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
same grace of the spirit produce faith and repentance in the soule or a diuerse and whether the grace which produceth them produce them both in the same instaâ—t or diuerse and whether these diuers instances must bee diuers instances of time or of nature onely and lastly it being granted that faith and repentance are both produced in the same instant of time and nature whether the one beginneth to worke before the other and whether admitting that the worke of repentance is first felt in the soule before any worke of a iustifying faith yet that the worke of a iustifying faith may not be in the nature of the thing before it as the thunder in nature is before the lightning yet wee see the lightning before wee heare the thunder I say for these and the like subtilties I hold it needlesse and vnprofitable to imploy the haruest of our time in tithing thâ—se minutas decimas of minte and commin It sufficeth that we Ministers of the Gospell in our Preaching and Gods people in their hearing and all of vs in our practise follow the method vsed by the holy Ghost and beginne with Iohn Baptist and proceede to Christ beginne with terror and proceede to comfort beginne with sorrow for sinne and proceede to ioy in the Holy Ghost hauing first a sense of our sinne and searching deepe into our wounds and then applying to our selues the soueraigne salue of faith in Christs blood beeing first weary and heauy laden and then expecting to bee refreshed by Iesus Christ In whose bowells I ernestly beseech my brethren in the Ministry not to interfere nor hinder one another in their holy courses muchlesse virulently detract from the persons or labours one of another but to set aside all preiudicat opinion and allay all heate of passion and contestation Cyp. de zelo liuore Purgare mentem quam serpentinus liuor infecit amaritudinem omnem quae intus incedit Christi dulcedine lenire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Paule exhorteth Ephes 4.15 1 Iohn 3.18 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Iohn perswadeth that as we all agree in the loue of the same truth so wee may seeke and follow after the truth in loue Thine in the best beloued Christ Iesus Daniel Featly To the Author GOOD Sir I haue perused your little Treatise or Apology which you committed to me and I see no cause why you may not safely send it abroade into the world with his fellowes that haue seene the light allready for as for your conclusion in mine opinion it is sound and orthodox and as you explaine it to my thinking not much different from theirs who in wordes seeme to speake contrary And for your proofes and answeres though I hold not euery particulaâ— to be demonstratiue and certaine yet I thinke there is enough in them to evict the cause you stricte for Notwithstaâ—ding you must not make accompt that all men should presently yeeld to be of your opiniâ—n for sober minds may dissent from you and you from them without b each of charity or loue and fierie spiâ—its will dissent from you if it be for no other cause but only for that Salamanders cannot liue out of the fire But I would wish you to consider of that Rule of â—he Apostle 1 Cor. 11.16 If any man seeme to bee â—ontentious wee haue no such custome â—or the Churches of GOD and as much as may bee to imitate the stayed â—iscretion of wise Trauailers who for â—eare of letting their iourney will not â—tand still and strike at euery dogge that â—arketh at them For as a Learned Writer vpon the â—ormer wordes of Saint Paule notes to â—ood purpose There will neuer bee an â—nd of quarrelling Nunquam enim contentionum erit finis si certando velis hominem pugnacem vincero qui centies victus nunquam fatigabitur Cal. in 5. Cor. 11.16 if you labour to get he mastery of him that is contentious â—ecause though hee bee an Hundreth â—imes foyled yet will hee neuer bee â—earied Wee haue all worke enough to doe in ecessary things and therefore howsoeuer kinde of necessity for satisfying the world aue forced you thus farre as to cleare hat hath beene obiected allready yet if â—ere shall come any new repetition of â—d Arguments or any futher friuoâ—us cauills your good howers may perâ—ps bee better spent then in pursuing â—ngling disputes which mine opinion notwithstanding I leaue to your discretioâ— to doe as occasion shall require and sâ— I leaue you and your labours to GODS blessed Protection and Mercy Yours euer in the Lord Iesus Henry Masoâ— An Apology for the precedency of Repentance vnto faith in Christ IN the Treatise called a Triall of Faith the Author intended to teach Christians to examine rhemselues whether they had a sauing Faith or no. As meanes to that end he propounded in the first booke certaine reasons to perswade vnto this Triall and in the second some rules to direct them therein Against the reasons there is no exceptions taken for ought I heare but against the rules onely nor yet against all but onely the first and the sixt rule That which hath been obiected against the first hath beene fully answered in a briefe defence not long since published and that which is excepted against in the sixt rule shall now God willing be cleared and satisfied in a further confirmation thereof In handling the sixt Rule of trying our Faith I did three things principally First I proued generally that there are some preparations wrought in men before they can beleeue in Christ whereby God drawes them thereunto page 219 220. namely that most vsually and ordinarily it is so Secondly and more specially I shewed what these preparations were viz. Some gifts and abilities wrought by the spirit of God in the vnderstanding and will of those whom the Lord hath a purpose to saue page 220 to 224. Thirdly and in particular I affirmed that a beginning of repentance is one of those preparations page 224 to 229. For making good of this third and last point I set downe this proposition to be discussed Repentance is begunne before faith in Christ 1. e Sinners beginne to sorrow for their sinnes and to purpose to leaue them before they can beleeue in Christ viz. So as to haue any benesit thereby First I proued this point by arguments secondly I cleared it by answering some obiections and lastly I applied it by making some further vse thereof Against these generall heads and many particular members of each there are I vnderstand exceptions taken by some and their exceptions to omitte longer introduction are either against the fixt rule it selfe or the handling of that rule not that they are propounded in these very words and method but that in substance and effect they import as much and therefore are they by mee reduced to these two heads for my more orderly proceeding and the Readers better vnderstanding The Triall of Faith The Rule
man could be truely imagined being elected to die in that estate but onely that they are appointed as preparations to Regeneration in the Elect who because they are ordained to that end which is eternall life and to the meanes of that end which is Faith therefore are they also predestinate to the meanes of this faith which are these preparations in which when they are they may be said to be in a condition some way different from men either meerely naturall or fully regenerate and consequently in a third condition some way different from meere grace or nature And so much for answere to the exceptions against the Rule it selfe Now followes the handling of the Rule The Tryall The Rule begins to be handled Page 219. viz. That a sauing Eaith c. The Exception The handling of the Rule The first point in handling the Ruâ— that is excepted against is a generall prâ—position that there be some preparatioâ— wrought in men by the Spirit before thâ— beleeue in Christ Against this there lie two exceptionâ— first that I doe not distinguish the gifts 〈◊〉 the Spirit which I say goe before Faith 〈◊〉 Christ as preparations to it nor shew whâ—ther they bee common graces to Reprobates or peculiar to the Elect doe tend nâ—cessarily vnto saluation and haue the promise secondly that the places alleadge by me to proue the generall proposition doe not proue it but onely this that Goâ— workes Faith in those in whom it iâ— wrought and that there is neither will noâ— deede in mans power to beleeue in Chrisâ— for saluation The Defence â—o the first â—xception To the first Exception I answere thaâ— though I doe not make all those same distinctions of the preparing graces which they desire yet doe I distinguish them aâ— much as is needfull for in the Treatise they are diuided into Legall and Euangelicall which is enough to my purpose secondly I say that to the prouing of the point in question there is no neede of such distinctions as they propound because in all that disputation I speake of working of those preparations in the Elect onely in whom onely a sauing Faith is wrought because they onely are to be saued page 224. line 17. So that as long as it is euident that the preparations to Faith that I speake of be ordinarily wrought in all the Elect that is in them that are of yeeres and discretion it is no matter though some of them be common to Reprobates with the Elect Act. 13.48 for as long as they are wrought in a Master Rogers 7. Treatises ch 4. pag. 9. Modell of Diuinitie pa. 278. them by Gods Spirit to prepare them to beleeue in Christ and that they may be saued therefore doe they necessarily tend vnto their saluation and consequently must be such as haue the promise being by Gods appointment ordeined as meanes to that end not in respect of themselues singly considered in themselues and in their owne nature but in a threefold consideration 1. In relation to the persons in whom they are wrought which are the Elect to whom saluation and the promise belongs 2. In respect of the ground from whence they proceed which is the loâ— of God in their election of which they aâ— the fruits and effects as well as iustify in faith it selfe 3. In reference to the end for whic they are wrought in men ordained vntâ— eternall life viz. to make them fit persons in whom Faith may be wrought foâ— the obtaining of that saluation to whicâ— they are elected So that as long as all Reprobates hauâ— not these preparations wrought in them but all the Elect haue As long as many reprobates haue but some of them but the Elect haue all ordinarily and as long as by Gods appointment they doe not tend to the saluation of the Reprobat because God neuer intended their saluation but of the Elect they doe therefore is there no neede of making the distinctions which they pretend and propound To the 2. Exception As touching the second exception my defence is this Both the Texts alleadged by me aâ—e expounded by the learned not of working Faith it selfe but of the preparations vnto Faith as shall appeare in the particulars Luk. 3.4 Tertullâ—an de de baptismo chap. 10. The first Text taken out of Saint Lukes Gospell speakes of Preparing the way to Christ which not onely Turtullian but Maister Caluin and Maister Piscator expound of preparing the way by repeÌ„tance preparing the way to Christ by repeÌ„tance is not the working of faith in men but working in them repentance to the end they may bee prepared to beleeue in Christ The words I shall haue occasion to cyte hereafter among the testimonies of the learned in proofe of the maine point therefore will I respite the cyting of them till then Ioa. 6.44 35. The second place of Scripture in Saint Iohns Gospell speakes of drawing men to come to Christ that is to beleeue in him which by the iudgement of the learned is not to bee interpreted of working faith in men but of preparing them to the worke of faith namely by illumination Caluins comment on Ioh. 6.44 Hee teacheth saith Caluin that those are drawn whose mindes he doth enlighten and whose hearts he doth bend and frame to the obedience of Christ That by the metaphor of drawing saith Piscator Piscators comment on Iohn 6.44 is vnderstood the illumination of the minde the Lord himselfe declareth where he saith euery man that hath heard and learned of the Father commeth to mee So that comming to Christ being beleeuing in him drawing to come being not comming it selfe nor illumination being faith it selfe therefore in the iudgement of those two learned men the Text of Iohn is not to be expounded as they haue saide but as I haue deliuered it This I hope is enough to confute that which they obiect against my interpretation of the Texts which I alleadged to prooue my generall proposition namely that there are some preparations wrought by the Spirit in men before they beleeue in Christ The generall proposition concerning preparations which was the first generall thing propounded in handling of the Rule The Tryall The cords by which God drawes man to beleeue c. The Exception The second generall herein was a speciall recitall of the particular preparations which and what they be which I say goe before faith in Christ This they first deny saying that there are none such Secondly they disproue it by giuing two reasons why there can bee none such or why some of them that I name can be none The Defence Against their bare Deniall I will onely oppose the testimonies of two learned Diuines of our owne time and countrey Maister Rogers Maister Baynes Maister Rogers speaking how the knowledge of mans misery by sinne Maister Rogers Treatise 7 8. c. 4. p. 9. ad 21. and of redemption by Christ doth worke in him on whom God will
I meane Pag. 301. 303. the putting in practise in our liues and conuersations that which the heart hath purposed concerning the leauing of our sinnes to the end the sinceritie of our Repentance may appeare And so much for answere to their Arguments whereby they indeauoured to prooue against mee vpon a misconstruction of my meaning that repentance is not begun in time before faith in Christ and consequently for answer to their first Exception against my position touching the precedency of Repentance vnto Faith in Christ the second exception followes The Exception Against my position they except in the second place that saying Repentance is begun I imply it is begun in one port at one time and finished at another time in another The Apology I answere first Maister Perkins speakes of Repentance begunne in his Treatise of Repentance chap. 1. will they make the like exception against him secondly they haue giuen no reason why repentance cannot be so begun and perfected therefore is their exception of no worth but I will giue one reason why it mâ—y bee so wrought namely because I haue already proued that regeneration may be so wrought that is in one part of it which is illumination at one time and in another part which is sanctification at another And so much for clearing my position the exposition followes The exposition of my position consists in this that I meane by the Repentance I speake of a true purpose of heart to leaue our former euill liues c. The Exception These words say they define repenâ—ance The ezposition of the position but they thinke the definition â—aught 1. because it makes repentance â—onsist in the heart onely which should be â—n the whole man soule and body 2. beâ—ause it supposeth that truth and sincerity â—f heart can goe before faith in Christ 〈◊〉 because it implyes that true repenâ—ance may be before sauing grace or faith 〈◊〉 Christ 4. and lastly because in handâ—ing this point I say a man may die with his true repentance and not be saued to â—ll which I will answere in order The Apology I answere first To the first exception that I had reason to call â—rue repentance a true purpose of heart to â—eaue our former sinnes c. 1. because â—mpenitency or vnrepentance is a purpose of heart to goe on in our former euill â—ourses and to liue in them still 2. because Mr Perkins so describes the nature of it Mr. Perkins golden chaine chap. 39. Repentance sayth hee is when a sinner turneth to the Lord this is performed when as any one by the instruction of â—he Holy Ghost doth purpose will and desire and endeauor to relinquish his former sinnes and become a new man Secondly I had no reason to make repentance to consist in the body and outward actions 1. because repentance is 〈◊〉 vertue habit or quality and so I describâ— it which onely hath his seate in the soule heart will and affections and not in anâ— part of the body 2. because the repeâ—tance of the body as they speake is noâ— the vertue it selfe but the practise of it oâ— the actuall leauing of our former sinneâ— according to the purpose of our hearâ— Now this is not a part of repentance Math. 3.2 Acts 26.20 Modell of Diuinity pa. 290. Perkins gold chaine ch 37. Buc. iustit loc 30. pag. 289. bâ— an effect or fruites of that vertue and witâ— this agree not only the Scriptures but thâ— iudgement of many learned Diuines 〈◊〉 our owne and other Countries If they say that only is true repentance which bringeth forth a godly life I answere if by true repentance theâ— meane that which in the euent shall stanâ— for true before God which in this worlâ— shall helpe forward the assurance of ouâ— saluation and in the end be crowned witâ— Heauen then I say that is true repentancâ— which bringeth forth a good life But 〈◊〉 thereby be meant as I vnderstand it thâ— which in the nature of the thing is truâ— repentance that is Repentance withouâ— dissimulation then I say true repentance iâ— an hearty sorrow for past sinnes and 〈◊〉 true purpose to leaue the same If I describe faith in Christ by it office â—s it iustifies then I will say it is a grace of God whereby a sinner trusts vnto Christ for saluation But if I describe it as it may â—e distinguished from the faith of hypoâ—rites that shall faile them then will I say â—t is a grace of God that workes by loue â—nd stirres vp vnto good workes yet is â—ot working by loue and stirring vp to good workes of the nature of Faith as it â—ustifies though it bee of the nature of that faith which iustifies but an effect of that which doth iustifie or rather a fruite of him that is iustified by faith by which he is declared and manifested to be iustified in Gods sight Euen so if I describe repentance properly and by the nature which it hath as a vertue or holy quality distinct from other graces and vertuous habits I will say it is a grace of God whereby sinners sorrow heartily for their past sinnes and purpose vnfeinedly to leaue them But if I discribe it so as it may be differenced from the repentance of hypocrites which will faile them then I will say it is a grace of God whereby a sinner sorrowing for his sinnes and purposing to leaue them doth accordingly leaue them and amenâ— his life yet is not this amendment of liâ— a part of repentance the vertue it seâ— but a effect of it and an fruite of him that hath it in his heart which the repentance of his heart is â—â—clared by the efficacy of it vnto salâ—tion And indeede to speake as the truâ— is though in respect of the inward natuâ— of the vertue it selfe and as it is seated the heart that is true repentance which iâ— sorrow for sinnes past and a purpose leaue them yet in respect of efficacy vâ— saluation in the euent and in respect manifestation that onely is true repâ—tance and is declared so to bee whiâ— bringeth forth a good life And if a mâ— may not perswade himselfe hee is â—â—ued though hee beleeue in Chriâ— except this faith bee accompanied 〈◊〉 him with inward fruites of other grâ—ces and outward fruites of a holy lifâ— then may not a man perswade himselâ— that hee hath repented vnto saluation 〈◊〉 the heart except his inward repentanâ— in sorrowing for sinnes and purposiâ— to leaue them be accompanied with outward amendment of life But they bring two reasons to proâ— that true repentance is not this true purpose of heart c. The Exception Reason 1 True repentance is not a true purpose of heart to leaue our former sinnes c. because this purpose may fayle but true repentance cannot faile The Apology I answere 1. that if wee consider this purpose and repentance onely in the nature of them they may faile for there is nothing in their nature as
preaching of repentance first by chance or fortune but by the appointment and direction of Gods Spirit therefore must it bee vppon some good ground and if vpon some vpon what more likely then this viz that the duty of repentance was one of the first duties that was required to bee practised of them that were to be saued and before they could beleeue in Christ for saluation Their reasons likewise brought to ouerthrow my consequence are insufficient The first because though it be granted that when God calleth for any one grace none of the rest are excluded but included rather yet will not this prooue that in nature repentance goes before faith but onely that they both goe together in time and that both at one time they are wroght together Now for all this circumstance the worke of Repentance may in nature goe before faith in Christ The second because though that which is first placed bee not the first wroght in as much as that which is first in words may be last in sense yet for all this may repentance be first wrought seeing it is first taught because GOD vsually wrought graces as they were taught as hath beene shewed out of the Acts but euen now and therefore repentance may bee first both in sense as well as in wordes because it is first in nature as well as in words If they had giuen any reason why repentance could not bee first in sense or nature though it were so in words then had they indeed weakened my Argument but till then it is good enough The Exception But they will say Repentance was first preached because it was first felt The Apology I answere first if they could proue this to be the reason of their preaching it first I would discard my Argument and the probability it seemes to haue 2. I would faine know a reason why the duty of faith which is beleeuing in Christ of which the question is should not be as soone felt as the duty of repenting if the one be as truly wrought as the other Indeed the duties of repentance which are hearty sorrowe for past sinnes and purpose vnfained to leaue them are sooner felt then the comfort of faith which is assurance and perswasion of saluation by Christ but I can see no reason why the one habit or vertue should not be assoone perceiued and felt in the duties of it as the other The Exception But they vrge in their answere to this Argument that in my proofe hereof I contradict something deliuered else where for first in one place I say that repentance is the first grace that is wrought in men by preaching of the Gospell pag 261. and in another place I say that other graces goe before repâ—ntance pag 259. 260. Secondly there I speake of the practise of repentance assoone as it is wrought but in another I say that practise of repentance followes faith in Christ The Apology To the first I answere that I doe not say simply pa 262. that repentance goes before all grace for I neuer meant it went before a beliefe of the Gospell the contrary is euident by the state of the question pag 231. but onely that it goes before faith in Christ of the two that is Repentance and Faith Repentance is the first Besides all those graces that are saide else where to goe before Repentance doe but prepare to it so after a sort may be said to make vp but that grace of Repentance To the second supposed contradiction I answere that the imputation is vniust for where p. 261. l. 21. I speake of the practise of repentance as soone as it is wrought I onely meant the duty of repentance in the heart or the act of repenting as it is in the soule viz actuall sorrowing for past sinnes and resoluing to leaue them and in the latter place pag. 231. 21. 22. I speake of the practise of repentance in the life and conuersation that is of the effects and fruites of it when the inward purpose of the heart to leaue sinne is brought vnto an outward act and execution and therefore betwixt these no more then betwixt the other two is there any contradiction as is pretended either to the truth of Gods word or of mine owne opinion and this is sufficient to haue saide in defence of my six Arguments against that which by some hath beene obiected against my opinion The Arguments I haue already brought to prooue my opinion being defended against the exceptions of some It remaines that as yet they stand for good so that the maine question needes no more confirmation Notwithstanding it will not bee amisse by way of aduantage to adde one more to the former to driue the nayle to the head If repentance goe in nature before remission of sinnes then it goes in nature before Faith in Christ But repentance goes in nature before remission of sinnes Therefore repentance goes in nature before faith in Christ The consequence of the proposition viz repentance goes before faith because it goes before pardon I proue thus If repentance goe before remission of sinnes and not before faith in Christ then either it must goe hand in hand with iustifying faith or come betweene iustifying faith and iustification it selfe neither of which are true First repentance doth not goe hand in hand with iustifying faith first because then it should haue as great a hand in remission of sinne as faith in Christ or we must determine what part it hath in remission secondly they cannot answere so because they say repentance is a fruit of sanctification which followes iustification and therefore repentance cannot come before iustification with iustifying faith Secondly repentance doeth not come betweene iustifying faith and iustification it selfe for the one followes so immedâ—ately on the other that nothing can come betweene for no sooner can a sinner beleeue in Christ but immediatly he hath remission of his sinnes and is iustified The assumption viz Repentance goes before remission of sinnes I prooue by testimony of Scripture The testimonies of Scripture are these Deut 30.2 Ier. 18.8 4.4 26.3 Ezek. 18 21. Zech 1.3 Act. 2.38 3.19 26.18 1. Ioa. 1.7.9 wheÌ„ce I thus reason That which is required as a condition to be performed before wee obtaine pardon is before it in nature Repentance in all those is required of sinners as a condition to be performed before they obtaine pardon Therfore repentance is before remission of sins for it cannot be denied but that howsoeuer the end as apprehended possible to be had may stirre vp a man to vse the meanes which be in order to the obseruing thereof yet the meanes must needes in nature be before the actuall obtaining of the end neither can it bee denied but that Gods Spirit in the place afore named directs vs vnto repeÌ„tance as a means of obtaining forgiuenes by the apprehension of it appointing vs to vse the means to get it With this agrees the Doct of our Church
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
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
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
and borne of the Spirit The Assumption they will prooue anone The Defence I answere by granting the consequence of the proposition but by denying the Assumption and that for this â—eason Illumination of the minde and vnderstanding with the knowledge of the mystery of the Gospell in Christ is a grace of Regeneration as well as the sanctifying of the will and affections yet may illumination be wrought in time before sanctification in the Elect because it is wrought in the reprobates without sanctification at all and therefore regeneration is not wrought all at once and together as they hauâ— alleaged That Illumination is a gracâ— of Regeneration I prooue first because it is a part of the new man Colos 3.10 Eph. 1.17 Eph. 4.23.24 Act. 26.19 Eph. 1 18. 21. secondly it is a part of the renuing Gods image iâ— vs thirdly it is a part of our turning anâ— conuersion fourthly because it is a part 〈◊〉 our spirituall quickening But let vs heare how they prooue thâ— Assumption The Exception If all Gods workes be perfect in theiâ— seuerall kindes so that when part of theâ— is wrought the other is wrought also then is regeneration wrought all at oncâ— and together so that when one gracâ— thereof is wrought all other of the same kind are wrought also at the same time But the first is true therefore the second The consequence they take for good because regeneration is one of the workeâ— of God that argue his perfection in working yea one of the chiefest of them The Assumption they thinke needes no proofe The Apology I answere by granting the consequence but by denying the Assumption 1. Because the Creation of the world was not perfected in all the parts thereof all at once but successiiuely and in sixe dayes 2. The creation â—f Adam was not for his soule was created and put into his body in likelihood in time after his body was framed 3. Sexin lacte dies ter sunt in sanguine trinibis seni carnem ter seni membra figurant The generation of man man which is Gods worke is not perfected all at one instant for neither is the body perfect all at one instant but in some dayes and weekes after the child is conceiued and begotten nor is the soule put into the body as soone as it is begotten and conceiued but some dayes and weekes after the child is conceiued and begotten for the man is not perfect till both soule and body be vnited together fourthly Iesus Christ doth frame the Church and make it perfect not all at once and together but successiuely by calling one member after another and adding them thereunto Act. 2.47 Heb. 11.40 Eph. 4.12 I grant all Gods workes are perfect in their seuerall kindes with that perfection which God intends them at seuerall time but one time they may be imperfect in regard of the whole for vnto some part that are already wrought others may bâ— added at other times when God pleaseth I grant also that if by regeneration thâ— meane Gods making a man actually hâ— childe then is regeneration wrought all one instant and together for that graâ— that giues him prerogatiue to bee God sonne viz faith in Christ is wrought all 〈◊〉 once and together but if by regeneratioâ— be meant euery or any grace of the Spiâ— tending or disposing thereunto or aâ— part of regeneration then I say regeneration may be begun in one part at one timâ— and perfected in another grace at anotheâ— time as hath beene shewed in the instand of Illumination and Sanctification but â—uen now and as may be further declareâ— by peace of conscience and ioy in the holâ— Ghost which are graces of regeneratioâ— yet are not wrought all at one instant wiâ— faith in Christ at least not in all men bâ— some time after Neither can this bee any way a dispâ—ragement to God which workes it thuâ— if hee please so to worke seeing his wiâ— caÌ„not disparage his power nor his pleasuâ— his wisedome therefore their first Aâ—gument is not strange enough to proue the question the second followes The Exception If a true change of the heart The second Argument cannot bee begun in time before a sauing faith then repentance cannot be begun in time before a sauing faith But the one is true therefore the oâ—her The consequence they say is good because repentance is a true change of the heart the Assumption they proue The Defence I answere if by a true change of the heart be meant the change of the whole soule in all the parts and powers thereof â—hen I deny the consequence and grant the Assumption For the repentance I speake of is not such a change But if thereby he meant an hearty sorrow for sinne and a true change of the purpose of the heart without hypocrisie to leaue sinne then I grant the consequence and deny the Asâ—umption for this change of the heart may â—e begunne in time before a sauing faith But they proue their Assumption thus The Exception If the beginning of a true change 〈◊〉 the heart do presuppose that faith in Chriâ— death and resurrection goes in time befoâ— this change then a true change of thâ— heart cannot bee begunne in time before sauing faith But the first is true therefore the sâ—cond The consequence they thinke none wiâ— deny The assumption they offer to prooâ— out of my booke where page 301 refrâ—ning sinne is made a fruite of faith anâ— page 310. we are sayd to draw downe veâ—tue from Christs death to die vnto sinnâ— and from his resurrection to walke in neâ—nesse of life The Apology I answere 1. generally that this argumeâ— directly crosseth the first Argument for sauing graces be wrought all at once aâ— together then cannot a true change of tâ— heart presuppose faith in Christ death to goe before this change in time Secony and more particularly I answere thâ— The consequence I grant the assumption I deny for I doe not say which is the question that at the first conuersion when the heart beginnes first to be changed this change doth presuppose faith in Christ to be in it at the same instant and that there can be no refraining of sinne in any measure so much as begunne till there bee in men faith in Christ whereby they drawe downe vertue from his death and resurrection c. But I onely affirme there that refraining of sinne for conscience sake in sincerity and in a setled and constant course is a fruite of faith and requires vertue from Christs death and resurrection to bee drawne downe by faith in Christ and so doth power to mortifie our corrupt nature in the lusts of it and to quicken vs in our new man to cheerefull constant and conscionable new obedience require and presuppose this faith in Christs death and resurrection faith that Christs obedience Actiue and Passive hath merited pardon and that if we repent and beleeue therein wee shall be pardoned is with Gods Spirit sufficient
to soften and change the heart as farre as in repentance sticktly taken is required It is true Repentance is a change oâ— the heart for in repentance the heart 〈◊〉 changed first in the affection of ioy 〈◊〉 sorrow for whereas a sinner before his repentance reioyced in doing euill now he sorrowes for the euill hee hath done Sâ—condly in the purpose of doing for wherâ— as formerly he purposed to liue in his siâ— Now he purposeth to leaue them but thiâ— change of the heart may be wrought before faith in Christ as well as the changâ— of the minde from darknesse to light 〈◊〉 wrought before it Acts 26 18. and the change may bâ— true in the one that is the heart as well aâ— in the other that is the minde Indeede the beginning of the changâ— of the heart doth presuppose that faitâ— which is a beleefe of threatnings to thâ— impenitent and promises to the repeâ—tant which comprehends a beleefe of thâ— truth of the death and resurrection 〈◊〉 Christ and in the elect the beginning 〈◊〉 this change of the heart doth suppose thâ— faith in Christs death and resurrection wâ— follow for the perfecting of it in mortifâ—cation and viuification But it is not truâ— that the beginning of this change doth pâ— suppose this faith as present at the very iâ—staÌ„nt wheÌ„ this change is a beginning whicâ— is the question and which is not proue by this Argument and therefore it proues nothing the third followes The Exception If a man can neuer beginne to returne till he beleeue that God will bee mercifull to him in speciall The third argument then repentance is not begunne in time before a sauing faith But the first is true therefore the second The Apology The consequence is naught 1. because it takes for granted which I deny that a beleefe that God will be mercifull to a man in speciall that is in particular to Iohn and William is a sauing faith This is false 1. because this is but an assent to the truth of a proposition such a beleefe is but an Historicall faith and such a faith is not a sauing faith 2. because such an assent cannot be faith because it doth not rest vpon the authority of God reuealing it in Scripture for hee hath reuealeth no such thing touching the saluation of any particular man but generally to all but vpon this beleeuing in Christ Indeede it is reuealed that God will be mercifull in generall to mankinde and in speciall to those of mankind which beleeue in Christ so that till they beleeue in Christ they may not beleeue or perswade themselues that God will be mercifull to them in speciall Before sinners doe beleeue in Christ they may beleeue and perswade themselues it is possible for God to haue mercy on them and that God will certainely be mercifull to them when they repent and beleeue in Christ but before this they may not For though exhortations to repentance are founded commonly vpoâ— the mercy of God in the Gospell yet noâ— vpon the Mercy of God already receiueâ— by iustifying faith but offered by God and to be receiued vpon Repentance anâ— faith in Christ for the conditions must be performed before we may expect the accomplishing of the promise and we musâ— feele in our selues by the reflexe of our owâ— conscience that we do indeede hartily sorrow for our past sins and purpose vnfeinedly to leaue them before we may rest oâ— Christ or trust to him for saluation foâ— till then wee are not persons well qualified to receiue mercy nor fit to trusâ— in him for it so as to bee sure to obtaine it certainely in the end for though the Scripture say Repent for the Kingdome of Heauen is at hand yet doth it not say repent for yee are all ready in the Kingdom of Heauen by a iustifying faith Secondly the consequence is naught because it prooues no more but that repentance is not begunne till faith in Christ and not that it is nor begun in time before it for betwixt these two propositions there is great difference as hath bin wel obserued by them in their answer to my 3 argument The Assumption likewise is not true 1. because a man may beginne to returne by illumination for that is a turning of men from darkenesse to light except they neede not repent of their ignorance and infidelity 2. Acts. 26 18. because a man may begin to returne by a beleefe of that word that threatens the impenitent and for feare of punishment he may also proceede further herein by a beleefe of that word which promiseth mercy to the repentant and in hope of pardon but a man must beginne to returne before he beleeue that God will be mercifull to him in speciall or else hee will neuer begin to returne because there is no such speciall promise in the word to be beleeued as may appeare by this reason The beleefe that God will be mercifull to a man in speciall must be either absolute or conditionall Absolute it cannot be because no man can beleeue in this manner absolutely but he to whom such mercy is absolutely promised Now in the word there is mercy promised to none but vnder the condition of repentance and faith in Christ nor is this mercy promised in speciall and particular but in generall to all mankind viz. which beleeue in Christ If it be not absolute then is it condâ—tionall if conditionall then may not a sinner beleeue that God will be mercifull to him in speciall till he haue performed the condition And therefore for all this their third reason is weake and sinners may beginne to repent in time before they beleeue in Christ The Exception The fourth argument There is a fourth reason alledged to disproone my supposed position of repenting some space of time before beleeuing in Christ viz. because I say page 231 301. 303. that the practise of repentance followes faith meaning in time The Apology This reason is not worth the framing or answering for it answeres it selfe Hee that speakes of the practise of Repentance following faith and thereby meanes the actuall performing of that concerning his former sins which he hath purposed viz the leauing of theÌ„ necessarily implies that a purpose to leaue them doth goe before faith in Christ Oh but say they the following of the practise is in time therefore the going before of the purpose is in time also I deny the consequence because to the one there is no need of time that is betwixt a beginning to repent and beleeuing in Christ there needes no space of time but betwixt beleeuing in Christ and practising repentance there is required space of time viz all our life after Indeed in one place I meane by the practising of Repentance Pag. 261. l. 25. the action of Repentance with the heart or purposing so to doe and this I say goes before faith in Christ that is in nature not in time but by practise of Repâ—ntance viz
he beleeue in Christ This I shall easily disprooue by one that was no Proselyte nor euer had faith in Christ for ought the Scripture saith yet doeth the Lord say of him concerning one action viz Gen 20.6 the taking away of Sarah Abrahams wife that he knew he did it in the integrity of his heart now if the heart of one man may be sincere in respect of Chastity before he haue Faith in Christ why may not the heart of another bee vpright in respect of Repentance before faith in Christ I doe not say or meane with that integrity that is acceptable to God vnto saluation but with that which is some way acceptable viz for the obtayning of temporall blessings and remouing the like euils and punishments For as a regenerate man though otherwise sincere and vpright generally yet in some particular actions may dissemble and play the hypocrite as Dauid in the matter of Vriah and Bathsheba euen so an vnregenerate man may in many of his action generally be naught and vnsound deceitfull and hypocriticall and yet in some one sincere and vpright To the third Exception In like manner their third exception iâ— friuolous for it supposeth an vntruth for the foundation of it viz that no true re-repentance can goe before sauing grace or faith in Christ the contrary is plaine in the Niniuites who are said to repent Ionah 3.4 5. â—at 12.41 and yeâ— is it not reuealed that euer they had a sauing faith If any say that theirs was not true repentance It is disprooued first because it was wrought through a beliefe of the word preached secondly because the holy Ghosâ— calles it Repentance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Math. 12.41 thirdly because it was manifested so to be by the signes of their sorrow for their sinnes in fasting and humiliation and by the practise of their purpose in leauing their sinnes Ionah 3.10 Or if any chance to say the Niniuites had sauing grace or faith in Christ It cannot bee proued seeing the sauing grace of Iesus Christ was neuer preached to them by the Gospell for ought can be shewed Indeed their repentance in some sence might be cald a sauing grace because it saued them from a temporall destruction threatned to come vpon them within forty dayes if they had not repented but it saued them not from the eternall punishment of their finnes And now to the last Exception In handling the exposition of my position It is alleadged that I say To the fourth Exception a man may die with this beginning of Repentance and not be saued I answere that they mistake and doe me wrong in this collection for it is not a flat position but a supposition not that an Elect child of God may die with this repentance but that if it were possible for him to dye in this state hauing onely sorrow for his sinnes and purpose to leaue them and not faith in Christ yet could he not be saued and my reason is because he hath not that grace that entitles him to Christs benefits and vnites him vnto Christ for the partaking of them without which no man or woman of yeeres of discretion and vnderstanding can be saued If any obiect it was to no end to make a supposition of an impossibility I answere it is indeed impossible any such euent should fall out as the dying of an Elect vessell with a beginning of Repentance and without faith in Christ and consequently without saluation therfore in respect of the euent such a supposition is needlesse but for all this there is some end of such a supposition in regard of that vse that may be made thereof viz to prooue the absolute necessitie of faith in Christ in all men and women of age and discretion which is so necessary that with no otheâ— grace either of Repentance Loue Patience or Obedience wee can please Goâ— vnto saluation the reason is because bâ— no grace else besides faith haue we Christ to please God for vs vnto our saluation Our Sauiour Christ makes a suppositâ—on about the deceiuing of the Elect wheâ— he faith that the false Apostles should dâ—ceiue if it were possible the very Elecâ— shall any man say this supposition wâ— idle Math. 24 24. because it was of an impossibility God forbid for though it were idle iâ— respect of the euent because it is impossible for any of the Elect so to be deceiueâ— and corrupted by the heresies of false teachers yet is it not idle in respect of the 〈◊〉 and end which Christ aymed at thereiâ— which was to shewe that the subtilty 〈◊〉 false Apostles Priests and Preachers in thâ— Antichristian Church by the depth of Sathan should be so great and they shoulâ— so faire preuaile with their pleasiâ— doctrines and lying words that if it were possible the very Elect should be deceiued thereby to the end that they might take heed how they heard them or gaue credit to their doctrine but abandon it and them as appeares by the 25. and 26. verses Secondly I answere to their exception suppose I meant positiuely that a man might die with this repentance and bee damned yet is not this vntrue vnderstanding by this true repentance that which I doe viz onely sorrow for sinne and purpose to leaue it without dissimulation as in the case of Abab and the Niniuites and not the tree with the fruite the purpose with the practise the change of the heart with the change of the liâ—e Obiect 1 Oh but say they though in one place I say repentance is not sufficient to saluation pag 232. yet in another I say the repentance of the Publicans Harlots was sufficient to their saluation I answere that there is no contradiction betweene these two places Solut. for in the former I doe not say it was not repentance sufficient vnto saluation but that it was not grace sufficient to saluation good cause by reason of the supposition that sauing faith is not yet wrought pag. 275. Neither doe I say in the latter place that the repentance of the Publicans was grace sufficient to saluation but that it was repentance sufficient thereunto for who knowes not by all that discourse that I speake of repentance properly and strictly therein and take repenting for an action of the soule and as it is a vertuous quality seated in the heart and what can be more required of the heart for repenting then harty sorrowing for sinnes and vnfained purpose to leaue them Indeed God requires more of the repenting sinner then this sorrow and purpose for he requires practise of this purpose and new obedience but practise is not repentance it selfe but a fruit of it and new obedience in life is not a part of repentance to constitute it but an effect to testifie it not to be the nature of it but the efficacy thereof vnto iustification Obiect 2 Oh but say they to this Repentance begun before faith is promised forgiuenes of sinnes
True but not directly or immediately as if it were the hand to lay hold thereupon or the instrument to receiue it for that is faith onely which laies hold vpon Christ the Sauiour himselfe and receiues him but because it is a way and meanes together with other preparing graces to fit vs for faith whereby wee are entitled to Christ and all his benefits euen as Heauen is promised to patience to loue aâ—d new obedience Ioa 3.16 Rom. 1.17 because in the Elect they are fruits of faith to which it is promised directly and immediately as the hand and instrument to apply and apprehend it The repentance I speake of viz sorrow for sinne and purpose to leaue it is auaileable to saluation that is to qualifie vs for it but not that whosoeuer hath this and no more grace shall be saued and forgiuen for what then should become of faith in Christ but because in the Elect they which haue this wrought in them as a preparation to faith shall in time haue faith wrought in them also to the end they may be saued Philip. 1. for God will perfect his worke in them when he begins it Now I come to the third and last thing propounded about the position it selfe of the precedâ—â—cy of repentance The handling of the position vnto faith in Christ which is the handling of the position which is done three wayes 1. by prouing it 2. by clearing of it and 3. by applying it The Triall The point is prooued two wayes first by the testimony of a learned Diuine sâ—condly by reasons taken from Scripturâ— and none of all these like them The Exception The proouing of the point or portion by testimony The testimony is Mr. Perkins and â—gainst it they except two wayes first thâ— say I mistake the meaning of the authoâ— for hee is not vnderstood to speake of râ—pentance before or without faith in Chrâ— but with it secondly though I had nâ— mistaken his meaning yet is it but one siâ—gle testimony because I had no more anâ— thirdly that his minde concerning thâ— point is not there declared directly and 〈◊〉 set purpose as it is else where but occâ—sionally and by the way onely in anotheâ— discourse and that it is deliuered in 〈◊〉 booke that he neuer perused before he died but was put out after his death The Apology I answere to the end wee may rightly conceiue To the first Exception and distinctly vâ—derstand thâ— meaning of Mr. Perkins in the words alleadged wee must take three things foâ— granted which cannot be denied first thaâ— he speakes of a certaine order betwixt that repenting and beleeuing and the laying hold of the promise there spoken of 2. That hee sayth the order he speakes of iâ— Gods order 3. That the order of God about repenting beleeuing laying hold of the promise is to be obserued in Baptisme This being premised In the next place wee come to speake what the order is in Mr. Perkins Iudgement namely whether repenting go before beleeuing or beleeuing before repenting Some say his meaning is first beleeue and lay hold of the promise then repent of your sinnes I say first beleeue the Gospell then repent of your sinnes then by hold of the promise of forgiuenesse and eternall life by faith in Christ For their coniecture at his meaning they giue no reason but against it my reason is this If their coniecture were right then the beleeuing hee speakes of and the laying hold of the promises were all one faith but that cannot be Mr. Perkins minde because he euidently distinguisheth betwixt them for the beleeuing he speakes of he ioyes with repenting and the beleeuing that he ioynes with repenting he distinguisheth from laying hold of the promises that shall be made cleare thus The beleeuing that hee ioynes with repenting makes men Christs Disciples that appeares page 257. Col. 1. B. in these words marke first it is sayd make them my Disciples by calling them to beleeue aâ—â— repent and the making men Christs Disciples by calling them to beleeue and repent doth in the order there spoken of bâ— Mr. Perkins go before laying hold of thâ— promises because speaking of prophaâ—â— men that do not consider the order whicâ— God vseth in couenanting with men iâ— Baptisme he sayth they deale prepostâ—rously ouerslipping the commandement oâ— repenting and beleeuing and in the firsâ— place lay hold of promises made to them iâ— Baptisme ibid Col. 2. B. So that if the order of God peruerted by prophane man be in Mr. Perkins opinion first to lay hold of the promises and then to beleeue and repent then the order of God rightly kept by the godly must needes be first to obserue the commandment of God by beleeuing and repenting that is first to beleeue the Gospell and repent and then to lay hold of the promises that is by faith in Christ to rest and rely on his merits for saluation the rather is this true because in the same place Col. 2. C. and vpon the former words he inferres that which I haue cited in my Treatise viz. wee must as good Disciples obey the commandement which bids vs turne and beleeue before we can haue any benefit or profit by the promise of God c. Obiect 1 Oh but say they he meanes not repenting without beleeuing in Christ Solut. True vnderstanding it in respect of time not of order for repentance may be with faith in time and without it in nature but the question is of the precedency of repentance to faith not in time but in nature M. Perkins meaning in that place say I is that by the order of God which is the order of nature repenting goeth before laying hold of the promise and therefore repentance by his iudgment in that place must goe before faith in Christ For in his opinion faith in Christ is a laying hold or an apprehending for a mans selfe Perk. on the Reue. ch 2. v. 14. and an Iud. v. 1. or applying the promises of God in Christ Obiect 2 Oh but say they Mr. Perkins ioynes repentance with beleeuing therefore the repentance he meanes is not without faith but with it True Solut. but the beleeuing he ioynes with repentance is not sauing faith for that is laying hold of the promises by faith in Christ which he disioynes from beleeuing ioyned with repenting but a beleefe of the Gospell which is the meanes of repentance pag. 257. Col. 1. A. Col. 2. B. Because in the second place they except against this testimony that it is therefore in sufficient because it is but one anâ— it is therefore but one because I had 〈◊〉 more therefore now will I shew why cited but one and that I haue more I brought but one testimony because thought it enough in regard it was the tâ—stimony of so learned godly a Diuine 〈◊〉 our age and Country whose workes praiâ— him in the gates of our Ierusalem And now will I adde vnto that oâ—
the way to another Baptisme that is of Christ and therefore he saide that they should beleeue in one that was to come after himselfe Next to the ancient Doctors follow the latter but learned Diuines Let vs saith Caluin prepare the way Caluins comment on Luke 3.4 that is leauing our sinnes which stoppe the way to the Kingdome of God let vs giue accesse vnto his grace â—elancth proâ—gom on â—e Epistle to â—â—e Romans Iustification saith Melanctâ—on ought to be vnderstood of the good will of God accepting vs not infusing into vâ— habits that is vertues and yet there ought to be vertues in vs because the Gospell preacheth Repentance and Faith cannot be but in RepentaÌ„ce therfore to the end our faith may be increased â—â—scators commentary on Luk. 3.4 our repentance must be increased That Christ may come into vs saith Piscator as our Sauiour wee must prepare the way vnto him by true Repentance by bringing forth fruits worthy of Repentance Faith saith Rolloc doth alwayes follow a heart deiected and contrite in the sight of sinne and and misery Rollocks commentary on Ioa. 5.44 Dietericus Instit Catecheticae pag 241. de aenitentia Good workes follow Faith but Faith is in none but thâ—se that are conuerted I know well that they alleadge many testimonies against me both out of ancient and latter writers but being well considered they make nothing against me therefore one answere will serue for all for if they say Faith goes before Repentance they speake either of a beliefe of the word or of amendment of life When they speake of Faith which is a beliefe of the Word then the sense is a sinner must beleeue the threatning of the Word to the impenitent and the promises of it to the repentant before hee will sorrow for his sinnes or purpose to leaue them and to this purpose spake Clemens Alexandrinus of the precedency of Faith vnto Repentance saying Cleâ— Alexandâ— Stro â— 2 lâ— et graece p 7 Repentance is the office and worke of Faith for vnlesse a sinner belieue that there was sinne wherewith he was formerly held he will not be remoued and vnlesse he beleeue that punishment hangeth ouer his head which offendeth and that saluation is promised for him that liueth according to the coÌ„mandements he will not be changed Answerable to which is that knowne place of St. Ambrose Ambros de penitentia l. 1. c. 1 No man can repent rightly but hee that hopes for pardon In like manner when they speake of repentance that is amendment of life their meaning is a sinner must belieue in Christ before he amend his life Augus Se d tempore Seâ— 7. Hom 10. Gal 5.6 and practise new obedience and in this sense is St Augustine to be vnderstood where hee speakes of Repentance saying Nothing makes true Pepentance but the hatred of sinne and the loue of God the fire of this sacrifice is loue for that repentance that proceeds from the loue of God must proceed from faith in Christ for faith workes by loue Gal 5.6 but faith workes not by loue our first repentancâ— at our first conuersion which is sorrow for sinne and purpose to leaue it but amendment of life which followes faith Farre bee it from mee to presume to blame those worthy Authours for speaking promiscuously of Repentance the vertue and amendment of life the fruite thereof there is warrant enough from Scripture phrase so to speake in regard that where the one is the other also is or shall be in due time in the Elect for the one is the way to the other the repentance of the heart is the meanes to the repentance of the life that is amendment of the life But I blame those that oppose my opinion for producing such testimonies against mee when either they speake not of the same faith or not of the same repentance that I doe for touching faith they speak of a beleefe of the word and I of beleeuing in Christ and as for repentance I speake of the vertue it selfe they of the fruite of that vertue I of the purpose they of the practise my repentance is inward in the heart their outward in the life mine in the affections their in the actions for I haue often and plainely affirmed that a beliefe of the Word and Gospell goes before any repentance Ionah 3 5. and that faith in Christ goes before the practise of repentance in amendment of life and in the mortifying of our sinfull nature that it breake not out to the committing of the same sinnes againe To the third and last exception I answere that those allegations doe rather fortifie the testimony for mee then any way weaken it To the third 〈◊〉 last exception against the testimony out oâ— Mr. Perkins and make rather against them that alleadge it for first in that it is vrged the point was deliuered but in a passage only where he had no such cause to discourse of that matter this shewes that hee had the better minde to deliuer it belike because he thought it needfull and profitable to be opened and that hee was more confident in the trueth thereof secondly In that it is said the booke out of which the testimony was taken was the last of his writings which hee had not leasure to peruse and that it was put out after his death this implies that hee wrote that booke when he was of most sound and setled iudgement and that therefore the Doctrine in question was most free from exception and least needed correction and therefore howsoeuer there may seeme some contradiction in his other workes to that which is here deliuered yet must the last writing be esteemed a retractation of the first rather then the first of his writings should be produced against this last for the confutation of it And thus much of handling the point in question by proouing it and of proouing it by the testimonies of men now followes the proouing of it by arguments taken from Scripture which of the six generals was the fourth point propoundâ—d to bee obserued in discussing this question The Arguments are in number six but in weight they are all found too light We will examine their exceptions in order The Triall Repentance is begunne before Faith in Christ The first Argument because the Repentance of the Publicans and Harlots Mat. 21.31 was begunne before their Faith and theirs was true Repentance and sauing Faith The Exception To this they answere by granting that the Repentance and Faith of the Publicans and Harlâ—t were true and sauing but by denying that their repentance was to their Faith as a meanes to an end for say they the Text in Mathew shewes this onely that the Pharisees perseuered in their infidelity and abode in their vnbeliefe though the Publicans and Harlots beleeued or that the Pharisees neither repented not beleeued though the Publicans and Harlots did both before whom they should haue gone into
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
looking to the order and meanes which God in his word hath prescribed for the working of those graces hee doth not giue power and efficacy enough to worke repentance before faith in Christ and that therefore it cannot be so wrought Secondly against them that hold repentance cannot be wrought before faith in Christ as well as that it is not begun before it for this is their opinion as well as that in the sense that I haue named It is direct to prooue that repentance may bee begunne before this faith and to prooue that repentance may bee begunne before this faith it is to good purpose to shewe that as great a worke as the beginning of repentance is wrought before it viz a beliefe of the Gospell for the full working of one euangelicall and supernaturall grace in all the parts of it is a greater worke then the beginning of another and the working of that by fewer meanes is a greater worke then the beginning of this by more These points haue beene prooued in my Treatise concerning the working of a beliefe of the Gospell and the beginning of repentance and if they had answered them well they should haue prooued either that a beliefe of the Gospell is not a harder worke in it selfe considered and looking vnto the meanes of working then a beginning of repentance or if it were that it will not follow thereupon that therefore a beginning of repentance is not wrought before faith in Christ but neither of these are done and therefore for all this the argument stands vpright in that probability of truth which it hath except they will take the state and authority vpon them that their very deniall shall be a sufficient confutation Indeed they cauill at some particular passages in the prosecution of this argument but they are not worth the answering here because my argument is no whit weakened by them and besides they haue beene and shall bee vpon other occasions answered else where and so at last I come to my last Argument The Tryall Repentance is begunne before faith because it was preached before faith for it was the first Doctrine that was preached by Iohn Baptist The sixt Argument by Christ by his Disciples and Apostles The Exception To this Argument they answere first by saying it is but a weake one and that by the iudgement of Mr. Caluin secondly by denying both antecedent and the consequence The Antecedent because say they God doeth not alwayes call for repentance first but sometimes for faith in Christ Acts 10.43 and though he did yet is faith included The consequence for say they it doth not follow that because repentance was the first Doctrine that was preached therefore it was the first grace that was wrought in the hearers first because when God calleth for any grace none of the rest are excluded but included rather Acts 16.31 Secondly because that which is first placed is not alwayes first wrought the last in words may be the first in sense The Apology First I answere generally to the whole Argument If this were all the Arguments that could be brought to prooue the point and that the weight of the cause lay on this foundation then would it be but weakely supported it might truely be said of it as Mr. Caluin doth that it is too weake Caluins Institution l. c. 5. for Mr. Caluin speakes of such as onely relye on this Argument which I doe not the contrary is seene by fiue other on foure whereof I relye and not on this sixt nor the fift Secondly Musculus a learned interpreter from hence that repentance was the first Doctrine which those preached plainly collects that the Doctrine of repentance hath the beginning and principles of the Doctrine of grace his wordes are these In this place saith Musculus Iohn requires Repentance Musculus comment on Math. 3.2 which the Prophets call turning to God and of which the Angell pâ— his father in minde when he said he shoulâ— turne many of the childaen of Israel to thâ— Lord Luk. 1.17 viz to call sinners to thâ— acknowledgement of their euill life and tâ— a change of their minde and true piety tâ— God and this preaching of repentance iâ— such that not onely is it necessary to the eâ— those that haue sinned may bee capable of grace but without which no man hath accesse vnto the throne of grace according tâ— Heb. 6.12 And this is the Reason why Iohn and Christ also and after him thâ— Apostles did first preach repentance tâ— them that were to be conuerted vnto God So that in Musculus opinion Repentance in nature goes before accesse to the throne of grace and before our being capable of grace and consequently before faith by which onely wee haue this liberty viz because Repentance was the first Doctrine which they preached to their hearers Secondly and more specially in defence of the Antecedent I say that whereas for the confutation of my Antecedent they bring two Reasons I will answere to them seuerally First God doeth not alwayes call for faith in Christ first for in that place first he preached Iohns Baptisme of Repentance ver 37. and of the day of Iudgement v. 42. which comparing Acts 13.24 with Acts 17.30.31 require repentance Secondly though faith were included in the Doctrine of repentance yet the including of it in that Doctrine Acts 10.43 No more prooues the precedency in nature of faith in Christ vnto Repentance which is their opinion then the precedency of Repentance vnto Faith which is mine To the consequence I answere first that notwithstanding their Reasons it is very probable if we consider these particulars First that the preaching of Iohn Christ and the Apostles was effectuall to some of their hearers Secondly that this efficacy of their preaching consisted in working through Gods blessings in their hearers an ability to doe the duties they taught and whereunto they did exhort Thirdly that this ability of doing those duties was wrought in them as the Doctrines were taught or when they were preached as appeares plainely in the Apostles for the rest Acts 14.1.2 Acts 18.8 So that if Repentance were the first duty which all these taught teaching were the meanes whereby they were inabled to doe it and this ability were giuen to them anâ— wrought in them as they preacht it thâ— must Repentance bee the first grace thaâ— was wrought because it was the first thaâ— was preacht and taught in their ministery I meane vsually and ordinarily not limiting God alwayes thus to worke without alteration the rather because they were wrought by preaching to make them capable of saluation 1. Cor. 1.21 And they might as conueniently be wrought in their hearers for that end according to the order in which they are taught as any otheâ— way or in any other order and manner Secondly I answere to the consequence for as much as it is euident that neither Iohn noâ— Christ neither the Disciples noâ— Apostles did hit vpon the
We haue a perpetuall rule saith the Homily appointed vnto vs which ought to be obserued and kept at all times Ser. of repentance 1. part in the beginning and there is none other way whereby the wrath of God may be pacified and his anger asswaged that the fiercenesse of his fury may depart and bee remooued and taken away where he saith But now therefore saith the Lord Ioel. 2.14 returne vnto me It is not without great importance that the Prophet speaketh so for hee had afore set foorth at large vnto them the horible vengeance of God which no man was able to abide and so he doth moue them to repentance to obtaine mercy Answerable to this is the Catechisme appointed to be taught in publick schooles where he saith Nowels Catch in quar fol. 5. Repentance is most necessary for sinners to the obtaining of the mercy of God and afterward Fol. 47. 48. sinners for the obtaining of pardon haue need of repentance And hereunto consents Doctor White Doct. Franc s Whites defenceÌ„ pag. 17. where he saith Ordinarily before the Lord forgiueth fowle enormous monstrous sins a sinner beginneth to detest forsake them I might and could heape vp many other testimonies both out of the Fathers and latter Writers for the further proofe thereof but that I thinke it needlesse for I suppose my aduersaries will not deny it and if they grant that repentance in nature goes before pardon then must they grant also that it goes in nature before faith in Christ Act. 10.43 for we beleeue in Christ for pardon The Triall The first Obiection Repentance is not begunne before faith in Christ for then it should be sinne for whatsoeuer is before faith is without it and whatsoeuer is without faith is sinne Rom. 14. c. This they call a solid and sound Argugument but it hath nothing but a sound and shew of truth or proofe as hath and shall appeare yet more clearely God willing To this Argument I answered by denying the Antecedent viz whatsoeuer is without Faith in Christ is sinne and because the supposed truth of this proposition stands vpon the interpretation of a place of Scripture Rom 14. therefore did I answere they did not rightly expound it first because the faith mentioned in the place alleadged is not faith in Christ the Faith vnderstood in the question but another kinde of Faith viz a perswasion to the conscience of warrant to doe the things wee doe The Exception To make good their interpretation of Romans 14. vlt. and consequently their Antecedent they now bring testimonies of Diuines and reasons from Scripture First say they the text hath beene a thousand times vrged by the learned against the Pelagians and Papists in this sense The Apology I answere first it cannot be denied but the text Rom. 14. vlt. hath beene expounded by many Diuines of faith in Christ but neither do the ancients so interpret it Patres fidem scientiam libertatis exponunt quae conscientiaÌ„ precedit vel bonam vel malam eam facit Calvin Iustit l 3. c. 13. ss 17. Zanchiusde operibus Dei lib. 4. chap. 1. pag. 420 Paraeas ad Rom. c. 14. ver vlt. A learned Diuine of Germany vpon the same place confesseth as much in his commentary Nor do all the latter Interpreters For Caluin in his commentary vpon that place and in his institutions expounds it as I doe and Zanchius Nor if they did all interpret it one after another may their exposition be admitted against or besides the interpretation which the Holy Ghost in the precedent and subsequent verses of the text giues of that place it selfe which is the same with that I haue alleadged That this interpretation of Rom. 14. vlt is not to be vnderstood of Faith in Christ but of another faith as I haue alleadged is euident by considering that v. 2. of the same chapter Paul speakes of beleeuing that I may eate this or that meate vers 5. of esteeming one day aboue another or all dayes alike and of full perswasion in our mindes about the obseruation of them verse 14. of knowledge and perswasion concerning thâ—â— cleanenesse or vncleanesse of meates that iâ— the lawfulnes or the vnlawfulnesse of theâ— to be eaten verse 22. of hauing faith with our selues which is opposed to doubting or feare and lastly verse 23 the verse out of which the words are quoted of allowing or condemning our selues in the things wee do Neither of all which haue any affinity with the nature of a sauing faith which is the casting of our selues oâ— Christ and the relying on his merits for saluation or the beleeuing in his name for it of which there is not one word in the whole Chapter Besides the Apostle Rom. 14.23 doth not deliuer a rule for all our morall actions that are either commanded or forbidden the rule whereof is his written law but for those actions that be in nature such as those of which he speakes in that place viz. indifferent actions in themselues neither simply commanded nor forbidden neitheâ— good or euill which may prooue in the euent either good or euill according as his opinion iudgement â—nd conscience is of the lawfulnesse or vnâ—â—wfulnesse of them Now in these actiâ—ns for the giuing of vs a warrant to do â—r not to doe them there is no neede of â—aith in Christ the perswasion or beleefe â—â—at wee haue in our conscience by the â—â—ght of nature true reason or the word is â—â—le enough to warrant vs in the doing of â—hem or leauing of them vndone and this 〈◊〉 that faith whereof Paul speakes ver 23 Rom. 14. Adde vnto these two reasons this for a third the Apostle doth not in the place cited set downe a Rule how any or all our actions may be accepted of God vnto saluation in which case he must haue treated of faith in Christ without which it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 Heb. 11.6 but. how we may know whether in our owne conscience our actions are warrantable for vs to doe them or to leaue them vndone Now in this case there is no neede of faith in Christ the perswasion or beleefe that wee haue vppon the former grounds of nature reason or the word do warrant vs in the doing or not doing of them because these tell vs and we beleeue it for truth that they be not vnlawfull and forbidden actions In my Treatise I haue giuen one reasoâ— more why in that place of the Romans by faith should not be meant faith in Christ but a beleefe of warrant to our consciences for the things we do namely becausâ— though a true beleeuer in Christ haâ—â— faith in him yet he sinnes in the actions 〈◊〉 doth if hee haue not another faith theâ— this viz. a warrant to his conscience for the thing hee doth vppon some good grounds for he cannot chuse but sinne thaâ— rushly rusheth vpon the doing of somâ—thing not being perswaded
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
regeneration If God be mooued for his infinite mercy and free grace in Christ to bestow faith vpon sinners when as yet Christ is not in them actually why may hee not vpon the same grounds and for the same reasons for Christs sake begin sanctification in them when as yet Christ is not actually in them The Exception Obiect 2 Oh but say they how can sanctification be wrought before they haue faith in Christ whereby they drawe downe vertue from his sanctification to that end The Apology I answere First 1. Cor. 1.30 Christ is made vnto vs wisedome as well as sanctification and illumination of one Elect descends from Christs wisedome vpon them and this discends before faith in Christ Why then may not a beginning of sanctification All our good is from Christ but all is not drawne from Christ by faith for preuenting grace is not so drawne Are wee not called before we are iustified Rom. 8.30 In like manner all that is drawne is not from Christ as ours by iustifying faith for faith it selfe is not so drawne for that faith should bee before and after it selfe and if faith be not so drawne why should Repentance Secondly For the Spirit blowes where when and as it lists so in what measure and order it pleaseth him to beginne and finish the work so that as long as the begining of Repentance and sanctification in the preparations though before faith in Christ be not attributed to the worke of Natute or good vse of our owne Free-wil but onely to the worke of the Spirit in the Elect which yet is not sufficient to saluation nor acceptable thereunto without faith in Christ I can see no inconuenience in holding a beginning of Repentance or sanctification in the dispositions thereunto before faith and that therefore it will not follow that the Elect are wholly impure before faith in Christ in whom those preparations to Regeneration and faith in Christ are so wrought as I haue sayd Indeed some challenge mee for bordering vpon Pelaganisme and Poperie as if I diuided some part of Repentance betwixt the worke of the Spirit and of Nature because I said Nature onely doth nâ—â— worke the preparations to Repentance and Faith recited Pag. 222. l. 24. But how they can conclude it thence against me 〈◊〉 cannot see and therefore doe I referre it them to conclude and to the iudicious Reader indifferently to determine This I am sure I abhor Palaganisme and Popery and I haue often and plainely affirmed them al to be the work of the Spirit in the Elect and haue denied them to bee the worke of Nature yea I haue giuen reasons for it both in my Treatise and in my Apologie Indeed I say Pag. 258. that by the light of Nature a man may know many actions bee doth to bee sinne and that hee ought to repent of them and leaue them yea that hereby many are mooued for a time to refraine some euill actions But this prooues not that to repent or to bee prepared to repent is the gift of Nature I haue often affirmed that the worke of all those preparations is the worke of Gods Spirit in the elect If they can bring any place out of my Book where I say any one of them is the worke of Nature in them that doe repent then may they pooue my supposed Diuision In the meane time such wresting of a mans writing sauours neither of loue nor iudgement The Triall Repentance is not begunne before faith in Christ because then it should be acceptable without faith The third Obiection but no grace can be acceptable to God without faith Heb 11.6 The Exception This Argument they say I can neuer answere but whether I haue or no or now shâ—ll let the Reader iudge The Apology To this Argument I answered that iâ— prooues not the question because thâ— Text out of the Epistle to the Hebreweâ— prooues not the Argument for both quâ—stion and Argument are to be vndâ—rstooâ— of pleasing of God any or euery way bâ— the proofe out of the Epistle to the Hâ—brewes is of pleasing God one way onely viz vnto saluation To remooue my answere and maintaine their owne argument they shoulâ— haue done two things First they should haue taken away mâ— distinction in one of the members thereâ— concerning acceptablenesse and sheweâ— that no repentance can be any way acceâ—table without faith in Christ But beliâ— it was too hard a tasâ—e for some repetance is not at all acceptable vnto saâ—uaâ—on as Ahabs and the Ninivites and yâ— the same Repentance without Faith 〈◊〉 Christ is some way acceptable vnto Goâ— namely to the auerting of a temporâ— Iudgement as in the same exâ—mples Secondly they should haue prooued that the Text alleadged out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes to prooue their argument is to be vnderstood of a sauing faith only for of that only is the question which is not done I grant the Apostle in that chapter speakes of a sauing faith vers 5. but it seemes that in the verse alleaged he speaks but of an assent to the truth of the two propositions following in the next verse viz that God is or there is a God secondly that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him for he that doubts of either of these cannot please God at all for how should he please God that beleeues not there is a God But neither of these haue they done and therefore for all this the argument is vnsound The Exception Oh but will they say though the Text Heb 11.6 doe not prooue that all our actions done wiehout faith are euery way vnacceptable yet may it bee prooued by reasons taken from Scripture let vs heare them and answere them in order Without faith all our actions are euery way vnacceptable because without Christ they are euery way vnacceptable I answere first there is some pleasing God without Christ to the obtaining of some blessings as the examples of Ahab and the Ninivites and Iehu shew and as the example of Cyrus will easily prooue Isay 44.28 45.1.2.3 Secondly I answere that this reason begges the question because to bee without faith and to be without Christ makes an vnacceptablenes to one and the same end viz vnto saluation and not any or euery way as the proofe should be Faith in Christ makes vs acceptable to God with that acceptablenesse to which we are elected in Christ which hee hath purchased and which faith apprehendeth but this is acceptablenes to saluation for spiritual and heauenly things are the treasures of the couenant of grace to which we are elected by the father which are purchased by the Sonne and which wee receiue instrumentally by Faith The Exception But without Faith in Christ all our actions are euery way vnacceptable because they are euery way sinne no sinne can any way please God The Apology I answere though all our actions done before faith in Christ are vnauaileable to euerlasting life yet are they not sinne Is
the vse of a Doctrine is good or bad according as the nature of the Doctrine is true or false as wel as if it be proper natural or streined and impertinent Now then if it may appeare as I hope it shall to all that are willing and able to iudge that I haue answered all their exceptions then doth my Doctrine touching the precedency of repentance vnto Faith in Christ as yet stand vpright and consequently the application thereof by way of confutation instruction reprehension exhortation and consolation must goe for currant being naturall to the point and not wrested As it will not bee needefull for mee to defend all those vses so neither to inlarge them onely I would adde out more to the other fiue and cleere one of them which I haue already made That which I would adde to the other should bee by way of caution which is to aduertise the Christian Reader that in perusing this my Defence and meditating on the point it selfe he would not doe either the one or the other with a minde onely intent to vnderstand the truth of the point but with a heart to bee affected with the truth when it is vnderstood not labouring so much to enquire whether of repentance or Faith the one or the other goes before in nature or in time as whether they haue them both or no and how they may get them both both being necessary in their kinde vnto saluation That vse which I would cleare should be the fourth whence as also from other places in the Treatise viz. page 226. 233 234. some collect that I make that faith not to be sauing faith which is not wrought after Repentance To this I answere far be it from me to imagine must lesse to determine that a true faith in Christ supposing it to be true cannot be a sauing Faith For Faith in CHRIST is a true sauing Faith let it bee wrought by the Spirit of GOD when it will before or after repentance for I thinke the hand of the Lord is not to bee tyed in as much as hee may worke how and when hee will with and by the vsuall meanes and ordinarily or without them or against them and extraordinarily But this I say that for as much as it hath appeared that vsually and in the common order of Gods working generally and in his ordinary course God prepares men to beleeue in Christ by the fore-worke of some graces tending to it and that many will presumptuously say and perswade they beleeue in Christ when indeede they doe not and therefore to restraine men from presumption I say that such persons may not perswade themselues as yet they hauâ— a sauing faith 233. such may be conceiued not to haue a sauing faith 234. not when they had it indeed but when they thought they had it and had it not for how can a man look for benefit by beleeuing in Christ that continues in a purpose of sinning And that this is so may appeare because in that vse I speake onely of carnall Gospellers who cannot haue a sauing faith indeede yet may they presume they haue it May not a Minister of the Gospell knowing that Preaching is the way and meanes to worke faith in Christ viz. ordinarily reprooue carnall Gospellers that neglect and contemne hearing of Sermons and yet thinke they haue faith in Christ may they not say that their faith us not a sauing faith viz. because they submit noâ— themselues to the ordinary meanes which should beget it may not they say safely and truely that their faith is not a sauing faith though God can and will and somtime doth worke a sauing faith without these meanes viz. extraordinarily why then may not I say that the faith of carnall Gospellers is not true sauing faith seeing they were neuer prepared to beleeue in Christ by the dispositions which Gods holy Spirit workes ordinarily in those in whom he begets a sauing saith though sometime God can and will in an enthusiasme and sodaine rapture worke a sauing faith without these preparations Surely yea for not Gods extraordinary wayes and workes but his ordinary are the pathes wherein wee must walke the rule by which we must proceede and the Touch by which wee must try our selues in cases of this nature To conclude By that which is written in this Apology the Christian Reader may discerne the materiall Exceptions against my Doctrine and the Defence of my Doctrine against those Exceptions I know full well that a Maister of Defence would haue put by these thrusts with more skill or haue beaten them backe with more strength but I am onely a learner in this Schoole and therefore onely as a Scholler in this faculty pro meo marte arte I haue playd my prize That which by Gods prouidence I haue seene materially obiected against my Doctrine I haue with Gods grace answered the pertinency and sufficiency of which answere I referre to the more learned and iudicious Readers to be determined Some obiect my Doctrine is new but I answere it is not a new but a renewed Doctrine Witnesse my testimonies and reasons It is not new though it seeme new it skills not how new a doctrine be so it be true As it is not good to receiue euery Doctrine for this is to be carried about with euery blast Eph. 4 14. So neither is it safe to reiect euery Doctrine which seemes new for this was the errour of the Iewes who refused the Gospell because to their iudgement it seemed a new Doctrine Acts 17.19 The way to preuent errour by mistaking is to follow the rule of the Apostle Prooue all things 1. Thes 5.21 22 hold fast that which is good abstaine from all apperance of euill that is Examine the Doctrines you heare by the word of God and if after Triall they euidently appeare to your iudgement to be good sound imbrace and hold them fast if naught and erronious reiect and let them go If any man after Triall shall dissent from me in this opinion I will not be offended so he dissent as a brother in iudgement and opinion and not in loue and affection and so from answering Exceptions to my booke in one point I proceede and conclude with a remouall of some imputations against it in another the Authors in both not being the same There came to my hands very lately certaine papers containing an accusation against me concerning my first Booke called A Triall of Faith and my second A Defence thereof The things layd to my charge are no lesse then periury lying and contradiction heresie blasphemy and aequivocation as if my booke were a mirrour of errours and absurdities and my selfe a monster of Ministers The matters being so foule and the opportunity so faire to purge my selfe I thought good to adde a sew leaues for the clearing of my innocency herein For in that these papers were brought me not knowing of them nor looking after them when this booke was
the action of a youth blessing his meate by saying grace before hee haue faith in Christ sinne I say not that any action of a man out of Christ is altogether voide of sinne but that some action of his is not sinne and my reason is this No sinne is any occasion why God spares or blesses him that commits it But some action of a man out of Christ is an occasion that God spares or blesses a man that doth it as may easily be seene in Ahab Ninivey Iehu and Cyrus and therefore some actions of a man out of Christ is not euery way sinne This likewise may be seen in the action of the Midwiues of the Hebrew woemen in Egypt in sauing the male children aliue This was without faith in Christ for ought the Scripture saith Exo 1.17.19 It was sinnefull some way viz as it was accompanied with a lie which they told Pharaoh concerning the speedy deliuery of the Hebrew woemen before the Midwiues came to helpe them in their office yet was it not euery way a sinne because it proceeded in part out of the feare of God that is feare to murther young Infants and it was some way acceptable because it is said God dealt well with them and made them houses that is blessed them with posterity The Exception Without Faith in Christ all our actions are euery way vnacceptable to God for the publike great Catechisme allowed to be taught in Grammer schooles in Englands faith asmuch The Apology I answere first the actions whereof the Catechisme speakes are good workes commanded in the law which I acknowledge to bee fruits of faith as well as they and to be made acceptable by it but euery action is not such a worke there bee some that bee neither commaunded nor forbidden but indifferent secondly the acceptablenes which the Catechisme speaks of there is but one way viz vnto saluation as appeares by the place where hee interprets it by the reward which God giues to the workes hee speakes of and that reward is heauen as will easily appeare to him that will peruse the precedent and subsequent Question and Answere The Exception Oh but say they the distinction of pleasing God vnto saluation and to some other way and to some other ende is not good first because it is the distinction of the Papists secondly because to what other end should on actions be acceptable but to saluation The Apology I answere first If all the Papists said were vntrue and all their distinctions in Diuinity vnsound and erroneus then were this reason to purpose if they can prooue they haue made this distinction as Papists and Hereticks I will yeeld For my pâ—rt I doe not thinke it fit to oppose Papists in euery thing they deliuer least by contradicting them in some thing which may be true wee keepe them backe from being gained and reclaimed from their knowne errours and expose our selâ—es to iust refutation giue them occasion to glory ouer vs and mooue people to suspect our soundest truths Secondly I say tâ—at our actions may be some way acceptable and to some other end then sâ—luation for the repentance of the Ninivites was acceptable to corporal and temporall preseruation and saluation not to Spirituall and Eternall to saue from fire sword famine pestilence or the like which they might haue indured and not from Hell fire so that for all this begunne Repentance may be acceptable to God before faith in Christ some way viz as it is a pteparation and disposition thereunto as it is commanded and commended of God and as it is his own work to make his Elect capable of saluation thereby They likewise cauill at other things in answere to that obiection and giue reasons why Cornelius had a sauing Faith and why Ahabs and Iehus actions were sinne The Exception The reason to prooue Cornelius had a sauing Faith is because he prayed and was heard which cannot be without a sauing Faith The Apology I answere a sinner may pray and bee heard before a sauing Faith else why doe our Diuines make this as a preparation to it viz with an humbled and sorrowing heart to approach to the throne of grace to confesse his sinnes and to craue pardon as hath beene shewed before Surely obedience to Gods Commandement that bids vs pray and beliefe of the promise to heare vs may some way make our prayer acceptable and to be graunted though wee haue not Faith in Christ though not auailable vnto saluation 2 Cornelius Faith was not faith in Christ dead and risen but an expectation of a Messiah to come for how can that be a sauing faith which ministers iust occasion to doubt whether Christ bee come in the flesh or no 1. Ioa. 4.3 2. Ioa. 7. Thirdly Cornelius was not a proselite as yet he was vncleane as appeares by the vision for Peter durst not Preach the Gospell to him being a Gentile and vncircumcised therfore is it not likely that as yet he had Faith in Christ Likewise the reason why Iehus action and Ahabs were euery way sinfull and vnacceptable is not good for the Rule propounded of the acceptation of our persons in Christ of ayming in our actions at Gods glory and of sincerity in the manner of doing them doth make a man that doth such actions acceptable vnto saluation the want of those doth not make them euery way vnacceptable as they imagine The Triall Repentance is not begunne before a sauing faith The fourth Obiection because then it should be begun in men before they haâ—e any spirituall life in them for faith is the spirituall life of Christian Gal. 2.20 To this Argument I answered in effect that it prooued not the question because the proote of ir out of the Epistle to the Galathians was not to purpose first because the place alleadged is to bee vnderstood of the spirituall life of iustification with which wee haue nothing to doe in our question secondly because the question is of spirituall life but begunne but the proofe is of spirituall life perfect in respâ—ct of being in all the parts not degrees of it thirdly the question is that faith is so the spirituall life of Christians that there is not so much as the least measure of spirituall life begunne in men before they haue a sauing faith but the proofe is of no such matter The Apology To this former answere of mine I now adde this first to the argument it sel e that if by spirtuall life bee meant the life of iustification or sanctification then I say repentance is begunne before a man hath this spirituall life in him but if sptrituall signifie whatsoeuer a man hath in him which is not naturall then I say repentance is not begunne in a man before hee haue something in him which is not naturall something is begunne in a man before a sauing faith which is not begunne in him before he haue any spirituall life for there is something in a man which he hath not
by any strength of nature before sauing faith as a beliefe of the Gospell sight of his sinnes feare of damnation c. Secondly to the proofe of this argument out of the Epistle to of the Galathians I answere first that where they say it is the spirituall life of the soule euery way I answere that neither doth the Apostle say so nor doe they prooue it sufficiently I haue saide enough to the contrary pag 178. which is not answered secondly I answere that sauing faith is the life of a Christian in respect of iustification and sanctification not in respect of whatsoeuer is in him which is not natural The Exception To maintaine their argument now they iudeauour to proue two things first that the text Gal 2.20 is to be vnderstood of spirituall life euery way Secondly that though it could not be prooued from that place yet might it bee prooued by sufficient reasons grounded on other Scripture that faith in Christ is the spirituall life of Christians euery way To prooue the first concerning that Text to the Galathians they bring this reason The life spoken of Gallat 2.20 is life by saluation therefore by iustification and fanctification therefore euery way The Apology I answer Paules liuing by faith must be vnderstood of such a life as is attributed vnto others by faith in the same chapter and epistle but to others viz. all the elect in the same chapter is attributed the life of iustification and life is expounded thereof onely Chap. 2.16 3.11 and therefore the life which Paule liued by faith spoken of in the 2. chapter and 20. must be the life of iustification onely and not of sanctification at all The Exception Oh but will they say I my selfe in my Treatise say that the text Gallat 2.20 is vnderstood of spirituall life vnto iustification and saluation pag. 278. The Apology True but by mine owne words it is euident what saluation I meane viz. Iustification or forgiuenesse of sinnes or sauing from hell not saluation which comprehends sanctification as they would interpret me Besides neither the word saue nor Sauiour is vsed in all the Epistle to the Galathians therefore cannot be vnderstood of such a saluation Adde to this that when we say Christ is our Sauiour we do not meane he is our sanctifier but one that keepes vs from hell and brings vs to heauen For the power of sinne is a distinct thing from the punishment and as the power of sinne is taken away by sanctification onely so is the punishment by iustification onely saluation is vnderstood of Iustification and of that which as a consequence follows on it our glorification Oh but may they say Pauls liuing by faith ver 10. was the same with his liuing to God ver 19. and that is the life of sanctification I answere liuing to God ver 19. must either be the same with liuing in his fauor and free grace by Christ and then it is alâ— one wtih beeing iustified by God through faith ver 16. or else it must bee opposed vnto death to the Law and death to the Law is in his meaning renouncing it to iustification as being vnable to keepe it and by keeping it to bee iustified by iâ— and therefore liuing vnto God is seeking vnto the meanes appointed by him foâ— iustification and liuing in his sight by faitâ— in his free grace 2. If by those wordâ— were vnderstood I am sanctified by faith then must the meaning of them bee to this effect in that I haue had any motions to holinesse preparations to sanctification or any the least inclinatioÌ„ therunto I haue had it by the faith of Iesus Christ before I beleeued in Christ I had not the least beginning thereof in any kinde but this is contradicted by other Texts of Scripture where it is sayd of S. Paul He was taught according to the perfect maner of the Fathers Act. 2.23 and was zealous towards God and that hee had liued in all good conscience before God vntiâ— that day Namely according to the light hee had by the Law and the Prophets 3. Suppose it could be prooued that Paul lyued vnto God any way before hee belieued in Christ yet will not this prooue he had no beginning at all of spiritual life before hee beleiued in Christ for to liue to God is a plaine fruit of sauing faith and a man may haue fome spirituall life begun in some sense and not liue to God Lastly though it could be proued that Paul had no spirituall liâ—e begun in him before he beleeued in Christ yet wil not his example proue that no man hath any spirituall life begunne in him before hee beleeue in Christ inasmuch as Pâ—ules conuersion was extraordinary for the gifts and graces of the spirit needfull to saluation where in all likly hood wrought in him at once and together in an enthusiasme so are they not vsuall in all men and women in these dayes but one after another successiuely Sermon after Sermon and weeke after weeke and so much for answere touching their proofe out of the epistle to the Gallathians the first thing propounded to make good their Argument The Exception The second followes which is to proue that faith in Christ is the spirituall life of Christians euery way and that there is no spirituall life begunne in men before they beleiue in Christ and their reasons are foure to which I will answere seuerally There is no spirituall life begunne in men before faith in Christ because till then then they are dead in sinnes and trespasses The Apology I answere in him that is dead in trespasses and sinnes there is no spirituall life of iustification or sanctification but in him in whom repentance is begunne and other preparations there is somewhat more then that which is naturall whereby in some sort he is in a middle estate although indeede he be still a naturall man because nature hath the predominancy in him and in this state he continues till he be regenerate in all parts which is assoone as he beleeues in Christ and in this state was Nicodemus Ioa. 3. who came to Christ was taught of him that which was not naturall was wrought in him and yet he had not a sauing faith The Exception There is no spirituall life begunne in men before faith in Christ because till then they haue not Christ The Apology The reason is not good because though before faith in Christ they haue not Christ in his righteousnesse to their iustification and in his sanctification to their sanctification and full conuersion both of heart and life yet may they in whom repentance is begunne and these preparations haue him in them some way viz. in his wisedome to their Illumination and the beginning of their conuersion The Exception There is no spirituall life begunne in men before faith in Christ because till then they haue not the spirit Gal. 3.2 I answere 1 the extraordinary gifts of the spirit were not giuen