which they are iustified and so come to eternall life But what say I vnto the Minor deliuered in other tearmes thus Knowledge of Christ apprehendeth eternall life I say first it is not the same Proposition because the tearmes are changed neither are they equipollent Secondly I grant it to bee true whether you meane by knowledge Dogmaticall Faith or Particular assurance for by the one doe we apprehend that there is an eternall life by the other that wee haue speciall interest in it Well then if it apprehendeth eternall life doth it not follow that therefore also it apprehendeth iustification No by no meanes for as wee haue aboue demonstrated it is not necessary that that which apprehendeth the latter should apprehend the former also And yet though I disallow the consequence the consequent I readily yeeld you that Particular knowledge apprehendeth iustification for so haue wee defined Faith of promise to be a perswasion or assurance that the promise of God made in Christ to wit iustification remission of sinnes adoption regeneration finally election it selfe and eternall saluation doe particularly pertaine vnto mee and are mine What gather you now of this Ergo say you it is iustifying Faith How so Because whatsoeuer apprehendeth iustification is iustifying Faith Nay contrarily whatsoeuer apprehendeth iustification it not iustifying Faith for apprehension followeth iustification no man apprehending himselfe to bee iustified vntill hee be iustified but Iustifying Faith is in nature before iustification that being the cause and this the effect And therefore vnlesse you will say that that which followeth is that which goeth before you cannot say that that which apprehendeth iustification is that which iustifieth To conclude therefore neither is Faith knowledge nor knowledge Faith but particular knowledge for ought you haue yet said or can say commeth in time after Faith But whereas finally you inferre that Faith is knowledge in the beginning knowledge in proceeding knowledge in the end besides that the foundation vpon which it is grounded is vntrue it is cleane contrary also to that which erewhile you affirmed that Faith is but one compounded of my three nice distinctions the first being the beginning the second the progresse the third the end For the third is Faith of Person and in the Will and is by your confession there the end of Faith yet here you say faith is knowledge in the end which things how they can stand together I see not vnlesse you will say that knowledge is in the Will and so confound the faculties and operations of the soule N. B. In Ioh. 1. Ep. c. 5. to 13. The place of Saint Iohn by you cited to proue your Minor in your argument maketh nothing for you because the Apostle speaketh of their increase of knowledge and not of the originall begetting of knowledge and so saith M. Caluin I. D. The text in the clearest tearmes that may bee distinguisheth betweene Belieuing and knowing and vnto that giueth the priority before this but your glosse confoundeth their natures and saith that the Apostle here speaketh onely of increase of knowledge Wo to the glosse that corrupteth the text for if this bee S. Iohns meaning it is as if hee should say I write vnto you that know that yee are iustified haue eternall life that yee may increase in knowing that yee haue eternall life and that yee may know yee are iustified and haue eternall life which how vnworthy it is the pen of an Apostle euery one easily seeth But Caluin you say interpreteth the place as you doe Bee it so yet is it not the name of Caluin how venerable soeuer that may sway this matter For seeing I professe to differ from him in the definition of Iustifying Faith hee defining it by knowledge I by Affiance you may not thinke it vnreasonable if in this point and the explication of such scriptures as may seeme to concerne it I desire rather to bee pressed with his reasons then borne downe with his authority But what saith Caluin Because there ought to bee dayly proceedings in Faith therefore he writes to them that belieue already that they may more firmely and certainly belieue Whereunto I willingly assent if you apply it as Beza in his annotations doth vnto the last clause of the verse and that yee may belieue for then the meaning without forcing or constraining the words will bee as if hee should say I write vnto you that belieue that belieuing yee may know yee haue eternall life knowing the same may constantly perseuere and proceed on in Belieuing For as the clouds poure downe raine to moisten the earth and the earth moistned sendeth vp vapours againe to make clouds so likewise Faith begets Assurance and Assurance being gotten doth againe confirme and strengthen faith And thus doe the Century-writers expound this place Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. p. 276. gathering from it that Cetainty of Saluation is an Effect of Faith and so euidently distinguishing knowledge from Faith Treatise 3. Arg. That which in nature comes after iustification cannot bee iustifying Faith This appeares because Faith is the Efficient Instrumentall cause of Iustification and euery Efficient by the rule of Logicke is in nature before the Effect But this knowledge or assurance is in nature after Iustification Ergo it is not Faith N. B. Your Minor is very false and so proued by my former arguments For particular knowledge and assurance of our saluation is not in nature after Faith but is Faith and wholy infused by the Spirit of God and begotten by hearing of the Word preached and commeth to act by degrees according to the measure of grace giuen of God For it is in Habitu sometime not in actu Faith habituall in power actuall in the deed of belieuing as when one sleepeth his beliefe is not in actu and yet hee liueth vnto God by his faith which liueth powerfully in him though not actually I. D. The Maior of my Syllogisme is vndeniable because as I haue said Faith is the cause of iustification For as D. Fulke saith vnto Bristow excluding it from Efficient causes Reioinder to Bristow p. 172. Seeing Scripture often affirmeth that God worketh in vs by Faith faith must needs be an instrumentall efficient when you haue said all that you can except you will teach vs new Grammar and Logicke The Minor therefore you say is very false and so proued by your former arguments But those arguments are already answered and thus I proue the Minor For as for the rest of your idle and wilde talke touching the infusion begetting degrees habit act of Faith I willingly passe ouer lest pursuing you in this course I seeme to run riot and play the wanton with you Treatise The truth of a Proposition is alwayes in nature before the knowledge of the truth for Propositions are not therefore true because they are knowne so but they are first true and knowne so Therefore this Proposition I know I am iustified spoken
iustice but as it is an exercise or declaration or perfection of Faith 12 Concerning the word Faith sometimes it signifieth that sanctifying grace of Gods spirit whereby wee beleeue in or on God that is put all our affiance vpon God in Christ for Iustification and Saluation sometimes a naked assent or agreeing to all the truths contained in the Scripture specially such as are Euangelicall That is only of the Elect this the Diuels haue That either hath works following it as in Abraham or is great in child of works ready to trauell and bring forth if God giue time as in the theefe on the crosse This many times is without works and therefore dead and spiritles Of that S. Paul speaketh of this S. Iames. That sole but not solitary iustifies this being solitary iustifies not 13 In a word S. Paul speaks of the cause of Iustification S. Iames of the Effect S. Paul descends from the Cause to the Effect S. Iames ascends from the Effects to the Cause S. Paul resolues how wee may bee iustified S. Iames how wee may bee knowne to bee iustified S. Paul excludes works as being no Cause of Iustification S. Iames requires works as fruites of Iustification S. Paul denies works to go before them that are to bee iustified S. Iames affirmeth that they follow him that is iustified 14 Others distinguish and reconcile them thus Iustification is sometime vnderstood without implying Sanctification sometime as it implyeth also Sanctification with it In the former sence S. Paul taketh it when hee proueth that a man is iustified by Faith without works S. Iames in the latter when he concludeth that a man is iustified by works and not by Faith only And this I suppose to be a very sound interpretation 15 Howsoeuer that Faith alone without the works of the Law in the sence aboue deliuered doth iustifie these ancient Fathers auouch together with us Origen Cyprian Eusebius Caesariensis Hilarie Basil Chrysostome Ambrose Augustin Cyril Primasius Hesychius Gennadius Oecumenius whose direct and expresse words I can at any time produce Nay these late Papists also least it should be thought that none but Protestants hold it the Canons of Collein the authors of the booke offered by Caesar vnto the Protestant Collocutors in the assemblie of Ratisbon Pighius Cassander Stapulensis Peraldus Ferus and others who count themselues as good Catholiks as they that hold otherwise 16 And this only Faith is so sure an anchor of our soules and suchâ— fountaine of true comfort both in life and death that Charles the fift Steuen Gardiner Sir Christopher Blunt and sundrie others durst not at their death trust vnto their works but vnto Faith in Christ only And Cardinal Bellarmin after a long disputation touching the merit of works is faine to conclude that because of the vncertenty of our owne iustice and the danger of vaineglory the Safest course is to repose all our affiance in the only mercy and goodnes of God So that in his iudgement wee Protestants haue chosen the Safest course I for my part will neuer trust my soule vnto them who leauing so safe a course meane to hazard it through a more dangerous way OF THE AVTHORS AND AVTHORITY OF THE CREED AND WHY IT IS CALLED a Symbole THE inscription of the Creed seemes to father it on the holy Apostles calling it the Symbole of the Apostles So doe almost all the Fathers of the fourth age after Christ and downeward affirming that the Apostles hauing receiued the Holy Ghost at Ierusalem and being now ready to disperse themselues into all parts of the world to preach the Gospell thought it good before their parting to compile this Symbole that it might serue as a pledge of their vnity in the Faith and a canon for their doctrine and teaching Yea some of them proceed so farre as particularly to set downe what article was made by what Apostle whereof see Augustin in his hundred and fifteenth Sermon de tempore Now although it bee very hard for mee to sway against the streame of so maine authority yet can I not but doubt thereof Paraphr in Mat. Praef. and confesse with Erasmus I know not who made the Creed especially hauing so great probabilities for demonstrations I dare not call them that it should not bee done by the twelue Apostles For first were it compiled by them is it likely that Saint Luke writing the history of their Acts would haue omitted so principall a matter Sundry other things of farre lesse consequence hee hath carefully recorded but of this so important and weighty a businesse hee makes not so much as one word mention which certainly hee would neuer haue failed to doe had they done so Adde hereunto that not one of the ancient Fathers who liued within the three first Centuries of Christ speake of any such thing in any of their writings and yet they should best know it whose times were neerest vnto the Apostles This deep silence both of Saint Luke and all those ancient Doctors make it vnto mee more then probable that the Apostles neuer composed it Secondly as the silence of these worthies so the very language of the Creed conuinceth it to bee yonger then the Apostles For the word Catholike vsed in the Creed was not knowne in their time Can any man thinke that the Church should then bee called Catholike when it was not Catholike For when they say this Creed was compiled the Church was scarce begunne among the Iewes and the Apostles had no where as yet preached the Gospell among the Gentils But heare the expresse words of Pacianus Bishop of Barcilona Sed sub Apostolis Ad Sympronian Epist 1. inquies nemo Catholicus vocabatur Esto sic fuerit Vel illud indulge cum post Apostolos haereses extitissent diuersisque nominibus columbam Dei atque Reginam lacerare per partes scindere niterentur nonne cognomen suum plebs Apostolica postulabat quo incorrupti populi distingueret vnitatem neintemeratam Dei virginem error aliquorum per membra laceraret In the Apostles times you will say no man was called Catholicke Bee it so Yet by your leaue when after the Apostles heresies were risen vp and by diuersity of names they laboured to rent and teare in peeces the done and queene of God was it not requisite that those which were Apostolike should haue a sirname of their owne whereby the vnity of those that are vncorrupt might bee distinguished and the error of none might rent in peeces the immaculate virgin of God Thus hee Against which if it bee obiected that the Epistles of Iames Peter Iohn and Iude are called Catholicke I answer the Inscriptions and Subscriptions of the Epistles are not Apostolicall but added to them by some other and sometime vntruly Neither is there any reason they should bee so stiled aboue the rest For neither is the doctrine contained in them more Catholicke then of all the other Epistles neither were they written to all the
it seemeth strange why you should take it as confessed For sure I am in expresse tearmes I haue affirmed the contrary neither can I guesse of what words you gather it vnlesse perhaps of that I say and specially the Gospell which were too ridiculous For that indeed confesseth the Gospell to bee a speciall part of Gods truth but not determining Faith onely thereunto it doth in no sort specifie it as is aboue fully proued N. B. Historicall Faith not diuided from the other two kinds but ioyned with thē is cause of Iustification Againe I would pray you to speake more learnedly and argue soundly For if you had said formerly No Historicall Faith only iustifieth c. We had been agreed For Historica Fides est causa iustificationis non solitaria sed socia non diuisa sed coniuncta But speaking thus absolutely you speake vnlearnedly Well thus you proceed leauing your Minor naked and exposed to the mercie of the World I. D Agreed quoth you Nay hee can hardly agree with mee that is at warre with himselfe and had I spoken neuer so learnedly and argued neuer so soundly yet I verily belieue you would haue quarrelled at it because I see you make contradiction of mee the onely rule of your speeches That there is but one Faith you say it is nouelty not to grant and that Faith only iustifies I think you dare not deny how is it then that in the margent forgetting your selfe you talke of three kinds of Faith which except my Arithmetike faile mee are more then one and ioyne fellowes with that in iustification in the body of your text which yet you confesse doth onely iustify But what is it that comes not within the sphere of your omnipotent Philosophie The power of your Logicke hath already contracted Vniuersall into Speciall and why then may not the subtlety of your Metaphysicke find a plurality also in an Vnity But to be plaine with you I say that Historicall Faith is so far from being a ioint cause that at all properly vnderstood of Iustification but onely as I haue said a Pre-requisite or Preparatiue thereunto True it is that Faith of Person is neuer Solitary but is euer conioyned with sundry other graces and among the rest with Historicall Faith yet are not their operations to bee confounded because in the same person they are conioyned Many seeds lye in my hand together yet euery one hath his seuerall and distinct vertue Faith of Person is neuer without Faith of Story yet it is Faith of Person which onely iustifies And as in the generation of man the Sensitiue soule goes before and prepares a fit organ for the infusion of the Reasonable and yet not the Sensitiue but the Reasonable only doth informe so in the reparation of man Faith of Story proceeds and makes way for the inducement of Faith of Person and yet not Faith of Story but Faith of Person only doth iustifie Now whether in speaking thus absolutely I haue spoken vnlearnedly as you say or no it skilleth not much seeing I am sure I haue spoken truly 1 Cor. 15.9 What euer I am by the grace of God I am and desire so to bee vnto his glory My want and inability I thanke God I know yet know I no cause why in this mediocrity of knowledge and speech I should in comparison with you any whit disable my selfe But sith as the Apostle saith knowledge puffeth vp 1 Cor. 8.1 God grant vs both the spirit of humility that denying our selues and all our learning wee may be content to bee wholly captiuated vnto the obedience of the Faith of Christ The Minor which you say I left naked and exposed to the mercy of the world was this that Historicall Faith is a generall knowledge which indeed in my Treatise I did forbeare to confirme not for want of sufficient proofes but presuming that so euident a truth would neuer haue beene denied But now I hope it appeares by what I haue aboue said to bee so well guarded with strength of reason and approbation of the learned that henceforward it need not feare the rigor of your opposition Treatise Acquisite Faith the Diuels haue according to that of Saint Iames The Diuels belieue and tremble Infused Faith the Reprobates may haue as Balaam Iudas Magus Now iustifying Faith is proper to the Elect and therefore historicall Faith cannot iustifie N. B. O yee noble Schollers marke this Syllogisme I haue made your arguments hitherto for you Master Downe and in this creeping and incroching argument tell you that you beg the matter in question For I deny that your definition of Historicall Faith is a generall knowledge but speciall and peculiar vnto the Elect in the beginning of their iustifying Faith conioyned with the Application and Resting vpon Christ and his merits And to bee plaine with you I tell you it is ridiculous yea blasphemous to say that Diuels haue Faith or that euer Balaam Iudas or Magus had Faith And so telleth you M. Caluin In Iac. 2.19 Ridiculum erit si quis Diabolos habere fidem dicat it is ridiculous for any man to say that Diuels haue Faith For there is but one Faith Eph. 4. and the other is spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abusiuely and by an equiuocation and is but a vulgar knowledge or rather peculiar shew by miracles c. as the same M. Caluin sheweth right learnedly 1 Cor. 13.2 Calu. ibid. and also telleth you Abundé constat totam hanc disputationem de fide non haberi it is plaine that this whole disputation Iam. 2. is not about Faith Let this therefore serue for an answer I pray you to your first distinction of Historicall Faith which you confound with a vulgar knowledge as appeareth before knowing this No man that finally contemneth this Speciall knowledge of Gods Word and specially the Gospell can be saued For hee can neuer haue the other two kinds of Faith spoken of before except he begin with this kind of Faith I. D. Surely I am very deeply beholding vnto your Mastership hauing so small skill in Logicke that you will bee pleased to forme my arguments and to shape them in so excellent fashion for mee But I beseech you spare your paines where you are like to reape little thanks for your labour Such officiousnesse in an aduersary is not without suspicion and if you may haue the hammering of my arguments your weakest answers I doubt not will be proofe inough against them Leaue me therfore I pray you to the meaning of my own weapons and looke you well vnto your owne defence for I feare mee you will hardly bee able to auoid the danger of them For thus I reason That Faith which Diuels and Reprobates haue iustifies not Historicall Faith Diuels and Reprobates haue Ergo Historicall Faith iustifies not Here you see nor creeping nor incroching but faire and plaine dealing and such as I am well content all noble Schollers marke it But let
vs see what you reioyne hereunto First you say I beg the matter in Question What matter that Historicall Faith is a generall knowledge but neither is that the matter now in Question neither doe I any way beg it For in this Syllogisme the Question is whether Historicall Faith doe iustify of your Question there appeares nor palme nor footstep which yet in the former section against your negatiue I haue proued to bee most true That which you adde if it bee not senselesse is contrary both to your selfe and vnto reason For saying that Historicall Faith is proper and speciall vnto the Elect in the beginning of their iustifying Faith you plainely distinguish it from iustifying Faith which is contrary to what you haue elsewhere said If you still confound them and make Historicall Faith the beginning of Iustifying Faith it is as if you should say the beginning of iustifying Faith is speciall and peculiar vnto the Elect in the beginning of their iustifying Faith which is altogether witlesse and senselesse Lastly to say that Historicall Faith which before was Generall and common as soone as it is conioyned with application and Resting on Christ becomes speciall and peculiar is vtterly void of reason For as Grace superadded vnto Nature in the Elect makes not Nature speciall and peculiar vnto them but that still it remaines common vnto all men so also Historicall Faith by accession of Iustifying Faith or Affiance changeth not its nature and becomes Speciall but as it was euermore continues Generall Generall I say both Obiectiuely as stretching it selfe vnto all supernaturall reuealed verities and Subiectiuely not being appropriated vnto the Elect onely but commonly incident vnto others also Secondly you deny the Minor telling mee plainely that it is ridiculous yea blasphemous to say that Diuels haue Faith or that euer Balaam Iudas or Magus had Faith If I should now temper my inke with some sharper ingredient and in the zeale of my affection say vnto you as the Angell sometime said vnto Satan Iude 9. The Lord rebuke thee it were no more then here you iustly deserue For it is not holy and learned men alone which yet were too impudent but euen the spirit of Wisdome and truth himselfe whom I tremble to speake it you charge with ridiculousnes and blasphemie For doth not the Holy Ghost by Saint Iames in expresse tearmes say The Diuels belieue and tremble and by Saint Luke Then Simon himselfe also belieued Iam. 2.19 Act. 8.13 and did not Balaam prophecying of Christ and Iudas preaching Christ assent vnto those truths wherewith they were illuminated And what Orthodoxe Diuine is there ancient or moderne who falling vpon this question doth not acknowledge that Diuels and Reprobates doe Historically belieue De vnico Bapt. cont Petil. c. 10. Saint Augustine is bold and compareth the Faith of Diuels confessing Christ Wee know thee who thou art euen the Sonne of God with that memorable confession of Peter Thou art the Christ the Sonne of the liuing God This confession saith hee was fruitfull vnto Peter but pernicious vnto the Diuels yet in both not false but true not to bee denied but acknowledged not to bee detested but approued And a little after hauing vouched that of Saint Iames the Diuels belieue and tremble and compared therewith the Faith of those who belieue the truth of God but liue wickedly Behold saith hee Wee haue found out of the Church not onely certaine men but Diuels also confessing the same Faith of one God yet both confirmed by the Apostles rather then denied Of the same iudgement are our latter writers That Faith is attributed to Simon Magus Inst lib. 3. ca. 2. §. 10. saith Caluin We vnderstand not with some that hee fained in words a Faith which was not in his heart but thinke rather that being ouercome by the Maiesty of the Gospell hee did in a sort belieue and acknowledge Christ to be the Author of Life and Saluation Simon saith Beza In Act. 8.13 On the Creed Ans to Rhem. T. in Iam. 2.6 belieued with Historicall Faith Historicall Faith saith Perkins is in the Diuell and his Angels Such a Faith saith Fulke as is in Diuels namely an acknowledging that there is one God and so likewise of all the rest of the Articles of Faith to bee true without trust or confidence in God Finally the whole Church of Auspurg Whereas Saint Iames saith Harm Confess the Diuels belieue and tremble hee speaketh of an Historicall Faith Now this Faith doth not iustifie for the Diuels and the wicked are cunning in the History Which last words I would wish you to note and obserue For if Historicall Faith bee no other then an assent of the Mind vnto the truth of Gods Word then Diuels and Reprobates so assenting yea being cunning in the Story must needs haue Historicall Faith Adde hereunto that if they doe not so much as Historically belieue then the sinnes which they commit against the Gospell are onely sinnes of ignorance and not against knowledge neither can they offend of malice or fall into that vnpardonable sinne which is against the Holy Ghost Mat. 12.32 Neither lastly can any bee said to haue made shipwracke of Faith which yet the Scripture saith some haue done 1 Tim. 1.19 vnlesse perhaps you will say a man may make shipwracke of that which hee neuer had So that now if I haue spoken ridiculously and blasphemously as you say you see what Schoolemasters haue deceiued me and vpon what reasons I haue been drawne into this folly and impiety or rather the world sees what folly it is in you thus against all reason to impute blasphemy and ridiculousnesse vnto the truth of God and the most glorious preachers and defenders thereof Yet Caluin you say telleth mee it is ridiculous to say that Diuels haue Faith and it is plaine that this whole disputation Iam. 2. is not about Faith But is it possible that Caluin should striue against the torrent of so maine authority or like the Philosopher of whom Aristotle speaketh forget his owne voice and vnsay that which he had formerly said Certainly if you wil giue him leaue to bee the interpreter of his owne meaning you shall find hee doth not For when hee denieth that Diuels haue Faith and that Saint Iames there disputeth of Faith hee vnderstandeth not Faith indefinitely but particularly iustifying Faith This is euident by his annotation on the twentieth verse In Iam. 2.20 Here saith hee is no disputation of the cause of Iustification whereby what other can hee meane then Iustifying Faith And when hee saith the dispute is not about Faith hee addeth forthwith but of a vulgar knowledge which conioyneth a man to God no more then the sight of the Sunne lifts him to Heauen Now what is that Faith which vnites vs vnto God but onely Iustifying Faith and what is this vulgar knowledge other then Historicall Faith by which the eye of the mind sees diuine truth
righteousnesse Rom. 3.28 Consider moreouer that Faith as a cause goeth before Iustification for wee are iustified by Faith and therefore if the Elect bee wicked before his iustification hee must needs much more bee wicked before the first act of his Belieuing In regard whereof Saint Augustin saith Enar. in Ps 311 Know thou that Faith when it was giuen thee found thee a sinner These things being so as without controuersie they are I then demand of you if Faith bee Assurance what ground hath the Elect for his Assurance in the first Act of his Faith more then the Reprobates and wicked haue Certainly vnlesse you will flye with the Anabaptists vnto I know not what Enthusiasms and sudden reuelations grounded vpon no arguments formerly by the Holy Ghost imprinted in the soule you cannot possibly shew any seeing before Faith they lie together in the same masse of corruption and are alike liable vnto eternall damnation Now vnto this argument thus enlarged and explaned let vs see what answer you returne When I can shew the man that died without Assurance and was saued and how I know at his death hee had no full Perswasion and can proue that there is at the houre of death in the Saints a Doubtfull Faith then you say you will answer mee What M. Baxter and not till then Suppose I cannot satisfy your demands as indeed who knoweth what is in the heart of man at the houre of his death shall my argument therefore for euer stand vnanswered Declar. of Spir. Desert And yet M. Perkins telleth you that When a Professor of the Gospell shall despaire at his end men are to leaue secret iudgements vnto God and charitably iudge the best of him and hee instanceth in one M. Chambers who in his sicknesse grieuously despaired and cried out that hee was damned yet saith hee it is not for any to note him with the blacke marke of a Reprobate The like censure elsewhere giueth he of Francis Spiera Yea further saith hee When a Professor of the Gospell shall make away himselfe though it bee a fearefull case yet still the same opinion must bee carried So that it seemes by this learned mans iudgement who for ought I know is not singular herein but followeth the common opinion of other Diuines that it is possible for a man to die in Faith and so to bee saued and yet to die in Despaire and so without Assurance whence it followeth necessarily that Faith is not Assurance But this answer of yours Antholog l. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 brings mee in minde of a pretie Epigram of Nicarchus which you may read in the Greeke anthologie A deafe man commences sute against another deafe man before a deafe iudge the plaintife pleads that the defendant owes him fiue months rent for his house the defendant answers for himselfe that hee had been grinding at mill all night the Iudge looking vpon them why contend yee thus good fellowes quoth hee is shee not mother to you both then keepe her both hardly Semblable hereunto is your answer for as if you were as blind as they were deafe and had not eyes in your head to read my writing when I speake of onions as it is in the Prouerbe you answer of garlicke and roue the whole heauen wide from the marke you should shoot at I say that the wicked may bee strongly perswaded and therefore Faith is not a Perswasion you like the deafe defendant reply that you haue beene grinding at mill all night telling mee I shall then receiue answer when I shew the man that died without Perswasion and yet was saued by Faith and other such stuffe of the same stampe Verily I am perswaded if old Sibyl or Oedipus or any other that hath anciently been esteemed for reading riddles should reuiue againe yet would they not bee able with all their cunning to deuise how to accommodate and fit this answer to any part of my argument For mine owne part I can make of it nor fish nor flesh nor good red herring and therefore not troubling my selfe with your follies here I leaue it as I found it vnkith vnkist as they say N. B. And in the meane time I will hasten to your Definition of Faith which you call the third kinde of Faith and onely Iustifying Faith I. D. Soft and faire no hast but good you post away so fast vnto the Definition that you leaue something behind you vnanswered which desires and deserues your further consideration For first I proue vnto you that Faith cannot be a full Perswasion certaine Assurance partly because it is not so much as Assurance partly because such Fulnes agrees not to little Faith and so makes the definition narrower and of lesse latitude then the definite and partly because it is a most discomfortable doctrine to weake Christians who finding this strength of Assurance wanting in themselues may doubt whether they haue any Faith at all if Faith bee no other then a full Assurance and firme resolution Againe I answer certaine obiections the chiefest you can haue against mee and that with such generall solutions as will cut off almost any reason you can oppose vnto mee These things being of such importance and consequence should not thus haue beene balked and husht vp in silence for while they stand vnstirred and vntoucht you cannot reasonably bee thought either fully to haue satisfied my arguments or sufficiently to haue maintained your owne cause Out of doubt therefore it would haue been much better for your credit to haue made lesse hast and more good speed for tripping away so fast and leauing matters of such weight vtterly vnanswered all the Schollers in our Countrey to blow backe your owne scoffe into your owne face will thinke the worse of your haste so long as they liue for this tricke To conclude this point whereas there are two many faults as Simplicius saith too vsually committed in the disputation and determination of Questions it appeareth by what I haue now said that you haue hitherto grossely faulted in the former For you doe but reiect and deny my Conclusions without refuting the confirmations I bring for them and so if not altogether alienate from you yet leaue in suspence and doubt the mind euen of those who otherwise might bee of the same opinion with you Now if you offend likewise in the second and doe not in the remainder of your Reply vtterly raze and ouerthrow the foundations of my Doctrine but suffer them to stand vnshaken and vnmoued you shall both leaue the thirst of your readers expectation vnquenched and vnsatisfied and proue your selfe but a bragging and boasting Pyrgopolinices threatning much and performing nothing Let vs therefore take a view hereof and see what you haue to say against the definition which I giue to Iustifying Faith Treatise The third Faith is Faith of Person or Personall Merit and of this Faith I make the Obiect to bee Christ the Mediator meriting the
or word Rest you shall hardly perswade mee that hee will take it for any other then the effect of true Iustifying Faith I. D. Neither is it your vaine surmising what Master Perkins would say Neither his expresse and direct saying that may be the decider of this controuersie How well that worthy man deserued of the Church of God wherein hee was like another Baptist both a shining and a burning torch Ioh. 5.35 I cannot bee ignorant who knew him so well and very vngratefull were I if I should not acknowledge to haue receiued a good part of that little skill I haue in my profession from his mouth hauing beene for sundry yeeres his ordinary auditor Yet because hee was not a Peter or a Paul nor so preserued from error by the Spirit of truth that hee could mistake in nothing I hope I may without arrogance and with reseruation of due reuerence honor vnto his worth in some points dissent from him And if you may seat Faith both in the vnderstanding and the will notwithstanding that M. Perkins place it only in the vnderstanding On the Creed affirming that it scarce standeth with reason that one single grace should inhere in two distinct faculties why may not I take the same liberty vnto my selfe and define Iustifying Faith by Affiance although M. Perkins would take it for no other then the Effect of Iustifying Faith for so indeed hee doth and I deny not but freely confesse that vpon the reasons aboue rendred I doe in this point altogether differ from him Neither yet did I say that I blanked him with my rare and cunning disputes for this is but the renewing of your old slander the vanity of which I haue already detected Onely it seemes that your best wine is wel-nie spent seeing now you serue your guests with these dregs and that you are driuen to a very narrow strait when you are faine to arme against me such base calumniations and fictions of your owne braine N. B. When you send me to Master Foxe in his Booke de Christo gratis justificante without citing the place where or the words what of mee your speech deserueth none answer but this I dare vndertake you abuse the writings of so reuerend a man I. D. The authority of Master Foxe was not vouched by me to iustify my Definition that Faith is Affiance but to ouerthrow yours who affirme that Faith is Assurance and therefore was placed as was fitting after those arguments which I vrged against you Neuerthelesse here it pleaseth you after your desultory and disorderly manner of disputing in a very vndue place to giue answer vnto it And the reason why with such violence you hale it hither as I guesse is this that not appearing where it should it may seeme to giue no euidence at all against your Assurance and being ordered where it should not it may seeme to bee but idly alledged as being of no force to maintaine my Affiance But yet let vs see what exceptions you take to eleuate this authority Because I cite not the place where nor the words what my speech you say deserues no answer I wisse M. Baxter that booke is not of such bulke but that perusing the titles of each Chapter you might soone haue found out the places by me intended and you know that the schedule I sent you being endited at Bristoll where I was farre from my bookes I could not possibly referre you vnto the very page and line as otherwise I would haue done But now because I haue the booke at hand I will set you downe his direct words and quote you the page where you may read them and then leaue you to bee iudge your selfe whether as you charge mee I abuse the writings of that reuerend man or hee agree with mee in this that Faith is not Assurance Foxe Master Foxe therefore in his booke de Christo gratis iustificante pag. 246 saith thus My iudgement and opinion is that this confidence of mercy and certainty of Saluation promised is a thing which ought to bee very neerely conioined with Faith and which euery one ought necessarily to apply vnto himselfe yet being most applied is not that which onely by it selfe properly and absolutely dischargeth vs of our sinnes and iustifies before God but that there is some other thing propounded in the Gospell which in nature goeth before this certainty and iustifieth before God For Faith vpon the Person of the Sonne of God whereby wee are first reconciled vnto God necessarily goes before Againe pag. 253. Although saith hee certainty and assurance of diuine grace which it selfe is sometime commended vnder the name of Faith bee very neerely ioined with Faith yet this assurance doth not properly import the cause of iustifying but receiueth it being brought neither worketh iustification but is rather wrought by it and maketh them certaine who by the Faith of Christ are iustified but it selfe iustifieth not And yet againe pag. 255. If the question bee of the cause which properly iustifieth from sinne I answer it is that Faith not whereby wee belieue that wee are iustified but whereby wee belieue in Christ the Sonne of God Thus M. Foxe and thus by M. Foxe it appeareth as I affirmed that in this point I am not singular and alone Yet to preuent captious cauils you may bee pleased to vnderstand that the Latin word vsed by Master Foxe to wit Fiducia I haue in my translation englished Confidence and Assurance not that I was afraid lest rendring it Affiance hee might seeme to exclude my affiance also from the Definition of Faith for had hee done so it were nothing to mee hauing shewed that hee denies Faith to be Assurance which was all I there affirmed of him but because if you marke his words attentiuely you shall find that by Fiducia hee vnderstands not Affiance but confident Perswasion or Assurance for hee doth euer confound it with Certainty and expresly defines it to bee that whereby wee are assured of our iustification by Christ So doth Melancthon also and Kemnitius and many others vnderstanding by Fiducia a firme Perswasion that our sinnes are certainly remitted by the propitiation of Christ and all the benefits of the promise of grace giuen communicated and applyed vnto vs. So that vnlesse I would haue depraued my authors meaning I could not translate otherwise then I haue done N. B. Now thinke not that I hold that a man ordinarily saued may be saued without relying vpon Christ Iesus for I hold the cleane contrary viz. that true Iustifying Faith assuring a man in spirituall knowledge of his owne saluation in Iesus Christ worketh and causeth a sweet rest and reposing of the whole soule vpon Christ and his Merits But I deny that this Rest is Faith or this Faith Rest no more then the tree can be the fruite or the fruite the tree I. D. That no man can ordinarily bee saued without Relying vpon Christ I grant for according to my
therefore are not one 3. That which in nature comes after Iustification cannot be Iustifying faith This appeares because Faith is the Efficient instrumentall cause of Iustification and euery Efficient by the rule of Logick is in nature before the Effect But this knowledge or Assurance is in nature after iustificatiō This I proue thus the truth of a proposition is alwayes in nature before the knowledge of the truth for Propositions are not therefore true because knowne so but they are first true and then knowne so Therefore this Proposition I know I am iustified spoken by on that is iustified must needs presuppose the partie before to be iustified Therefore this knowledge of Iustification in nature following Iustification it cannot be Iustifying faith 4. In conditionall promises there can be no Assurance of the thing promised before the performance of the condition V. G. This is a conditionall promise in the couenant of workes doe this and thou shalt liue life is promised but on condition of doing and therefore vntill we haue performed the condition we cannot nor may not looke that God should be reciprocall and giue vs life So in the couenant of grace iustification is promised but vpon condition of faith so sayth the Scripture beleeue and thy sinnes shall be forgiuen thee And therefore the condition of beleeuing must first be performed before we can assure our selues our sins are forgiuen If so then faith going before and Assurance following after Assurance cannot be justifying faith 5 That from whence followeth a blasphemous absurdity cannot be a truth for from truth nought but truth can be concluded But from this that faith is an Assurance such an absurdity doth follow What is that That God commands a man to know an vntruth to assure himselfe of that which neuer shall be For God being truth cannot command falshood to be taken for truth Nether tell me here for who art thou that disputest with God for this is a ruled case in diuinity God cānot doe things which imply contradiction and therefore not make vntruth to be truth or knowledge error Now that this absurdity followes from hence thus I demonstrate it God commands the Reprobate to beleeue For Ioh. 18.8.9 for vnbeleefe the world shall bee condemned but no condemnation but for breach of a commandement 1 Ioh. 3.4 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sinne is the transgression of the law and therefore they are commanded to beleeue I aske you then what it is to beleeue you will say to know to assure Therefore God commands the Reprobates to know and bee assured But this is a blasphemous absurdity therefore is your opinion absurd which infers it 6. That which the wicked may haue cannot be iustifying faith for it is Fides Electorum the faith of the Elect. But the wicked may haue this perswasion yea and many haue beene most confidently perswaded that they are in the fauour of God You will say it is no true perswasion but I say if forme make truth they are as formally and therefore as truly perswaded of it as the godly And therefore if the godly are therefore and for this cause iustified because cause they are strongly perswaded that they are iustified then why should not the wicked likewise be iustified by his strong perswasion But in truth these kind of speeches are vnreasonable and senselesse and so the opinion cannot be reasonable These sixe reasons shall suffice for the present although many more might be added only from hence I gather this Corollary that if iustifying Faith be not a Knowledge or Assurance much lesse is it a full knowledge or full Assurance Nay though we should graunt it to be a knowledge yet is it against Logick to define it by the perfection of knowledg For as there is a strong tree so there is a brused reed as there is a burning lamp so there is smoking flaxe as there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Faith come to full age and maturity so there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Faith in the nonage and minority So therefore to define it were to exclude the weake Faith and to make the Definition narrower and of lesse latitude then the definite Besides it is a most discomfortable doctrine vnto a troubled mind and leads the directest way to desperation for so the palsie hand of Faith should not receiue Christ And were not this to quench fire with oile and to adde Aloes to wormwood and might not hee that thus comforteth be counted one of Iobs miserable comforters Ob. The godly are said to know and to be perswaded yea the Prophet saith Io. 3.14 Ioh. 17.3 Esa 53.11 Heb. 11.1 By his knowledge shall my righteous seruant iustifie many and Faith is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Subsistence and Euidence Ans First I graunt the godly may and ought to know but the question is not of their duty but what it is which iustifies them 2 Secondly to know and so likewise the Verbs of Sence in the Hebrew tongue vsually signifieth not onely an act of the Minde or outward Sence but of the Will and affection also So in the Psalme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 1.6 Mat. 7.13 The Lord knoweth the way of the Righteous and in the Gospell Depart I know you not and elsewhere I will not heare see c. that is God will not so know heare see c. as in fauour to loue or approue And so doe I interprete that of the Prophet Christ being so knowne as to bee embraced and rested vpon by the Will shall iustify many 3 Thirdly that Definition in the eleuenth to the Hebrewes I deny with Peter Martyr and the rest of our Diuines to bee perfect but rather by the Effects to describe it And as for that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subsistence whereon you seeme to stand take this first that the writers of the new Testament vse words in the same sence that the Seuentie Translators doe Secondly that that which in Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expectation that the Septuagint turne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Ruth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ruth 1.12 so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrewes shall not be Subsistence but expectation or desire of things that are hoped for But of this umpliandum censeo I pronounce nothing only I conclude his second Faith not to be Iustifying Faith And because you shall not count me singular or alone in this point read M. Foxe in his booke de Christo gratis iustificante and you shall find him earnest against this opinion The third faith is Fides Persone or Personalis meriti Faith of Person or of Personall merit and of this I make the Obiect to be Christ the Mediator meriting the Act of it Fiducia a Rest or Deuolution the Subiect of it the facultie of the Will and not the Vnderstanding the next End of it Iustification the remote End eternall Saluation And thus I
of an implicit or couched ignorance Of an implicit Faith we haue often heard and of a rude and confused apprehension the Iesuit in the place by you quoted speaketh but an implicit ignorance was neuer yet heard of and what meaning it may haue for my part I cannot see De iustif lib. 1. ca. 7. Bellarmines right words are these Faith is better defined by ignorance then knowledge which saying of his how my speech helpeth I would you had taken a little more paines to make it manifest For whence and how you should collect it I cannot tell except perhaps it bee thus I say that Faith is not a knowledge Ergo I say also it is an ignorance I answer therefore secondly that Bellarmine and I speake not of the same Faith for hee speaketh of Faith of Story and I of Faith of Person so that when I say Faith of Person is not a knowledge I cannot help him who saith Faith of Story is not a knowledge For as for Faith of Story you cannot bee ignorant that contrary vnto Bellarmine in my Treatise I haue called it a Generall knowledge so farre am I from defining it by ignorance with him And yet I would haue you to know also that when I say Faith of Story is a knowledge I meane not thereby Science of Conclusions acquired and gotten by demonstratiue proofe out of such principles as are of themselues knowne and euident For how can a man by the light of naturall reason aspire to the knowledge of that which is supernaturall and aboue reason But I vnderstand an explicit and distinct apprehension of the necessary Articles of Faith opposite vnto that brutish ignorance which Papists call implicite Faith and Blind obedience which distinct apprehension Bellarmine in the place before alledged denieth necessarily to bee required vnto Faith Farthermore I would faine know how this followes Faith is not knowledge Ergo it is Ignorance for by the same reason you may conclude Faith is not Hope Ergo it is Despaire or thus Earth is not fire Ergo it is water and so by your creation all things in the world shall bee one of two fire or water Metaph. 12. But you should remember that simple negation is positiue of nothing and that Priuations are reduced vnto that subiect whereunto their Habits doe belong whence it followeth that denying Faith to be in the Vnderstanding and so to be knowledge I deny it also to bee Ignorance N. B. Againe whatsoeuer bringeth life eternall bringeth iustification and is Faith But true knowledge of Iesus Christ bringeth life eternall Therefore true knowledge of Iesus Christ bringeth iustification and is Faith The Minor I proue out of the Words of Christ in S. Iohn Ioh. 17.3 Mel. Pez Arg. Theol. p. 3. notitia Es. 53. significat non solum agnitionem personae beneficiorum Christised etiam fiduciam quiescentem in Christo sicuti Ioh. 17. This is life eternall to know thee to bee the onely true Lord and him to bee Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent into the world The Maior is plaine whatsoeuer apprehendeth that last which is life Eternall apprehendeth the former as election and iustification c. But the knowledge of Christ apprehendeth eternall life Therefore it apprehendeth iustification But hence it followeth whatsoeuer apprehendeth iustification is Faith True knowledge of Jesus Christ apprehendeth iustification Therefore true knowledge of Christ is Faith and so consequently and conuersiuely Faith is knowledge and this knowledge is Faith Ioh. 19.25 Eph. 3.14.15.16.17.18 1 Cor. 13. And by this meanes Particular knowledge commeth not in time after faith but is Faith and is knowledge in the beginning in proceeding is knowledge and in the end is knowledge I. D. The Maior of your first Syllogisme that whatsoeuer bringeth life eternall bringeth iustification I deny You say it is plaine because whatsoeuer apprehendeth the last such as is eternall life apprehendeth the former also which is iustification But first what rule of Logicke allowes you thus to shift tearmes and to turne bringing of life and iustification into apprehending life and iustification For howsoeuer you seeme to vse them indifferently yet are they words of different significations and therefore confounding them thus you make not so much the truth of the Maior plaine as obscure the meaning thereof Againe chuse whether of these tearmes you please yet is it palpably false that Whatsoeuer bringeth or apprehendeth the last bringeth and apprehendeth also the former Rhetoricke brings a man to speake eloquently which is the latter yet it is Grammar not Rhetoricke that brings a man to speake congruè which is the former Physicke brings a man to the faculty of curing diseases which is the latter yet brings not to the knowledge of the nature of things for that belongs vnto the naturall Philosopher and according to the old saying where the Physiologer ends there the Physician begins So also in diuine matters Hope apprehends eternall life which is the latter for it is the proper obiect about which it is occupied it apprehendeth not iustification which is the former for then by your rule it should bee Faith it selfe that being faith as you say which apprehends iustification As therfore when diuerse needles are by the Loadstone trained one after another the vertue of the stone moueth the first the first the second and so of the rest but the third or second is no way the cause of the dependency of the first so in the concatenation of the causes of our saluation reckoned vp by the Apostle to wit Election Rom. 8.30 Vocation Iustification Glorification the former are mouers as it were vnto the latter but not the latter vnto the former The reason of all in a word is this because as I haue already shewed more is required vnto the maine end then vnto the subordinate meanes and therefore seeing saluation is the end Iustification the meanes not whatsoeuer is requisite vnto that is presently necessary vnto this The Minor that true knowledge of Iesus Christ bringeth eternall life I also deny For Particular assurance which is the knowledge you must here vnderstand or else you conclude not to the purpose bringeth not eternall life in as much as a man may be saued without it as we haue already sufficiently proued Neither doe the words of Christ in S. Iohn verify your Minor Ioh. 17.3 for by knowledge there he meaneth not your particular assurance and perswasion by which a man knowes he is iustified shall be saued but such a knowledge of Christ and his Gospell as is mingled with faith and worketh our wils to accept of Iesus Christ for our onely mediator And this knowledge is said to bee eternall life not because euery one that barely and nakedly knowes liues eternally for as wee haue shewed Reprobates and Diuels haue Historicall Faith but partly because no man can liue without it partly because by it the Spirit of God worketh in the Elect that Faith by
like a boat in a storme without a Pilote answering tumultuarily what euer comes next to head and scorning like another Cassius Seuerus to keep either in method your matter Tacit. vel potiùs Quintil. de causs corrupt eloq or modestie in your words But as you lead the dance so must I needs follow Thus therefore you argue No man can be damned hauing iustifying Faith A man may be damned resting his will vpon Christ his merits Ergo Resting of the will vpon Christ and his merits is not iustifying Faith The Maior I grant the Minor thus you confirme Hee that wanteth sanctification may bee damned A man resting his will vpon Christ and his merits may want sanctification Ergo a man resting his will vpon Christ and his merits may be damned The Maior againe I grant if you vnderstand it either thus Hee that finally wanteth sanctification shall bee damned or thus Hee that wanteth present sanctification is for the present in the state of damnation for otherwise the Elect vntill their effectuall vocation want sanctification and yet shall neuer actually be damned The Minor you barely affirme but confirme not thinking it as it seemes proofe inough if you say it and subscribe thereunto Witnesse our selfe vnto this argument therefore I answer two things First that you are a very vnkind and vngratefull man that hauing now the third or fourth time borowed arguments of me to serue your need haue not the good manners to say mee God a mercy for it or to acknowledge to whom you haue beene beholding For in my Treatise thus I obiected against my selfe If Faith be Affiance then the wicked may haue it for Balaam desired to die the death of the Righteous and some receiue the Word with ioy belieuing for a time And vnto this obiection in the same Treatise I gaue a sufficient and full solution distinguishing betweene that Affiance which is sleight and superficiall and that which is setled and grounded as there you may read more at large for thither I referre you But because Hecub act 2. as Euripides saith the same speech spoken by diuerse persons is not alike entertained peraduenture this answer would be better accepted if you might haue it from the mouth of greater authority Read then M. Perkins exposition of the Creed whereupon the first word I Belieue hee intreats of the nature of Faith and you shall find in effect the same obiection in like manner answered and distinction made betweene the fleeting motions desires of them who liue still in their sins after the course of the world the Desire of reconciliation that comes from a bruzed heart brings with it alwayes reformation amendment of life This solution howsoeuer now you haue cunningly dissembled yet I must pray you the next time not to ouerslip it for otherwise you shall bee counted but a miching disputer and no whit at all disaduantage your aduersary fighting against him with no better weapon then a rusty sword both edge and point rebated Secondly I answer vnto your Minor negatiuely denying that such Resting of the will vpon Christ and his merits as wee haue described and in the definition vnderstand can at any time bee separated from Sanctification For besides that it is contrary vnto your owne Positions as anon in the due place shall bee obserued it is also flatly repugnant vnto the rules of holy Scripture For doth not the Scripture pronounce them all Blessed that retire themselues vnto the Lord Psal 2.12 Psal 25.2 Psal 125.1 that they shall not bee ashamed that put their trust in him that they shall be like vnto mount Sion which can neuer bee remoued but standeth fast for euermore 2 Chron. 16 8.9 that to rest vpon the Lord is to bee of a perfect heart Finally doth it not affirme that whosoeuer receiueth Christ and belieueth in him Ioh. 1.12 Rom. 4.5 Ioh. 3.36 1 Ioh. 5.1 Rom. 8.1.14 is the Son of God is iustified before God hath euerlasting life is borne of God is led by the Spirit of God and walketh not after the flesh but after the Spirit vnlesse therefore vtterly stripping your selfe of all modesty you will put on the forehead of an harlot and say that all these things may bee affirmed of the Vnsanctified man how can you possibly auouch that a man resting his will vpon Christ retiring vnto him trusting on him belieuing in him and accepting of him to bee his Mediator can be without sanctification and for want thereof bee damned eternally Nay whosoeuer accepteth Iesus Christ for his Mediator submitteth himselfe as wee haue shewed not onely vnto his Prophecy and Priesthood but also vnto his Kingdome and if hee submit himselfe vnto his Kingdome that is vnto his rule and gouernment how can hee bee Vnsanctified for the Vnsanctified man subiecteth himselfe vnto the Flesh and not vnto the Spirit of Christ Act. 15.9 where by the way you may obserue defining Faith in this sort how and after what manner it purifieth the heart and begetteth in vs sanctity and newnesse of life whereas defining it by Assurance as you doe it doth not readily appeare how such Assurance can bee the principle and reason of our Sanctification True it is that Assurance may bee vnto vs a strong motiue to proceed on in Sanctification and holynesse of life but it is so farre from causing it that it is rather caused by it For by our holy life and conuersation as by the fruites doe wee necessarily gather that Faith which is the cause thereof is in vs and so grow to an Assurance of our Iustification and present state in grace In regard whereof Saint Peter as it is in the vulgar translation and some Greeke copies commandeth by good works to make our calling and election sure 2 Pet. 1.10 And although in sundry copies and translations By good works is omitted yet the addition thereof misliketh not Beza In loc praed Ibid. and Fulke confesseth that the circumstance of the place doth of necessity require that good works bee vnderstood though they bee not expressed in the text On the other side if you define Faith with mee to bee that Act whereby wee accept and make choice of Christ to bee our Mediator that is to say our Prophet Priest and King who seeth not that this Faith working in vs a free and voluntary subiection vnto the Kingdom of Christ is the very purifier of our hearts and the cause of all our holy studies and indeuours whence also it appeareth what the reason is why our Sauiour vnto belieuing in the Sonne opposeth Disobedience vnto him when hee saith Ioh. 3.36 Hee that belieueth in the Sonne hath euerlasting life and hee that obeyeth not the Sonne shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him namely because as Acceptation of him to bee our King is the root of all Obedience so the reiection and refusall of him to bee our King is the very