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
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
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
they are in themselues considered that can keepe them from failing but considering them in relation to the ground from whence they proceede which is election to the end for which they are wrought in the elect which is to make them persons capable of the saluation vnto which they are elected or to the efficient cause which is the spirit who perfects his graces begunne so they cannot fayle totally and finally for in the elect this purpose of repentance is seconded with practise accordingly in the euent 2. Repentance not dissembled of which I speake may fayle both of the end which is eternall life and of the effect which is amendment of life For a mâ—â— not hauing receiued the grace of perseâ—rance may giue ouer this purpose and â—turne to his former sinnes and consequeâ—ly faile of eternall life as may be suppoâ—â— in Ahab and the Niniuites The Exception Reason 2 True repentance is not a true purpâ— of heart to leaue our former sinnes because this purpose may bee in Reprâ—bates but true repentance cannot bee them The Apology I answere as to the former argumeâ—â— that true repentance or aâ— purpose 〈◊〉 heart to leaue our former sinnes not dâ—sembled may be in Reprobates as Ahabs case though true repentance whiâ— brings forth new obedience in the liâ— constantly conscionably and sincerely caâ—not So that for all this I might warraâ—â—ably describe the true repentance I speaâ— of by a true purpose of the heart to leâ— our former euill wayes I did not write a Treatise of Repâ—â—tance but of Faith of repentance in 〈◊〉 Treatise I spake but by the way and occâ—sionally therefore was it not needfulâ— should define repentance precisely a description if it would serue the turne If of set purpose I had treated of that common place I would haue defined it otherwise then I haue done and I would haue shewed that the obiect of it is sinne onely and sinnes past for of that onely must a man repent for the doing whereof in time past he must be sorry and the doing whereof hee must leaue in time to come and what can that bee but sinne onely that is 2. Cor. 12.21 Act. 18.22 Reuela 2.22 sinne past for there is no reason wee should repent of them before wee haue committed them though wee must endeauour to preuent them before we haue committed them And if I had directly meant to define repentance I would haue left out of that which they call my definition some words which are in and haue put in some other which are left out That which I would haue left out which is in should haue beene these wordes viz. and purpose to serue God better for indeede they be but a consequence following vpon our purpose of leauing our former sinnes or rather an amplification of it by the contrary then any part of the nature of repentance the obâ—ect whereof is onely sinne and therefore not new seruing of God That which would haue inserted into the Definitioâ— which is left out should haue beene thes words is a godly sorrow for sinne for thâ— is the first part of repentance as shall 〈◊〉 seene by and by If any aske me why I meant to deâ—cribe repentance as I did I answere 1. I added the formâ— words not because I meant thereby 〈◊〉 describe any part of repentance but bâ—cause they containe a necessary consequeâ—â— and effect following vpon our purpose 〈◊〉 leauing our former sinnes For to what 〈◊〉 should we purpose to leaue our sinnes 〈◊〉 time past excepr we resolued in time 〈◊〉 come to serue God better how shall thâ— former be manifested without the latteâ— 2. I omitted the other words not becauâ—â— I thought not sorrow for sinne to be aâ— part of repentance which shall be shewâ— by and by but because purpose to leaâ— past sinnes necessarily presupposeth sorroâ— for the committing of them else whâ— should make a man to resolue to leaâ— them but the sorrow of his heart for 〈◊〉 doing thereof 3. I onely described repâ—tance by a purpose of the heart to leaue 〈◊〉 former sinnes not because I thought tâ—â— to be all requisite in repentance but bâ—cause this purpose and resolution is the last act of the heart as it repents or the last act of repentance as it is seated in the heart Now that the nature of Repentaance consists in two things vix vnfained sorrow of heart for sinnes already committed and purpose of heart not to commit the same againe to prooue this I shall not need to produce testimonies of Scripture for common sence teacheth vs that Repentance in men concerning things in the world hath for the obiect of it things hurtfull â—nely that is that either are such or seeme to vs to be such I meane wee feare or feele for something that we haue done and that our Repentance for the things that we haue done and for the doing whereof wee are sensible of such hurt consists in sorrow for the doing thereof and in purpose to doe so no more if it were to be done againe I will make it plaine by a familiar example I want a conuenient house hereupon I purpose to build one I conferre with workemen about it and the charge of the building I am told it will cost mee but three hundred pound vpon this charge I reckon and goe about it but before it be finished I finde it will cost mee foure hundred pound when I see this I repent oâ— the building of my house that is it irkeâ— me it vexes me and makes me sorry foâ— the cost I haue bestowed on it and not only so but I wish it were vndone and resolue if it were to doe againe I would neuer build it yea I purpose neuer to vndeâ—take the building of a house againe but will be sure it shall cost me no more then expect In like manner for a long time a sinnâ— goes on in an euill course of life withoâ—â— feare of Hell and with a presumptuouâ— hope of Heauen at length when the timâ— of his conuersion is come the Lord is pleased to let him see the folly and fowlenesâ— of his sinnes the danger of his course if 〈◊〉 goe on and the benefit of his repentanceâ— he returne these considerations belieued and laid to heart makes him repent that iâ— to be heartily sorry yea prickt in heart fâ—â— his euill life past and to resolue to liue 〈◊〉 longer in them yea that now hee woulâ— not doe the same things againe if the were to be committed and were not aâ— ready done and thus much be enough 〈◊〉 haue written in defence of those wordâ— wherein I describe the nature of the truâ— repentance which I say goeth before faitâ— in Christ and for answere to the first Exception against the Exposition the second followes The second exception likewise is idle To the second Exception for whereas for the ground of it it is imagined and alleadged that there can be no manner of sincerity in a mans actions before