almost printed I deemed that GOD by his prouidence would haue me defend my selfe for the credit of my Ministery which is as tender as the apple of mine eye that cannot endure little motes of disgrace vniustly to dimme it much lesse such great beames of slander to put it out if it were possible Pudet hac opprobria nobis Et dici potnisse non potuisse refelli If the accusations were true it were better my booke were burnt in Paules Church-yard then sold there it were fitter for me to stand at a stake in Smithfield then in a Pulpet in the Church and if they be not true then is it not meete to suffer simple people to be seduced to beleeue them nor my selfe to be traduced by the report and beleefe of them neither of which can be auoyded without some answere Whether they be true or no I referre to the Christian Reader to determine when he hath read ouer the Defence of my Triall of Faith and this Apology for it In this action and accusation I will be but a Defendant I will not giue rebuke for rebuke 1. Pet. 3.9 onely I say the Lord rebuke him This is not my rebuke but the Lords nor is it against him but for him the Lord knoweth euen for his vnfeined humiliation and consolation in Christ Iesus And so letting passe in modesty the very words of the accusation as offensiue to moderate eares I proceede to answere the matter and first the heresie and blasphemy The heresie and blasphemy is instanced in three particulars 1. The first hereticall and blasphemous position is this Triall of faith p. 41. li. 30. I say Faith in Christ is the onely condition of the couenant of grace that is required of all those that are capable of saluation I answere this is not heresie nor blasphemy because the Doctrine of our Church sayth as much where it sayth Articles of religion in Q Elizabeths time Art 11. Ser. of saluation 1 part toward the end that we are iustified by faith onely is a most wholesome Doctrine and that Paule deelareth nothing Rom. 3.25 vpon the behalfe of man Concerning his iustification but onely a true and a liuely faith and afterward faith doth not shut out repentance hope loue dread and the feare of God to be ioyned with faith in euery man that is iustified but it shutteth them out from the office of instifying 2. A second Hereticall blasphemous Doctrine is I say God as soueraigne Lord of all can appoint what meanes hee will to make vs capable of life Neither is this an hereticall and blasphemous position because the power of God is to be considered two wayes Perk. gold chai ch 3. either actually or absolutely Gods absolute power is that by which hee can doe more then either he doth or will doe Math. 3.9 Phillip 3.29 Gods actuall power is that by which he causeth all things to be which hee freely willeth Psal 135.6 Now then where I say God as soueraigne Lord of all can appoint what meanes hee will to make vs capable of life I do not speake of his actuall power but of his absolute for I doe not meane Though the Lord hath actually willed and appointed that faith in Christ shall be the meanes to make vs capable of eternall life that is instrumentally onely and in no sense meritoriously yet God as soueraigne Lord of all can now appoint another meanes to make vs capable thereof as he would straine his wit to interpreat me But my meaning is which is euident by the context that before the Lord appointed and willed that faith in Christ should be that meanes by his absolute power as soueraigne Lord of all hee might haue appointed any other grace to haue beene the meanes instrumentally and conditionally to haue made vs capable of Heauen If God by his absolute power can do more then either he doth or will as is confest out of Mr. Perkins then in case God had not willed that Faith in Christ should be this meanes he might by his absolute power haue appointed any other meanes and consequently what meanes he would to make vs capable of life For that action which depends vpon Gods free will or ordination that by his absolute power he could haue done otherwise for that is the nature of free-will to do so as that they might haue done otherwise but the appointing of the meanes to make vs capable of saluation depends vpon Gods free-will and ordination therefore he might haue done otherwise and consequently by his absolute power he could haue appointed what meanes he would to make vs capable of saluation And that the appointing of the meanes to make vs capable of saluation depends on the free-will and ordination of God appeares because the merits of Chrâ—st depend therevpon according to that of Mr. Caluin Christ could not deserue any thing but by the good pleasure of God Caluin Iustit l. 2 1. 17. the 1. but because hee was appointed to this purpose with his sacrifice to appease the wrath of God and with his obedience to put away our offences c. Now if this be true in the meritorious cause of our saluation which doth purchase it much more is it in the instrumental which makes vs but persons capable of it now it is procured by him and so much for clearing the second supposed heresie and blasphemy The third hereticall blasphemous position is this that I say the act of faith which is beleeuing in Christ doth iustifie vs and is our righteousnesse Of this sentence I wil not say much here because I haue maintained it to be sound Doctrine in my sense in a priuate writing to himselfe which he promised to answere but yet hath not performed it as also in a publike defence in print and in the view of the world which was perused and also allowed by two very learned and godly Doctors of Diuinity for that end which I humbly pray the Reader to peruse for his satisfaction if hee be doubtfull euen as this Apology also hath beene prooued and approued by the same worthy Diuines And so I passe from the heresie and blasphemy with which he charges me to the periury lying and contradiction which is instanced by two particulars The first instance to prooue the periury lying and contradiction is this viz. because in my second Booke I protest I neuer wrote that Christ hath merited that faith should be our righteousnesse and iustifie vs Defence pag. 35. and yet in my first booke I say the act of faith iustifies vs for the merit of Christ Triall page 196. I answere in these two sentences I doe neither forsweare nor lye nor contradict my selfe because I do not affirme and deny one and the same proposition That I doe not in the two sentences forenamed Arist deinter lib 1. chap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ram. logi l. 2. cha 2. contradictio est quando idem axioma affirmatur negatùr deny
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
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
it selfe The Rule it selfe is layd downe in the eight Chapter of the second booke of my Treatise the 219 page in these words whether wast thou rightly prepared to beleeue in Christ by other gifts of the spirit which hee workes in men before they haue a sauing faith The Exception against the Triall This Rule say some in effect is idle because it pretends that men may try their faith by it but indeede no man can for say they all men are either regenerate or vnregenerate there is no third conditioâ— betwixt them and different from them and neither the one nor the other can try their faith by this rule Not the regenerate because there is no gift power quality disposition habit or affection other then sauing faith that is or can be sayd to be a preparatiue to regeneration Neither can vnregenerate meâ— try their faith because there is no gift in men vnregenerate whereby themselues or other can difference them from those that remaine in their naturall estate and that shall perish for euer The Apology for the Triall I answere first generally to both regenerate and vnregenerate that though by their exception they seeme to giue two different Reasons one for the regenerate and another for the vnregenerate yet the reason belongs to all equally because it denies either to the one or the other all or any preparations before faith or regeneration either to difference the regenerate from the vnregenerate or one vnregenerate man from another for euer Secondly I answere to their reason concerning the Regenerate that it is of no force why they may not try their faith by this Rule because it affirmes that there can be no preparations at all to Regeneration but faith it selfe which cannot be true because a beliefe of the Gospell which is a stedfast assent to the trueth of that doctrine is a gift of the Spirit It is not a sauing faith but a a Heb. 11.6 meanes to it yet is this beliefe a preparatiue to regeneration and therefore may a regenerate man try himselfe by some other gift then by a sauing faith as by a preparation to Regeneration and consequently try his faith by this rule Thirdly I answere touching the vnregenerate that their reason is vnsufficient why they may not try their faith by this rule because though they haue not a sauing faith as indeed they haue not yet may it not be in vaine for them to examine themselues concerning a sâ—uing faith by these preparations for they may thinke they haue it when indeed they haue not and so may deceiue themselues with a vaine presumptuous hope of saluation Now by this triall with these preparations they shall clearely discerne they haue it not for he that is farre from the preparation to faith must needes bee further of from faith it selfe he that hath not the lesser which is more common hath not the greater which is more rare whereupon they may bee occasioned considering the danger of being without faith and the benefite of hauing it to seeke in the vse of the meanes for it and by seeking to finde and obtaine it May not a man try whether hee haue a good lease or no if he haue any lease at all though his lease be not good yea if hee haue any writing which hee takes to be a lease though it be not may hee not try whether he haue a good lease or no Besides though vnregenerate men haue no such gift whereby they may bee differenced from such as remaine in their naturall estate and shall perish for euer yeâ— may they try whether they haue a sauing faith or no and by triall know they haue it not because they haue no such gift foâ— all that haue faith haue such a gift euer as the want of election into a Colledge shewes that a man is not fellow there though he haue no gift whereby to difference him from all that are fellowes oâ— schollers in that Colledge for all that are fellowes or schollers of a Colledge are elected into it If they had giuen some good reasoâ— why there can be no preparations at all to faith in Christ then had they spoken to purpose against my Rule but seeing they haue not done it therfore is the Rule good for the purpose to which I intended it for all their exception Fourthly touching the proofe of their exception viz that there is no third state or condition betwixt men regenerate and vnregenerate I answere that they bring no proofe of it therefore can I not allow of it and besides the contrary seemes to me very probable vnderstanding this to be their meaning as it must be if it be to purpose that there is no third condition betwixt a meere naturall man and one fully regenerate for I thinke a third condition somewhat different from both may bee assigned and giuen namely the condition of preparation which may be compared to the twy-light that is betwixt cleare day and darke night wherein whosoeuer is being elected may be said to be in his passage from the one which is meere nature the other which is perfect regeneration and betweene both that is some way forwarded vnto regeneration and about to enter into Gods Kingdome and yet not actually admitted thereunto as one conceiued not borne or in the birth not quite brought forth for as we read of some that were entred into Gods Kingdome and were * Mat. 13.38 children thereof and of some that were * Eph 2.13.14 farre from it so doe wee reade of some that were * Mark 12 34. not farre from the Kingdome of God and that * Mat. 23.13 were entring in or about to enter but not quite in I know there are but two places to bee enioyed by men after this life Heauen and Hell and but two sorts of persons to inherit them Elect and Reprobate yet may the Elect before they come into Heauen be said to passe through a threefold condition the first of meere nature in which there are no workes of the Spirit toward Regeneration The second of Preparation wherein there bee some gifts of the Spirit bestowed on them to dispose them to Regeneration And the third is the full worke of Regeneration it selfe And I can see no reason in the world why this should be counted a Paradox or strange position seeing ordinarily all they that are of age passe through this preparation Mat. 11.28 All that come to Christ and beleeue in him must be weary and heauy laden And as long as it is confest first that these d spositions preparing vnto Regeneration are not the worke of nature but Gods Spirit else they would bee in all meere naturall men and euen in the very Elect when they continue in their state of â—eere nature which experience disproues â—econdly that they are not wrought â—y the Spirit alwayes but then of purpose when the time of their effectuall calling is â—ome thirdly that they are not sufficient â—o saluation if a