preparations to which I will answere seuerally The Defence Their first reason To the first reason is of no force First because though those preparations do not in the euent draw all men to beleeue in Christ in whom they are wrought yet do they at one time or other draw all the elect so to do that are ordained vnto eternall life and to beleeue in him for that end For of these onely is the question Secondly if their reason were good then would it proue that a beleefe of the Gospell is none of Gods cords to draw men to beleeue in Christ nor the Preaching of the Gospell none of Gods meanes to worke faith in Christ for neither the one does draw al men so to come to Christ nor the other so worke faith in Christ in all that haue the one wrought in them or the other taught vnto them witnesse the Parable of the seede in the Gospell Mat. 11.19 to 28. Is not the act of generation Gods ordinance to the begetting of a child because a child is not begotten by euery hand acts I confesse Gods spirit doth not onely draw men to beleeue in Christ but also workes it in them actually at one time or other after those preparations but drawing men to beleeue or preparing them thereunto is a different action from his working of faith or enabling them to beleeue and in the elect comming followes drawing necessarily in respect of the euent Their second reason To the second reason whereby they would prooue that some of the preparations I name cannot goe before faith in Christ is of no power because though I say some of them may go before it in one respect yet may they follow in another Indeede I say that a feare of God goes before faith in Christ as a preparation to it page 222. and that a feare of God followes faith in Christ as an effect thereof page 304. but neither doe I say that a filiall feare is the preparation nor a seruile feare the effect though the faithfull after beleeuing in Christ doe feare to sinne for feare of condemnation else the Holy Ghost would neuer diswade from it on that ground The like may be sayde of sorrow for sinne by comparing page 222. where it is a preparation to faith and page 301. where it is an effect of a sauing faith or rather of one that hath it for I do not say that sorrow for sinne on the same grounds altogether and in the same measure doth goe before and after faith in Christ and therefore their reason is but a Cauill and so I descend to the third generall thing against which they except in handling the sixt rule viz. the particular naming of a beginning of repentance to be one of those gifts of the spirit that prepare to faith in Christ Against this there are three exceptions 1 against the position it selfe 2 against the exposition of it and 3 against the handling of the position The Triall The position it selfe that repentâ—nce is one of those preparations The position it selfe is this Repentance is begunne before faith in Christ The Exception This position they dislike for two causes First because it implies a beginning of repentance before faith in Christ some space of time Secondly because it supposeth that repentance is begun at one time in some part of it and finished at anotheâ— in the residue The Apology To the 1. Exceptiâ—n I do indeede often vse the word Before to expresse the Precedency I meane but neither did I meane a precedency some space of time nor can they shew it by the words of the booke except I had added thereunto some other word as time space season or the like to giue light to such an interpretation which is not done in that whole disputation Or except the word Before in the English tongue did alwayes carry that sence onely which experience disprooues seeing one thing may be before another in nature as fire before heat in order as the second before the third In dignity as an Earle before a Baron and in worth as gold before siluer
to soften and change the heart as farre as in repentance sticktly taken is required It is true Repentance is a change oâ— the heart for in repentance the heart 〈◊〉 changed first in the affection of ioy 〈◊〉 sorrow for whereas a sinner before his repentance reioyced in doing euill now he sorrowes for the euill hee hath done Sâ—condly in the purpose of doing for wherâ— as formerly he purposed to liue in his siâ— Now he purposeth to leaue them but thiâ— change of the heart may be wrought before faith in Christ as well as the changâ— of the minde from darknesse to light 〈◊〉 wrought before it Acts 26 18. and the change may bâ— true in the one that is the heart as well aâ— in the other that is the minde Indeede the beginning of the changâ— of the heart doth presuppose that faitâ— which is a beleefe of threatnings to thâ— impenitent and promises to the repeâ—tant which comprehends a beleefe of thâ— truth of the death and resurrection 〈◊〉 Christ and in the elect the beginning 〈◊〉 this change of the heart doth suppose thâ— faith in Christs death and resurrection wâ— follow for the perfecting of it in mortifâ—cation and viuification But it is not truâ— that the beginning of this change doth pâ— suppose this faith as present at the very iâ—staÌ„nt wheÌ„ this change is a beginning whicâ— is the question and which is not proue by this Argument and therefore it proues nothing the third followes The Exception If a man can neuer beginne to returne till he beleeue that God will bee mercifull to him in speciall The third argument then repentance is not begunne in time before a sauing faith But the first is true therefore the second The Apology The consequence is naught 1. because it takes for granted which I deny that a beleefe that God will be mercifull to a man in speciall that is in particular to Iohn and William is a sauing faith This is false 1. because this is but an assent to the truth of a proposition such a beleefe is but an Historicall faith and such a faith is not a sauing faith 2. because such an assent cannot be faith because it doth not rest vpon the authority of God reuealing it in Scripture for hee hath reuealeth no such thing touching the saluation of any particular man but generally to all but vpon this beleeuing in Christ Indeede it is reuealed that God will be mercifull in generall to mankinde and in speciall to those of mankind which beleeue in Christ so that till they beleeue in Christ they may not beleeue or perswade themselues that God will be mercifull to them in speciall Before sinners doe beleeue in Christ they may beleeue and perswade themselues it is possible for God to haue mercy on them and that God will certainely be mercifull to them when they repent and beleeue in Christ but before this they may not For though exhortations to repentance are founded commonly vpoâ— the mercy of God in the Gospell yet noâ— vpon the Mercy of God already receiueâ— by iustifying faith but offered by God and to be receiued vpon Repentance anâ— faith in Christ for the conditions must be performed before we may expect the accomplishing of the promise and we musâ— feele in our selues by the reflexe of our owâ— conscience that we do indeede hartily sorrow for our past sins and purpose vnfeinedly to leaue them before we may rest oâ— Christ or trust to him for saluation foâ— till then wee are not persons well qualified to receiue mercy nor fit to trusâ— in him for it so as to bee sure to obtaine it certainely in the end for though the Scripture say Repent for the Kingdome of Heauen is at hand yet doth it not say repent for yee are all ready in the Kingdom of Heauen by a iustifying faith Secondly the consequence is naught because it prooues no more but that repentance is not begunne till faith in Christ and not that it is nor begun in time before it for betwixt these two propositions there is great difference as hath bin wel obserued by them in their answer to my 3 argument The Assumption likewise is not true 1. because a man may beginne to returne by illumination for that is a turning of men from darkenesse to light except they neede not repent of their ignorance and infidelity 2. Acts. 26 18. because a man may begin to returne by a beleefe of that word that threatens the impenitent and for feare of punishment he may also proceede further herein by a beleefe of that word which promiseth mercy to the repentant and in hope of pardon but a man must beginne to returne before he beleeue that God will be mercifull to him in speciall or else hee will neuer begin to returne because there is no such speciall promise in the word to be beleeued as may appeare by this reason The beleefe that God will be mercifull to a man in speciall must be either absolute or conditionall Absolute it cannot be because no man can beleeue in this manner absolutely but he to whom such mercy is absolutely promised Now in the word there is mercy promised to none but vnder the condition of repentance and faith in Christ nor is this mercy promised in speciall and particular but in generall to all mankind viz. which beleeue in Christ If it be not absolute then is it condâ—tionall if conditionall then may not a sinner beleeue that God will be mercifull to him in speciall till he haue performed the condition And therefore for all this their third reason is weake and sinners may beginne to repent in time before they beleeue in Christ The Exception The fourth argument There is a fourth reason alledged to disproone my supposed position of repenting some space of time before beleeuing in Christ viz. because I say page 231 301. 303. that the practise of repentance followes faith meaning in time The Apology This reason is not worth the framing or answering for it answeres it selfe Hee that speakes of the practise of Repentance following faith and thereby meanes the actuall performing of that concerning his former sins which he hath purposed viz the leauing of theÌ„ necessarily implies that a purpose to leaue them doth goe before faith in Christ Oh but say they the following of the practise is in time therefore the going before of the purpose is in time also I deny the consequence because to the one there is no need of time that is betwixt a beginning to repent and beleeuing in Christ there needes no space of time but betwixt beleeuing in Christ and practising repentance there is required space of time viz all our life after Indeed in one place I meane by the practising of Repentance Pag. 261. l. 25. the action of Repentance with the heart or purposing so to doe and this I say goes before faith in Christ that is in nature not in time but by practise of Repâ—ntance viz
meanes and cause of a thing goes before it in nature then penitency repentance or not liuing in sinne is a meanes and cause of beleeuing in Christ and consequently goes before it in nature The Assumption I prooue by Ioan. 5.44 Thomas Aqui. Caluin Musâ—nlus Illiricus Rollocrus Piscatori commentary on the place where by the iudgement of learned Interpreters the Holy Ghost assignes this for a reason and cause of the infidelity of the Scribes and Pharisees and why they beleeued not in Christ viz. they liued in worldly pride ambition and couetuousnesse And if this were truely verified of them in those dayes then may it be sayd of men in these dayes that liuing in their sinnes is a cause why they beleeue not in Christ and consequently leauing of mens sinnes viz. in purpose is some cause or meanes of beleeuing in Christ and therefore goes before it in nature The Triall The fourth argument Repentance is begunne before faith in Christ at the first conuersion because sinners must first repent of their sinnes committed after their first conuersion before they can trust in Christ for the pardon of them The Exception To this they answere by denying the antecedent for say they both the habit of faith and some acts of it viz. vniting and ingrafting into Christ receiuing and apprehending Christ doe goe before repentance secondly by denying the consequence because through repenting after the first conuersion in nature goes before faith in Christ yet doth it not follow it must so do at the first conuersion The Apology First their answere to my Antecedent had beene to purpose if they had prooued by some good reason that in nature and order of working the habit of faith had gone before the habit of repentance or that the act of faith which is beleeuing in CHRIST had gone before the act of repenting that is of sorrowing for past sinnes and purposing to leaue them but seeing they doe neither of these the Antecedent is good They say indeede that these acts of faith viz. vniting and ingrafting into Christ receiuing and apprehending Christ go before repentance but neither is this to purpose except they prooued they were all one with the act of beleeuing in Christ for of that act is the question nor doe they prooue what they say for they doe barely affirme it nor do I thinke it possible to be proued because in nature I thinke it impossible for any vnrepentant sinner to be vnited to Christ ingrafted vnto him and made a member of his misticall body Indeede vpon another occasion they say repentance goes before these acts of faith viz. perswasion and assurance of saluation and praying for pardon and yet else where in effect they deny it where they say to beleeue in Christ is to be perswaded and assured of saluation by Christ and that no man can pray for this pardon of his sinnes before he haue faith in Christ Mr. Eltons Catechisme 4. principle Mr. Perk. state of a Christian Sect. 14. Mr. Rogers Mr. Baynes as is cited before the first of which points hath beene confuted by me in my Treatise and the second is contradicted by other Diuines where they say praying for pardon of sinnes goes before the application of faith and the perswasion of Gods loue in Christ If they had giuen any reason of their deniâ—ll of the consequence of this Argument that had beene sound it would haue answered my Argument but seeing they haue not good cause why they cannot therefore is the Argument as yet good because as yet it is vnanswered And indeede I know not how they should answere it as long as the habit of repentance and faith in Christ are the same vertues both at and after mens first conuersion for nature and vse and so are the acts of repenting and beleeuing in Christ If any man can giue me a good reason why the spirit of God should not incite men to repent and beleeue in Christ iâ— the same manner and order at the first conuersion as he doth after it when through weaknesse they fall and offend God theâ— would I say the consequence of my Argument were weake and consequently mâ— argument but because I thinke they cannot for if they could they would therefore as yet is my fourth Argument good â—â—â—ect But they say this Argument implieâ— a successiue working of saith by God anâ— of pardoning sinnes as if a Christiaâ— ceased to beleeue when he falleth into anâ— grosse sinne after his first conuersion anâ— that therefore faith must bee wrought a new in them and be pardoned a new I answere to the first that though I do not meane that the habit of faith is lost Solut. by the committing of any enormous sin and therefore there is no feare of neede to haue it planted in them againe yet doe I thinke that a sinner falling into enormous sinne doth not exercise his faith nor vse the act of it and he may in some sort be sayd for a time to loose the vse and exercise of this beleeuing in Christ and that therefore after such a fall the Spirit of God must incite him vp againe to the vse thereof before he can trust in Christ and that the spirit doth not thus incite a sinner to trust vntill he haue stir'd him to repent of those great sins which he hath coÌ„mitted And as touching the second member of their exception concerning successiue pardoning of sinnes I can see no reason why we should euery day aske pardon of our sinnes if God did not pardon them euery day I see not why this may not be called successiue pardoning Math. 6.11 12. for if the godly sin euery day must repent and beleeue in Christ euery day and craue pardon of the sinnes of euery day then will God forgiue euery day speaking after the Scripture phrase and then there is a daily and successiue pardoning The Triall Repentance may bee begunne before Faith in Christ The fift Argument because as great a worke as the beginning of repentance is wrought before it The Exception To this Argument they answere that iâ— is naught because it is founded vpon a false supposition viz as if I perswadeâ— my selfe they thought that therefore repentance was not wrought before faith iâ— Christ because it could not be so wroughâ— by God as if they thought any too hard to hard the Lord and therfore first or lasâ— wrought The Apology Vpon this I reply thus first as they vse so they muse because they thinke meanely of mee therefore doe they perswade themselues I doe the like by them as if my shooe were of their last or as if they knew they deserued I shuld so iudge of them but the Lord knoweth I had neuer such an imagination of them or so meane a conceit of their iudgement that they should thinke that simply God could worke it so by his absolute power but that by his actuall power which is limited by his will he cannot that is
looking to the order and meanes which God in his word hath prescribed for the working of those graces hee doth not giue power and efficacy enough to worke repentance before faith in Christ and that therefore it cannot be so wrought Secondly against them that hold repentance cannot be wrought before faith in Christ as well as that it is not begun before it for this is their opinion as well as that in the sense that I haue named It is direct to prooue that repentance may bee begunne before this faith and to prooue that repentance may bee begunne before this faith it is to good purpose to shewe that as great a worke as the beginning of repentance is wrought before it viz a beliefe of the Gospell for the full working of one euangelicall and supernaturall grace in all the parts of it is a greater worke then the beginning of another and the working of that by fewer meanes is a greater worke then the beginning of this by more These points haue beene prooued in my Treatise concerning the working of a beliefe of the Gospell and the beginning of repentance and if they had answered them well they should haue prooued either that a beliefe of the Gospell is not a harder worke in it selfe considered and looking vnto the meanes of working then a beginning of repentance or if it were that it will not follow thereupon that therefore a beginning of repentance is not wrought before faith in Christ but neither of these are done and therefore for all this the argument stands vpright in that probability of truth which it hath except they will take the state and authority vpon them that their very deniall shall be a sufficient confutation Indeed they cauill at some particular passages in the prosecution of this argument but they are not worth the answering here because my argument is no whit weakened by them and besides they haue beene and shall bee vpon other occasions answered else where and so at last I come to my last Argument The Tryall Repentance is begunne before faith because it was preached before faith for it was the first Doctrine that was preached by Iohn Baptist The sixt Argument by Christ by his Disciples and Apostles The Exception To this Argument they answere first by saying it is but a weake one and that by the iudgement of Mr. Caluin secondly by denying both antecedent and the consequence The Antecedent because say they God doeth not alwayes call for repentance first but sometimes for faith in Christ Acts 10.43 and though he did yet is faith included The consequence for say they it doth not follow that because repentance was the first Doctrine that was preached therefore it was the first grace that was wrought in the hearers first because when God calleth for any grace none of the rest are excluded but included rather Acts 16.31 Secondly because that which is first placed is not alwayes first wrought the last in words may be the first in sense The Apology First I answere generally to the whole Argument If this were all the Arguments that could be brought to prooue the point and that the weight of the cause lay on this foundation then would it be but weakely supported it might truely be said of it as Mr. Caluin doth that it is too weake Caluins Institution l. c. 5. for Mr. Caluin speakes of such as onely relye on this Argument which I doe not the contrary is seene by fiue other on foure whereof I relye and not on this sixt nor the fift Secondly Musculus a learned interpreter from hence that repentance was the first Doctrine which those preached plainly collects that the Doctrine of repentance hath the beginning and principles of the Doctrine of grace his wordes are these In this place saith Musculus Iohn requires Repentance Musculus comment on Math. 3.2 which the Prophets call turning to God and of which the Angell pâ— his father in minde when he said he shoulâ— turne many of the childaen of Israel to thâ— Lord Luk. 1.17 viz to call sinners to thâ— acknowledgement of their euill life and tâ— a change of their minde and true piety tâ— God and this preaching of repentance iâ— such that not onely is it necessary to the eâ— those that haue sinned may bee capable of grace but without which no man hath accesse vnto the throne of grace according tâ— Heb. 6.12 And this is the Reason why Iohn and Christ also and after him thâ— Apostles did first preach repentance tâ— them that were to be conuerted vnto God So that in Musculus opinion Repentance in nature goes before accesse to the throne of grace and before our being capable of grace and consequently before faith by which onely wee haue this liberty viz because Repentance was the first Doctrine which they preached to their hearers Secondly and more specially in defence of the Antecedent I say that whereas for the confutation of my Antecedent they bring two Reasons I will answere to them seuerally First God doeth not alwayes call for faith in Christ first for in that place first he preached Iohns Baptisme of Repentance ver 37. and of the day of Iudgement v. 42. which comparing Acts 13.24 with Acts 17.30.31 require repentance Secondly though faith were included in the Doctrine of repentance yet the including of it in that Doctrine Acts 10.43 No more prooues the precedency in nature of faith in Christ vnto Repentance which is their opinion then the precedency of Repentance vnto Faith which is mine To the consequence I answere first that notwithstanding their Reasons it is very probable if we consider these particulars First that the preaching of Iohn Christ and the Apostles was effectuall to some of their hearers Secondly that this efficacy of their preaching consisted in working through Gods blessings in their hearers an ability to doe the duties they taught and whereunto they did exhort Thirdly that this ability of doing those duties was wrought in them as the Doctrines were taught or when they were preached as appeares plainely in the Apostles for the rest Acts 14.1.2 Acts 18.8 So that if Repentance were the first duty which all these taught teaching were the meanes whereby they were inabled to doe it and this ability were giuen to them anâ— wrought in them as they preacht it thâ— must Repentance bee the first grace thaâ— was wrought because it was the first thaâ— was preacht and taught in their ministery I meane vsually and ordinarily not limiting God alwayes thus to worke without alteration the rather because they were wrought by preaching to make them capable of saluation 1. Cor. 1.21 And they might as conueniently be wrought in their hearers for that end according to the order in which they are taught as any otheâ— way or in any other order and manner Secondly I answere to the consequence for as much as it is euident that neither Iohn noâ— Christ neither the Disciples noâ— Apostles did hit vpon the
almost printed I deemed that GOD by his prouidence would haue me defend my selfe for the credit of my Ministery which is as tender as the apple of mine eye that cannot endure little motes of disgrace vniustly to dimme it much lesse such great beames of slander to put it out if it were possible Pudet hac opprobria nobis Et dici potnisse non potuisse refelli If the accusations were true it were better my booke were burnt in Paules Church-yard then sold there it were fitter for me to stand at a stake in Smithfield then in a Pulpet in the Church and if they be not true then is it not meete to suffer simple people to be seduced to beleeue them nor my selfe to be traduced by the report and beleefe of them neither of which can be auoyded without some answere Whether they be true or no I referre to the Christian Reader to determine when he hath read ouer the Defence of my Triall of Faith and this Apology for it In this action and accusation I will be but a Defendant I will not giue rebuke for rebuke 1. Pet. 3.9 onely I say the Lord rebuke him This is not my rebuke but the Lords nor is it against him but for him the Lord knoweth euen for his vnfeined humiliation and consolation in Christ Iesus And so letting passe in modesty the very words of the accusation as offensiue to moderate eares I proceede to answere the matter and first the heresie and blasphemy The heresie and blasphemy is instanced in three particulars 1. The first hereticall and blasphemous position is this Triall of faith p. 41. li. 30. I say Faith in Christ is the onely condition of the couenant of grace that is required of all those that are capable of saluation I answere this is not heresie nor blasphemy because the Doctrine of our Church sayth as much where it sayth Articles of religion in Q Elizabeths time Art 11. Ser. of saluation 1 part toward the end that we are iustified by faith onely is a most wholesome Doctrine and that Paule deelareth nothing Rom. 3.25 vpon the behalfe of man Concerning his iustification but onely a true and a liuely faith and afterward faith doth not shut out repentance hope loue dread and the feare of God to be ioyned with faith in euery man that is iustified but it shutteth them out from the office of instifying 2. A second Hereticall blasphemous Doctrine is I say God as soueraigne Lord of all can appoint what meanes hee will to make vs capable of life Neither is this an hereticall and blasphemous position because the power of God is to be considered two wayes Perk. gold chai ch 3. either actually or absolutely Gods absolute power is that by which hee can doe more then either he doth or will doe Math. 3.9 Phillip 3.29 Gods actuall power is that by which he causeth all things to be which hee freely willeth Psal 135.6 Now then where I say God as soueraigne Lord of all can appoint what meanes hee will to make vs capable of life I do not speake of his actuall power but of his absolute for I doe not meane Though the Lord hath actually willed and appointed that faith in Christ shall be the meanes to make vs capable of eternall life that is instrumentally onely and in no sense meritoriously yet God as soueraigne Lord of all can now appoint another meanes to make vs capable thereof as he would straine his wit to interpreat me But my meaning is which is euident by the context that before the Lord appointed and willed that faith in Christ should be that meanes by his absolute power as soueraigne Lord of all hee might haue appointed any other grace to haue beene the meanes instrumentally and conditionally to haue made vs capable of Heauen If God by his absolute power can do more then either he doth or will as is confest out of Mr. Perkins then in case God had not willed that Faith in Christ should be this meanes he might by his absolute power haue appointed any other meanes and consequently what meanes he would to make vs capable of life For that action which depends vpon Gods free will or ordination that by his absolute power he could haue done otherwise for that is the nature of free-will to do so as that they might haue done otherwise but the appointing of the meanes to make vs capable of saluation depends vpon Gods free-will and ordination therefore he might haue done otherwise and consequently by his absolute power he could haue appointed what meanes he would to make vs capable of saluation And that the appointing of the meanes to make vs capable of saluation depends on the free-will and ordination of God appeares because the merits of Chrâ—st depend therevpon according to that of Mr. Caluin Christ could not deserue any thing but by the good pleasure of God Caluin Iustit l. 2 1. 17. the 1. but because hee was appointed to this purpose with his sacrifice to appease the wrath of God and with his obedience to put away our offences c. Now if this be true in the meritorious cause of our saluation which doth purchase it much more is it in the instrumental which makes vs but persons capable of it now it is procured by him and so much for clearing the second supposed heresie and blasphemy The third hereticall blasphemous position is this that I say the act of faith which is beleeuing in Christ doth iustifie vs and is our righteousnesse Of this sentence I wil not say much here because I haue maintained it to be sound Doctrine in my sense in a priuate writing to himselfe which he promised to answere but yet hath not performed it as also in a publike defence in print and in the view of the world which was perused and also allowed by two very learned and godly Doctors of Diuinity for that end which I humbly pray the Reader to peruse for his satisfaction if hee be doubtfull euen as this Apology also hath beene prooued and approued by the same worthy Diuines And so I passe from the heresie and blasphemy with which he charges me to the periury lying and contradiction which is instanced by two particulars The first instance to prooue the periury lying and contradiction is this viz. because in my second Booke I protest I neuer wrote that Christ hath merited that faith should be our righteousnesse and iustifie vs Defence pag. 35. and yet in my first booke I say the act of faith iustifies vs for the merit of Christ Triall page 196. I answere in these two sentences I doe neither forsweare nor lye nor contradict my selfe because I do not affirme and deny one and the same proposition That I doe not in the two sentences forenamed Arist deinter lib 1. chap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ram. logi l. 2. cha 2. contradictio est quando idem axioma affirmatur negatùr deny