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
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
APOLOâ—â— FOR THE TRâ—â—TISE CALLâ—â— Triall of Faitâ— CONCERN◠〈…〉 The prâ—cedenc◠〈◊〉 â—tance for sinâ—◠〈…〉 Faith 〈…〉 AT WILL. CHIâ—â— Apâ—â— 22. â— Men Brethâ—â—n and 〈…〉 yee my Apology wâ—◠〈…〉 vnto you LONDâ—â— Printed by 〈…〉 SAMVEL 〈…〉 sold at 〈…〉 Chuâ—â—â—-yaâ—◠〈…〉 of the 〈◊〉 â—â—24 To the Courteous Reader IN a Defence of one point of my Triall of faith opposed by some I tooke occasion to write a briefe explication of a second contradicted by others In the conclusion of that explication I prayed the Reader to be content that of the later point as yet I sayd no more because as yet I saw no more By Gods prouidence I haue seene more since that time â—â—th the spectacles of some which oppose that Doctrine It remaines because those words implied a promise that now I write more of that matter because I vnderstand more thaâ— I say more because I see more But first when I say that now I see more my meaning is not that I am sâ—aggered in my iudgement by somewhat laâ—â—y seene that therfore now I vnderstanding question otherwise then I did at thâ—◠〈◊〉 but that now I know more of their 〈…〉 that oppose it then I did before and know better how to confirme mine owne opinion That this may appeare I pray the Christian Reader to remember the state of the question set downe in my Treatise in these wordes Repentance is begunne before faith in Christ and therein to consider two things first of whom I speake in this question secondly of what They of whom I speake are the Elect onely who onely are ordained by God to eternall life â—cts 23.48 and who for that purpose are appointed also to all the meanes effectually conducing thereunto from the beginning to the end in all the parts and degrees of the same For because this faith is onely wrought in them therefore is it called the faith of the elect Tit. 1.1 and because these only are in the euent saued by it therefore do they receiue the end of their faith 1 Peter 1.9 which is the saluation of their soules That whereof I speake is contained in the wordes of the Question before recited Wherein I pray further that two things may be considered First the Antecedent subiect matter of the question or the thing that is spoken of in this word Repentance Secondly the consequent predicat or saying that is affirmed of this Repentance in the rest of the words is begunne before faith in Christ for these termes must be rightly vnderstood First the subiect matter or thing spoken in that Question is Repentance Repentance and by repentance I meane not the practicall repentance of the conuersation or practise of the purpose of amendment of life in a constant conscionable and cheerefull course of new obedience but onely the repentance of the heart and by the repentance of the heart I do not vnderstand newnesse of heart or rectitude of Spirit or mortification Psalme 51.10 and viuification or habituall conuersion to God with the whole soule in all the powers and faculties of it ioyned with a good conscience which all are fruites and effects of faith in nature following it But by Repentance I meane onely hearty sorrow for past sinnes already committed and purpose first not to commit the very same sinnes if they were not already done but were againe to be committed and then consequently a purpose not to commit the like sinnes in kinde for time to come namely a purpose in truth without hypocrisy and dissimulation Repentance from dead workes being a qualification to fit men for beleefe in Christ beleeuing in Christ a qualification to fit them to receiue benefit by the promise of the Gospell vnto iustification and amendment of life or new obedience being a qualification to fit them to the further assurance of their iustification and of eternall life Secondly in the predicate or saying that is affirmed of this repentance three things are to be obserued 1. What is meant by being begunne 2. By Before 3. By Faith in Christ 1 Is begunne First by being begunne I doe not meane a being of repentance in the heart sufficient to saluation but onely a beginning of it in all the preparations thereunto as also a beginning of the habit it selfe so farre as concernes sorrow and purpose namely a being thereof in some measure without dissimulation and if it may be proued sufficiently that amendment of life is a part of repentance then I say repentance is begun in some part viz. in sorrow and purpose touching past sinnes before faith in Christ and finished in another viz. amendment of life after faith 2 Before Secondly by Before I doe not meane a precedency some space of time but in nature onely and in the order of causes Thirdly by faith in Christ I doe not meane a beleefe of the word and Gospell Faith in â—st for this of necessity must goe before repentance in as much as it is the meanes to driue and to draw thereunto Acts 2.32 Math. 11.68 Hebr. 11.6 but I vnderstand thereby a resting and relying vpon Christ with our whole hearts or a trusting to and putting confidence in the merits of the death and righteousnesse of Iesus Christ for and vnto saluation In the second place in that now I say more It is not because I thinke I haue not sayd enough all ready to the point it selfe for the prouing of it but because I haue not sayd enough to some for the perswading of them Nor yet because I haue not sufficiently answered the obiections which I knew but because I knew them not all then to the end I might haue answered them at the first for now I stoppe three or foure gapps with one bush and answere the Exceptions of more then one man As in these regards this further labour by way of Apology hath beene vndertaken not without some cause so in other respects it ought to be well construed accepted and vsed namely because the Lord knows my purpose herein is not to maintain my credit but the cause of God and the Doctrine of the Church of England nor to striue for Triumph and Victory but for Truth and verity muchlesse wilfully to oppose any that hold the contrary Least of all to detract from pretious faith or our blessed Sauiour in any the least measure or meaning â— Pet. 1.1 â—uke 1 42. â—om 9.5 Of my sincerity herein the Christian Reader may the rather be perswaded by considering these particulars 1. I labour not to darken my opposite with disgrace except it bee by clouding their names with silence but onely to cleare the point in question with a larger explication and confirmation 2. I seeke not to shift of the force of an argument by evasions but answer therevnto with direct solutions to my best vnderstanding 3. I study not to iustifie any thing that cannot be defended with truth and plainnes for I freely confesse the weakenesse
of my disputation where such weakenesse is discouered 4. I spend not my spirit to requite in kinde many vnkinde and some insolent termes in their Exceptions but onely trie my strength to vntie the knots of their obiections I meane not euery idle cavill about words or matter impertinent to the clearing of the maine question but to answere such reasons onely as make directest and strongest opposition to my Doctrine The maine purpose being good and the meane proceeding faire it remaines that I humbly pray the Reader to peruse my Apology with patience and without preiudice to compare reason with reason with prudence and without partiality and to iudge of truth by reason rather then by humaine authority This if they shall doe it is reasonable to request it it is equall to grant it It may come to passe through Gods blessing that hotte and confident opposers may bee cooled and conuinced that moderate and vnresolued Christians may be perswaded and satisfied That errour may be discerned confuted and auoided and the truth more cleared and confirmed which God the Father grant for his Sonne Iesus sake by the grace and wisedome of the Holy Spirit to his owne glory and his Churches good Amen Yours in the seruice of your Faith William Chibald To the Christian Reader MAny of the Ancients obserue that St. Iames perceiuing diuers vnstable Christians to sucke poison out of the sweetest flower of paradise by misinterpreting and peruerting St. Paules most wholesome and comfortable Doctrine of iustification by faith without workes wrote his Epistle after a sort purposedly to redresse that abuse and equally as it were to diuide betweene faith and workes Iam. 2.21 23 giuing them both their seuerall iustifications for these two truthes may and must stand together faith iustifies our workes before God but workes iustifies our faith before men Abacuc 2.4 Rom. 1.17 Iames 2.26 The iust shall liue by faith but faith it selfe must liue by workes for as the body without the spirit is dead so faith without workes is dead also That which mooued this Holy Apostle to presse so farre the necessity of workes as to attribute vnto them a kinde of iustification Iames 2.26 I verily perswade my self stird vp the meek spirit of the modest and learned Author of the Triall of Faith and this Apologie thereof so farre to inforce the necessitie of repentance as to giue it a kind of precedency to faith in Christ not any way to detract from the Dignity and Excellency of faith which hee must and doth acknowledge to be the mother and Queene of all Christian vertues August Enchir. ad Laurent Fides enim impetrat quod lex imperat but to keepe men from bearing to much on the right hand and sailing to neare to the dangerous rocke of presumption vpon which it is to be feared many more ordinarily make shipwracke of faith and a good conscience then vpon the other opposit to it of despaire ô quam multi cum hac spe ad aeternos labores bella descendunt how many goe to hell with a vaine hope of heauen whose chiefest cause of damnation is their false perswasion and groundlesse presumption of saluation To keepe all true beleeuers from this most dangerous rocke this Author chiefefly penned his treatise entituled The triall of Faith wherein hee discreetly aduiseth all that saile towards those pulchri portus faire hauens in heauen to endeauour to steare their course in the middle way betweene the two rockes aboue named and to this end substantially prooueth that noe man may relie on Christ with assured hope and confidence of saluation and remission of his sinnes before he find in himselfe a true sorrow for them and entertaine an vnfained purpose and desire to leaue them This I take to bee the scope and drift of his discourse which being tried by the touchstone of Gods word hath prooued pretious Doctrine not as some haue giuen out hay and stubble which tearmes better be fit their Weake exceptions against it I professe by weighing and pondering his positions arguments I finde no poysonous weede to lurke vnder his whosesome leaues If any Psylli or Marsi by any extraordinary exstractiue quality can sucke out any such venemous iuyce I am perswaded the Author will as much distaste and detest the same as my selfe do For I finde him ready and desirous to giue satisfaction not onely to moderate examiners of his tenets but also to violent and priudicat obiecters against it hanc libertatem petimusque damvsque vicissim The Apologist freely acknowledgeth a beleefe of Christ and the Gospell to goe before the begunne repentance he speaketh of nay farther also hee professeth that faith in Christ precedeth that repentance which the Diuines cōmonly handle in their common places vnder that Title they meaning therby new obedience and a setled course and measure of sanctification In which regard I aduise the violent opposers of his tenet seriously to consider whether their arguments against it come home or rather in the end proue not meere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially sith they cannot deny that remission of sinnes in Christs blood is no other wayes offered vnto vs in the Gospell then vpon condition of amendment and newnes of life The vndertaking therefore of the performance of this condition God enabling vs therevnto by his effectuall grace which is a purpose of newnesse of life must needes precede the laying claime or taking to our selues the benefit offered by laying hold on Christ and relying on him for this benefit of of remission of sinnes It is true a reward or benefit offered vpon a condition may be challenged and iustly receiued also before the condition be performed but not before the condition be agreed vpon and vndertaken to be performed A man that hath a lease dimised to him vpon condition to pay his rent and fence the grounds may take his lease and enioy some benefit by it before hee hath performed those couenants but not before he hath vndertaken by couenant to performe the same This vndertaking of the performance of the condition viz. newnesse of life what is it else but a purpose and holy promise to God of leauing our sinnes which purpose he who hath not wrought in him by regenerating grace doth still and cannot but hold on his former purpose to continue in his sinnes now for a man yet holding his purpose to continue in sin to trust to Christ or relie on him for the remission of them what is it else but presumption As for many incident or consequent questions which the nice-handling of this point may breede in refined wits as whether the beleefe of the Gospell which we call Historicall faith and a beleefe and affiance in Christ which is iustifying faith in an elect grow into on habit and whether a purpose of amendment before and the amendment of life or new obedience after faith in Christ belong to the same specificall vertue of repentance and whether the
shew mercy and how God by the light and helpe of it draweth him forward vntill hee beleeue for his owne part and in his owne person for these be his very wordes in the beginning of that discourse hee doeth lay downe sixe seuerall workes of the Spirit in six seuerall sections of that fourth chapter the heads of them are these and they are more at large there discoursed of 1 God makes them to beleeue their misery and to be troubled in minde for it 2 They consult in this case what to doe 3 They are broken hearted and humbled 4 They haue a secrete desire of forgiuenesse 5 They conferre and aske pardon 6 They forsake all for it and highly â—rize it and then they come to apply Christ and the promise to themselues which his iudgement is a sauing faith In like manner and to the same eâ— Maister Baynes speaking Maister Baynes briefe directions to a godly life how the knoâ—ledge of misery by sin and redemption Christ workes on a man towards faith Christ he saith thus 1 Hee is drawne by the secret worke the spirit to beleeue that the doctrine taugâ— doth concerne him 2 The Lord directeth him to enter iâ— further consideration with himselfe of and â—bout his present state and consulteth what doe in this extremity 3 From the former consultation bâ—commeth to this holy resolution that he 〈◊〉 not returne to his old wayes but in all huâ—lity meekenesse and holinesse say with 〈◊〉 Paule Lord what shall I doe 4 By this meanes he comes to an vnfâ—ned desire of forgiuenesse 5 With earnest humble and particulâ— confession of his sinnes hee powreth oâ— prayers to God for the pardon of them Christ 6 He hauing found this pearle prize it as it is worth and therefore selleth all thâ— he hath and biddeth farewell to his sweetâ— delights for the obtayning of it and then 〈◊〉 commeth to apply the Gospell to himselfâ— and sealeth vp his saluation in his heart Neither is this the opinion of these learned and holy preachers but of many other in our owne Church Mr. Elton in his Catechisme the foure principle Modell of Diuinity page 274 to 279. Mr. Wheatly of Regeneration ch â—4 Mr. Perkins Catechisme the fourth principle and the state of a Christian Sect. 6. to 16. The next thing to be considered is their reasons whereby they would proue that some of those preparations which I mention do not goe before faith in Christ and they are two The Exception Those preparations doe not go before faith in Christ 1. Because they doe not draw all men to beleeue in Christ in whom they are wrought for say they Gods cords do draw and haue alwayes irresistably comming ioyned with them 2. Because I my selfe in my Treatise say that some of them are effects and fruites of faith following it Therefore cannot they goe before it as preparations to which I will answere seuerally The Defence Their first reason To the first reason is of no force First because though those preparations do not in the euent draw all men to beleeue in Christ in whom they are wrought yet do they at one time or other draw all the elect so to do that are ordained vnto eternall life and to beleeue in him for that end For of these onely is the question Secondly if their reason were good then would it proue that a beleefe of the Gospell is none of Gods cords to draw men to beleeue in Christ nor the Preaching of the Gospell none of Gods meanes to worke faith in Christ for neither the one does draw al men so to come to Christ nor the other so worke faith in Christ in all that haue the one wrought in them or the other taught vnto them witnesse the Parable of the seede in the Gospell Mat. 11.19 to 28. Is not the act of generation Gods ordinance to the begetting of a child because a child is not begotten by euery hand acts I confesse Gods spirit doth not onely draw men to beleeue in Christ but also workes it in them actually at one time or other after those preparations but drawing men to beleeue or preparing them thereunto is a different action from his working of faith or enabling them to beleeue and in the elect comming followes drawing necessarily in respect of the euent Their second reason To the second reason whereby they would prooue that some of the preparations I name cannot goe before faith in Christ is of no power because though I say some of them may go before it in one respect yet may they follow in another Indeede I say that a feare of God goes before faith in Christ as a preparation to it page 222. and that a feare of God followes faith in Christ as an effect thereof page 304. but neither doe I say that a filiall feare is the preparation nor a seruile feare the effect though the faithfull after beleeuing in Christ doe feare to sinne for feare of condemnation else the Holy Ghost would neuer diswade from it on that ground The like may be sayde of sorrow for sinne by comparing page 222. where it is a preparation to faith and page 301. where it is an effect of a sauing faith or rather of one that hath it for I do not say that sorrow for sinne on the same grounds altogether and in the same measure doth goe before and after faith in Christ and therefore their reason is but a Cauill and so I descend to the third generall thing against which they except in handling the sixt rule viz. the particular naming of a beginning of repentance to be one of those gifts of the spirit that prepare to faith in Christ Against this there are three exceptions 1 against the position it selfe 2 against the exposition of it and 3 against the handling of the position The Triall The position it selfe that repentâ—nce is one of those preparations The position it selfe is this Repentance is begunne before faith in Christ The Exception This position they dislike for two causes First because it implies a beginning of repentance before faith in Christ some space of time Secondly because it supposeth that repentance is begun at one time in some part of it and finished at anotheâ— in the residue The Apology To the 1. Exceptiâ—n I do indeede often vse the word Before to expresse the Precedency I meane but neither did I meane a precedency some space of time nor can they shew it by the words of the booke except I had added thereunto some other word as time space season or the like to giue light to such an interpretation which is not done in that whole disputation Or except the word Before in the English tongue did alwayes carry that sence onely which experience disprooues seeing one thing may be before another in nature as fire before heat in order as the second before the third In dignity as an Earle before a Baron and in worth as gold before siluer
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
the Kingdome of Heauen and giuen them an example to follow The Apology This answere I will take away by prouing that the Repentance of the uPblicans and Harlots was to their Faith as a meanes to an end and this I will make good two wayes first by the context of the place and a reason drawne out of it secondly by the iudgement of the learned First the context or the precedent and subsequent matter of that place prooues my interpretation because the condition of the Publicans touching entring into Gods Kingdome is amplified Ver. 28. and 29. by a parable of a sonne who when he was bidden by his father to goe into the Vineyard and worke the Text faith He said he would not but afterward he repented and went ver 29. Now because by that sonne is meant the Publicans and of that sonne it is saide not onely and barely he went though hee said hee would not but that hee repented and went therefore this shewes not onely and barely he went but that therefore he went because he repented first of his not going formerly and of his saying he would not goe and therefore consequently will it follow that thâ— holy Ghost thereby meant not onely aâ— barely that the Publicans repented aâ— beleeued but that therefore they beleeueâ— because they repented first of their otheâ— sinnes for as the repenting of the sonne fâ— his not going and of his saying hee woulâ— not goe was a cause why hee went aâ— was a meanes vnto it for sorrow for past fault and purpose to leaue it musâ— needes be a meanes to the amending of it so the repenting of the Publicans anâ— Harlots for their sinnes in time past was 〈◊〉 cause and meanes of their beleeuing iâ— Christ afterward and therefore was to iâ— as a meanes to an end and consequently was in nature before it The rather is this true because wheâ— the holy Ghost comes to speake of the Scribes and Pharisees described by the other sonne which said he would and went not ver 30. he saith they repented not afterward that they might beleeue what lesse can hence be gathered but that therefore they did not beleeue in Christ viz because they did not first repent of their former wicked liues nor were prickt in heart for them nor purposed to leaue them Secondly I prooue my interpretation by the iudgement of the learned namely that the repentance of the Publicans was to their faith as a meanes to an end For in expresse words Mr. Beza sayth Bezae annot on Math. 21.32 that the repentance there spoken of was a way to the faith there mentioned I dispute not now what repentance Beza meanes Iter igitur ad fidem est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I haue prooued it to be true repentance in my Treatise and the reasons are not answered and besides now the point is granted by them Secondly Morton of repentance the argument of it toward the end Mr. Morton a learned Diuine of our Country doth so expound the words Matthew 21.32 you did not repent to beleeue or that yee might haue beleeued and thereupon concludes that repentance is distinguished from sanctification as being but a preparation thereunto For if the Pharisies did not repent to beleeue or that they might beleeue then on the contrary the Publicans did repent to beleeue or that they might beleeue and consequently their repentance was to their faith as a meanes to an end And verily if the words had gone thus in the verse they beleeued to repent or that they might repent I beleeue they would haue concluded quickly that their faith was to their repentance as a meanes to an end and consequently as a cause of an effect and therefore in nature before which is more then that they continued their beleefe or that they both repenâ— and beleeued Wherefore my exposition hauing wâ—rant from the grammer of the text agreâ—ment with the scope of the place and coâ—sent with the opinion of the learned aâ— their 's being but a bare affirmatioÌ„ therefoâ— I hope it wil hence easily follow that 〈◊〉 Doctrine grounded thereon concerniâ— the precedency of repentance to faith 〈◊〉 nature is warrantable consequently 〈◊〉 first Argument to proue it good for ougâ— hath yet beene shewed to the contrary The Triall Repentance is begunne before faith 〈◊〉 Christ The second argument because God giues men repentanâ— to the end they may beleeue in Christ 1. Tim. 2.25 The Exception To this second Argument they answer that it prooues not the question becausâ— the text of Scripture on which it is founded is not rightly expounded For say they by acknowledging the truth in Timothy 1. not meant beleeuing in Christ as I haue expounded it but professing the truth not onely in word but in life and conuersation accompanied with an inward change The Apology In defence of my interpretation I haue giuen foure reasons to three of which they answere let vs examine the validity of their answeres in order The Triall First by acknowledging the truth in Timothy is meant beleeuing in Christ because by it wee come out of the snares of the Diuell that is of the Diuells children are made the children of God The Exception This they say is not a good reason because wee come out of the snares of the Diuell by repentance as well as by faith The Apology Vpon this I reply that this instance ouerthrowes not my reason because recouering out of the snare of the Diuell is a translation from being the Diuels child to be Gods childe Now we are not made Gods children by repentance but prepared to be Gods children but it is directly sayd so of a Ioa. 1.12 Gal. 3.26 faith It is plainely sayd of faith in Christ that b 1 Ioan. 5.4 5. it is the victory whereby wee ouercome the world c 2. Pe 2 20. To the acknowledging of our Lord and sauiour Iesus Christ is attributed the escaping of the pollutions of the world namely for time to come d 2 Pe. 1.3 Through the knowledge of Christ is giuen all things which appertaine to life and godlines namely to doe good workes and to performe new obedience in a setled sincere course which are no where sayd of repentance The Triall Secondly by acknowledging of the truth in Tymothy is meant faith in Christ because in other places Coloss 2.2 1 Tim. 2.4 Eph. 4.13 this faith is expressed by this Phrase The Exception To this reason they answere that though in other Scriptures a sauing faith be expressed by that phrase of acknowledging the truth yet heere in Tymothy it cannot Why because this exposition cannot stand with the analogy of faith and why forsooth because repentance cannot stand without faith in Christ or be without it The Apology By this answere a blinde man may see that they take it for granted that if by acknowledging the truth be meant beleeuing in Christ it cannot be auoyded but repentance must go before faith in
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
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
Faith is sinne because whatsoeuer is not of Christ is sinne for to be without faith and to be without Christ are all one The Apology I answere as touching acceptation vnto saluation it is all one in the euent to be without Christ the meritorious cause of saluation â—arke 16.16 as to bee without faith the instrumentall For a man cannot bee saued without either Mar. 16.16 But to all intents and purposes it is not all one to be without Christ and faith for it is not all one to the making of our actions to bee sinne in the nature of sin It is neither being without Christ nor faith that doth this for these only do cause that our actions bee not imputed for sinne vnto vs and not that they bee no sinns The sweruing from the law and Rule of God is that onely which makes an action sinfull The Exception Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne 1. Ioan. because whatsoeuer is done without spirituall life is sinne The Apology I answere How farre and in what sense faith in Christ is the spirituall life of Christians shall bee shewed God willing in the fourth obiection For the present it is enough for the answere of this obiection to say that it prooues idem per idem which is as much as to say it prooues nothing in the question for with them faith in Christ is the spirituall life of Christians as shall appeare in the fourth obiection and the spirituall life of Christians is faith as appeares by this obiection If with them faith be the spirituall life of Christians and if the spirituall life of Christians be faith then that Argument that prooues euery action sinfull that is done without spirituall life namely because it is done without faith and againe that Argument that prooues euery action sinfull that is done without faith namely because it is done without spiritual life I both their say arguments prooue nothing for vpon the matter in this question they begge the question The Tryall To conclude in answere to this Argument and for a reason of denying the consequence I sayd that though Repentance bee begun before faith yet it is not sinne for all that because a beliefe of the Gospel goes before faith in Christ yet is it not sinne The Exception This instance they offer to take away and giue three Reasons why an Historicall faith going before a sauing faith is sinne to which I will answere An Historicall faith without faith in Christ is sinne because it is no where alone required The Apology I answere First to the Antecedant that if 〈◊〉 by these wordes required alone be meant that a beliefe of the Gospel is so required alone in one place that there is no more else where required of men to their saluation then I confesse that a belief of the Gospel is no where required alone but if thereby be meant as it must be if it bee to purpose that there is no place of Scripture in which the duty of beleeuing the Gospell is onely taught and that in euery place where beleeuing the Gospell is onely taught beleeuing in Christ is taught also then I deny it for the Scripture doth not teach euery duty in euery place except wee shall obserue no rules of Art in expounding Scripture Secondly to the consequence I answer that though beleeuing the Gospell were no where alone required yet will it not be sinne for all that because it is a duty in the word commanded to be performed of all the Elect to make them capable of saluation and no such thing can be sinne God doth require of men that which is taught them and as it is taught and sometimes it may fall out a Preacher by occasion of his text or in a Catechisme lecture may onely teach men to beleeue the Gospell vpon Gods owne authority shall we say the Minister sinnes in teaching it alone or the people in learning it alone at that time not hauing then a sauing Faith Surely God is not a hard man that takes vp where he layes not downe Luk. 17.21 nor requires that which hee doeth not teach or offer to worke The Exception An Historicall Faith without Faith in Christ is sinne because God requires more Faith then this The Apology To the consequence I answere that though God require more Faith then the beliefe of the Gospell of them that shall be saued yet is not this sinne when it is alone without a sauing Faith for God requires more then godly sorrow of a Repentant sinner viz an vnfained purpose to leaue his sinnes and in time to practise new obedience Is therefore godly sorrow for sinne sinne indeed in a man because as yet hee hath not a godly purpose to leaue his sinnes wrought in him surely such Diuinitie can neuer doe good in the Church of Christ The Exception An historicall faith without faith in Christ is sinne because it may bee in Reprobates The Apology It cannot bee denied but a beliefe of the Gospell may bee in Reprobates yet will it therefore follow to bee sinne Math. was â—he gift of miracles sinne in the Reprobates because it was in them surely no. It is not the hauing of the gifts of the Spirit that makes them to bee sinne to reprobates or in them but the not vsing of them well to the honour of God and the good of the Church and it is their contenting of themselues onely with those when they should labour for other and more that causeth them to be sins in reprobates for as they be had so they come from God and as they come from God so they are good and as they are good they cannot be sinne though as they are in them not vsed at all or not well vsed or not enough vsed or abused they may prooue sinne in them yet simply because they are in them or as they are in them they are not and so much in answere to their Defence of their first obiection against my Doctrine of the precedency of Repentance vnto Faith in Christ The Triall Repentance is not begun before Faith in Christ The second Obiection because then it should proceede out of an heart vnpurified for the heart is purified by Faith Act. 15.9 To this I answered that it proues not the question because the proofe of it out of the Acts is not to purpose first because it doeth not at all speake of purifying by sanctification of which the question is but by iustification of which it is not secondly though it had spoken of purifying by sanctification yet doth it not prooue that Faith so purifieth the heart that till Faith in Christ come there is not so much as the least measure of this purifying begunne for so is the Antecedent to bee vnderstood The Exception To make their Argument good they bring reasons first they prooue that the Text in the Acts is to be vnderstood of purifying by sanctification from the filth of sinne as well as by
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
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