iustification and yet in the Title of my second Booke I name my first Booke a Triall of Faith concerning iustification by faith but this doth not argue me of lying and contradiction which I thus declare 1. because I do not entitle my first Booke a Triall of the Doctrine of iustification but a Triall of Faith 2. Forasmuch as faith is taken in Scripture in one sense wherein we conceitâ— it not to iustifie and in another wherein we conceiue it doth iustifie To the end I might fully declare that my intent was in my Booke to speake of the latter not of the former I added in the title of the second Booke these words viz. concerning the Doctrine of iustification in Faith So that the sentence wherein hee supposeth the contradiction to bee hath this sense the Triall of faith viz. of that faith which concernes iustification by faith And that the latter words viz. concerning the Doctrine of iustification by faith do argue that by Faith I meant iustifying faith this Argument will shew That Faith which concernes the Doctrine of iustification by faith is iustifying Faith for no faith doth concerne that Doctrine but iustifying faith But the Faith whereof I wrote doth concerne the Doctrine of iustification by faith so saith the title of the second booke Therefore the faith whereof I speake is a iustifying Faith If hee would argue me of lying and contradiction herein it must be by such an Argument as this That booke which concernes the Doctrine of iustification by faith is a Treatise of iustification But my first booke concernes the Doctrine of iustification by faith so faith my second Booke in the Title Therefore my first Booke is a Treatise of iustification To this I answere iustification may be considered either as it is explicated and treated of by all the causes thereof and all the arguments incident thereunto or as it is considered onely in one cause concurring thereunto In the first sense I grant the proposition to be true viz. he that writes a booke of iustification and explicates it in that large manner doth write a booke of iustification but in this sense his assumption is false for in the sentence he alleaged against me I limit the Doctrine of my booke to speake concerning iustification by faith that is of iustification so farre as it is by faith and of faith so farre as it concernes iustification which is to speake of iustification as it depends vppon one cause and of faith as it is one cause of iustification And so I hope I haue cleared it to the iudgement of all indifferent and iudicious men that I haue not deserued to be accused of periury lying and contradiction I should now proceede to say something touching the last imputation obiected against me in those papers which is acquiuocation but this will neede no answere for who knowes not that I am not a Iesuite nor the sonne of a Iesuite whose practise and Art it is I haue solemly protested against it in my Defence pag. 35. and I hope my carriage in my Ministery and conuersation these twenty yeares in the City and Parish where I dwell will suffiently purge me from the suspicion of it In a word In morall Philosophy hee is sayd to speake truth who speakes as he thinkes though he thinkes not as the thing is and in Logicke hee is accompted to speake truth that speakes as the thing is though he thinkes not as he speakes But in Diuinity there is required a dâ—uble conformity and agreement with truth of the thing and the truth of the thoght and this I haue obserued in the Defence of my Doctrine touching iustifying faith For writing the truth of the matter I referred my selfe to the iudgement of the learned by whom my Defence and Apology were approued and for the writing the truth of my meaning I appeale to the righteous Iudge of the whole world It may be that the Lord will looke on my affliction 2 Sam 6. â—â— and that the Lord will requite good for his cursing this day
As well as in time as the begetting of a childe is before his birth Secondly they had reason to interpret my meaning of a precedency in nature rather then in time because I made the beginning of repentance to be a meanes vnto Faith in Christ as is to bee seene by my two first Arguments and other places of the booke and therefore before it onely in the order of causes and consequently in the order of nature 2. Because in my disputation I oppose the common opinion and the receiued opinion concerning the precedency betwixt Repentance and Faith is that faith goes before repentance not in time but in nature therefore my opinion that contradicts theirs should be vnderstood of the same manner of precedency viz. that repentance goes before faith in order of Nature Thirdly though I meant a precedency in nature yet did I not meane that so much as the proofe of this namely a necessity of the being of repentance with faith in Christ For my chiefe intent was to shew that sinners cannot warrantably with any expectation of benefit by theiâ— faith beleeue in Christ for saluation except they repent when they doe the onâ— they must doe the other as appeares by this in that by way of exposition I say men cannot beleeue in Christ as long 〈◊〉 they liue in their sinnes page 244 line 27 and that I expound the word Before bâ— till or vntill page 279. line 26 27. 278 line 25 281. line 17.24 282. l. 25 27. and in other places In the fourth place If I say to my Tenant that owes me the rent of the two laâ— quarters you shall not bring mee the onâ— quarters rent before the other I will nâ— receiue the first before the last can it be hence concluded necessarily that I mean he shall bring his first quarters rent in timâ— precisely before the last may not my Tenant with as good reason conceiue my meaning to be that I will haue him bring both together and if he doe so may not he thinke I will be well content In like manner when I say sinners may not beleeue in Christ before they haue repented It cannot be necessarily concluded I meant they must repent some space of time before they beleeue in Christ They may with as good reason vnderstand they must doe both at one time when they beleeue in Christ they must repent and if they so doe it will be well pleasing to God Charity might haue taught them to interprete mee the best way rather then the worst Fifthly they that hold repentance and faith goe together in time but giue the precedency to faith in nature yet speake of the precedency of faith vnto repentance and when they speake of this precedency they say faith goes before repentance and why then may not I which hold repentance and faith goe together in time but giue the precedency to repentance in nature speake of this precedency and say repentance goes before faith why should I be vnderstood of predecency some space of time more then they and be blamed therefore rather then they Lastly if I may freely speake my minde I thinke it may be maintained that in some cases and in some persons in these dayes repentance in some degree may be wrought before faith in Christ some space of time according as those doctrines may be preached first or last in time and be made effectuall to the good of the hearers by Preaching for I could neuer yet conceiue how it crost any commandement or promise of God or hindered any duty or comfort of the faithfull or discountenanced the sincerity of profession or disparaged the perseuerance of the Elect in the estate of grace or derogated from the free grace of God in Christ or lifted vp man in any proud conceit of his owne free will as long as it is affirmed that repentance is but begunne onely that it is wrought by the Spirit onely and by the word onely and in the Elect onely and onely as an effect of their Election and only as a meanes to worke Gods will on them by disposing them to faith in Christ whereby they may be brought to that supernaturall end to which they are ordained in him and therefore there needed no such clamour as hath beene noysed about it supposing the position hath beene so vnderstood But it may be others see what I cannot they discerne more vntruth in the Doctrine then I and descry more mischiefe likely to ensue thereupon then I can apprehend else there is no reason they should be so violent in opposing it be it so then I hope it will appeare by their arguments against it Surely if the opinion were so absurde and dangerous I suppose the holy Scripâ—ure would affoord arguments many and strong enough to confute it and if they did I make no doubt but they would bee diligent enough to collect them and if they had I guesse shrowdly they would be forward enough to produce them let vs then take a view of them to the end wee may beleeue if it be possible The Exception Their Arguments are foure in number and I will propound them in due forme that their strength may bee better discerned The first Argument If all sauing graces bee wrought all at once and together so that when one is wrought the other is wrought also then is not repentance begun in time before a sauing faith But the first is true therefore the second The Assumption they prooue as shall be seene by and by The Defence 1 I answere If by sauing graces the meane such as are appointed by God 〈◊〉 saue sinners instrumentally then I deny tâ—â— consequence and grant the Assumptioâ— for though all such sauing graces suppâ—sing there were many of them weâ— wrought all at an instant so that when oâ— is wrought the other is wrought also yâ— might repentance be wrought in time bâ—fore all these for in this sense onely faitâ— in Christ is a sauing grace because it onelâ— apprehends and layes hold on the Sauioâ— Christ and his merits for saluation Repeâ—tance is no such sauing grace but if by sauing grace be meant either those that tenâ— to saluation or are wrought in all theâ— that shall be saued to make them person capable of saluation then I grant the coâ—sequence and deny the Assumption because some of these viz. illumination anâ— beliefe of the Gospell and the beginning oâ— repentance may in time be wrought before faith for ought this argument proue to the contrary But let vs see how they prooue the aâ—sumption in which lyeth the strength oâ— the Argument The Exception If regeneration be wrought all at once and together so that when one grace of regeneration is wrought all other of the same kind are wrought also then all sauing graces are wrought all at once and together But the one is true therefore the other The consequence they imagine is good because by the work of sauing graces men are regenerated
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
vs till wee bee actually vnited to him by Faith which is the question The contrary may bee seene in illumination a beleefe of the Gospell and vocation which are and may bee wrought in the elect before this vnion Romans 8.20 though they tend to regeneration or rather are a branch and member thereof and there can noe inconuenience follow hereupon as long as the regeneration begunne before this actuall vnion is the worke of the spirit in the elect and for Christs sake that shall be perfected in due time appointed by God for that end The Exception Secondly they prooue that regeneration is not begunne before faith in Christ because I my selfe say as much in my treatise pag. 310. The Apology I answere by acknowledging that faith in Christ becomes effectuall to bring forth good workes and new obedience in a holy life and to beget in vs other Christian graces as hope ioy peace newnesse of heart and vprightnesse c. which are the fruites of faith in Christ and it becomes thus effectuall by our vnion with Christ through faith but I doe not there affirme which is alleaged and is the point to bee prooued that no grace tending to regeneration as a disposition to it is wtought before this our vnion and therefore for all these two reasons their last Argument is weake and insufficient As I haue added to my six arguments one more in defence of my opinion so will I adde one more obiection which is an argument of theirs against it and it is this The Exception If faith in Christ goe before loue and loue before repentance then faith goes before repentance But faith in Christ goes before loue and loue before repentance Therefore faith goes before repentance The consequence they thinke is good because that which goes before the cause goes before the effect ergo if faith go before the cause of repentance which is loue then must it goe before repentance which is the fruite of loue The Assumption they prooue in the parts of it 1 Faith goes before loue because faith workes by loue Gal. 5.6 2 Loue goes before repentance for the doctrine of the Church of England sayth so The Apology I answere 1. If by loue be meant any kinde of loue to God then I grant the consequence and deny the assumption But if thereby bee meant that loue of God which proceedeth from our actuall being beloued of God in Christ and our apprehending of the same in our owne perticular iustification then I deny the consequence and grant the assumption Some loue of God may be before iustifiing faith for God is the obiect of loue and God may bee conceiued and apprehended as louing not onely in many temporall blessings but euen in some spiritual before men beleeue in Christ For God may be apprehended louing in sending his sonne to purchase redemption for man and manifesting in the meanes a possibility of obtaining our share therein vpon repentance and faith in Christ and as preparing vâ— by some workes of Gods Spirit to faith in Christ and if we may be some way affected towards God vpon these considerations and grounds before faith in Christ then may there be some loue before faith and if our loue to God bee suteable to such preparing workes of Gods Spirit as haue yer bin past vpon vs and such good as hath bin manifested to vâ— from God I say such loue is true in it kind as being answerable to that which God aimes at in such meanes though not with that perfection which is requisite to saluation immediately yet with that which is requisite by way of disposition and preparatorily But that loue of God which proceedeth from the receiuing and apprehension of our iustification is a fruit of faith in Christ and followes it 2. I answer that if by repentance be meant the practise of amendment of life and new obedience then the loue of God goes before repentance but if by repentance be meant hearty sorrow for sinne past and true purpose to leaue it then I say the loue of God doth not go before repentance Touching the first part of their asumption out of the Galathians that faith goes before loue I say it is not to purpose because it proues not that faith goes before all loue but only that loue which proceeds from our first beeing beloued of God which we apprehend by faith in Christ Neither is the doctrine of the Church of England out of the Homilies rightly alleaged to proue the 2 part of their assumption viz. that repentance hath an ingredient charity that repentance is a fruite of the loue of God for the repentance the Homily speakes of is not repentance strictly taken viz. sorrow for sinne and purpose of leauing it of which I speake but the whole worke of Gods Spirit on man to make him capable of iustification and salvation or the whole conuersion of man in minde and will in affections and actions inward and outward and this appeares in that it makes foure parts of repentance there spoken of viz. 1. Sorrow for sinne 2. acknowledgment and confession of it 3. faith in Christ and 4. amendment of life in which sense it is no maruell if hee include loue and charity in repentance soe that there is no reason to conclude thence that loue is included in repentance strictly taken as I do except they meane by loue some affection to God for making it possible for vs to bee saued and prouiding a meanes to that end and not a loue of God for our being actually saued or meane by repentance amendment of life for this is a fruite of loue and in this sence it is that St. Augustine speakes to this effect Many do daily say they are sinners and yet still they delight to sinne this is but profession not amendment the soule is accused not healed the offence is pronounced not taken away August 10. tom Ser. 7. de tempore nothing makes true repentance but the hatred of sinne and loue of God the fire of this sacrifice is loue Now at length I draw homeward toward a conclusion of the whole namely to the last thing propounded in handling this point of the precedency of repentance vnto faith in Christ which is the vse and application I made thereof in my Treatise with which as with the rest there is fault found It will not be worth my labour to confute muchlesse recite the particular faults and aberations they espie therein The applying of the point because the answere vnto them will little serue to the cleering of the Doctrine it selfe partly because that which I should write in confutation thereof must be gathered out of that I haue already sayd in this Defence and partly also because the whole frame of those exceptions will of it selfe vpon my Defence fall to the ground For I thinke they would neuer haue written against the application but vpon a supposition that the point whereupon it was raysed is vnsound for
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
Christ To the end therefore that they may preuent this they will disprooue my interpretation saying that by acknowledging the truth in Timothy is not meant faith in Christ why because it cannot Why can it not be so meant because it is against the analogy of faith why is it against the analogy of faith because repentance cannot be without faith what is this but to runne in a ring and to hunt Counter without proouing any thing who sees not that this is to beg the question and vpon the matter to prooue â—dem per idem mouere non promouere I prooue repentance goes before faith â—n Christ because repentance goes beâ—ore the acknowledging of the truth â—hich is a sauing faith They answere â—e reason is not good because by acknowâ—edging the truth there cannot be meant â—aith in Christ why cannot faith in Christ â—e meant there because repentance is not â—efore or without faith in Christ The Triall Thirdly by acknowledging of the truth in Timothy is meant faith in Christ because it is called the faith of the elect Timâ— 1.1 for onely the elect haue a sauing faith because onely the elect haue a Sauiour and are saued by him The Exception To this they answer by denying my interpretation of the Epistle to Titus for say they the Apostle doth not there explicate what he meant by acknowledging of the truth namely the faith of the elect For those words doe not shew what the faith of the elect is but distinguish it from the faith of the elect The Apology Vpon this I reioyne in this manner 1. Ancient Interpreters both a Gagneius Guilliaudus Papists and b Calvin Beza Piscatur Protestants doe expound the words as I doe that the latter are put exegetically for the interpretation of the former 2 My Aduersaries barely say the wordes distinguish and not interpret without any reason of their affirmation and therefore it is not good 3 If those wordes acknowledging of the truth be a distinction betweene the former words viz. the faith of the elect then do they distinguish two faiths then do they distinguish the faith of the elect which is a sauing faith from an acknowledging of the truth or an assent vnto it which is an Historicall faith then by acknowledging the truth must be meant an Historicall faith but by the acknowledging the truth in Timothy cannot be meant an Historicall faith because an Historicall faith cannot follow repentance in nature but goe before it for the acknowledging the truth there spoken whateuer it bee doth follow the repentance there spoken of because it is thereunto as an effect vnto a cause or as an end to a meanes for so much they confesse themselues in their exposition of the sence of that place which in their Iudgement and words runs thus that God may giue them repentance that those which now oppose the truth may be wonne to the profession of it So that either those words the acknowledging of the truth must not distinguish that which is meant by them from the faith of the elect and by them must be meant an Historicall faith and then repentance must goe before an Historicall faith or a beleefe of the Gospell or the acknowledging the truth doth interpret the nature of the faith of the elect there spoken of and then repentance must go before the faith of the elect vtrum horum and so much in defence of the reasons of my exposition of the text to Timothy wherein my second Argument is grounded now a word onely in answere to their Interpretation of the place The Exception By acknowledging the truth 2. Tim. 2.25 must be meant say they the profession of the truth and their reason is because in Peter the phrase is so to bee taken 2. Peter 2.21 The Apology I answere 1. Neither do they bring any good reason why the phrase must be so vnderstood in Peter nor if they did could that proue it must be so vnderstood in Paul nor haue they giuen any good reason from the text of Paul of their exposition and therefore their interpretation without reasons for it is not so good as mine with reasons 2 In that place Paul speakes of the conuersion of Infidels in this conuersion a beleefe of the Gospell hath the first place then repentance then faith in Christ then profession as a fruite of faith but if their exposition of the words acknowledging the truth by professing of the truth were good profession must go in the first place for there is no mention at all of any other so that either by those words cannot be meant profession of the truth or men must professe the truth at their first conuersion before they haue either an Historicall or sauing faith 3 In their owne words they expound what profession they meane viz. not onely in word but in life and conuersation accompanied with an inward change Now hereby they confound repentance and acknowledging the truth which are different for the one is a meanes to the other whatsoeuer is meant by them for what is repentance in their iudgement but an outward and inward change of soule and body of words and workes The Triall Repentance is begunne before faith in Christ The third Arment because men cannot beleeue in Christ as long as they liue in their sinnes Ioa. 5.44 The Exception This Argument they say prooues not the question for it onely prooues that a man must repent of his sinnes as soone as he beleeues in Christ and not that he must repent before he beleeues The Apology To this I say that had I intended to prooue a precedency of repentance vnto faith in Christ some space of time then I confesse this answere had beene sufficient to that Argument because as it is propounded it prooues no more but forasmuch as my purpose was not so much but lesse viz. a precedency in nature only therefore is not the answere to purpose and consequently for all that it is sound and good for two things may be in time as soone one as another and yet in nature the one may goe before the other as fire and heate a father and a childe else how can they with any colour hold faith and repentance to be together in time and yet faith to go before it in nature and in order of causes Though my Argument be good as it is in the Treatise for all that which they haue answered vnto it yet as I shall now propound it it shall be more strong If liuing in sinne go before not beleeuing in Christ as a cause and meanes thereof then repenting of sin goes before beleeuing in Christ as a cause and meanes thereof But the first is true therefore the second The consequence is good because to liue in sinne and to repent are contrary so are not to beleeue in Christ and to beleeue in him so that if vnrepentance impenitency or liuing in sinne be a meanes and cause of not beleeuing and to be a
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