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
of my disputation where such weakenesse is discouered 4. I spend not my spirit to requite in kinde many vnkinde and some insolent termes in their Exceptions but onely trie my strength to vntie the knots of their obiections I meane not euery idle cavill about words or matter impertinent to the clearing of the maine question but to answere such reasons onely as make directest and strongest opposition to my Doctrine The maine purpose being good and the meane proceeding faire it remaines that I humbly pray the Reader to peruse my Apology with patience and without preiudice to compare reason with reason with prudence and without partiality and to iudge of truth by reason rather then by humaine authority This if they shall doe it is reasonable to request it it is equall to grant it It may come to passe through Gods blessing that hotte and confident opposers may bee cooled and conuinced that moderate and vnresolued Christians may be perswaded and satisfied That errour may be discerned confuted and auoided and the truth more cleared and confirmed which God the Father grant for his Sonne Iesus sake by the grace and wisedome of the Holy Spirit to his owne glory and his Churches good Amen Yours in the seruice of your Faith William Chibald To the Christian Reader MAny of the Ancients obserue that St. Iames perceiuing diuers vnstable Christians to sucke poison out of the sweetest flower of paradise by misinterpreting and peruerting St. Paules most wholesome and comfortable Doctrine of iustification by faith without workes wrote his Epistle after a sort purposedly to redresse that abuse and equally as it were to diuide betweene faith and workes Iam. 2.21 23 giuing them both their seuerall iustifications for these two truthes may and must stand together faith iustifies our workes before God but workes iustifies our faith before men Abacuc 2.4 Rom. 1.17 Iames 2.26 The iust shall liue by faith but faith it selfe must liue by workes for as the body without the spirit is dead so faith without workes is dead also That which mooued this Holy Apostle to presse so farre the necessity of workes as to attribute vnto them a kinde of iustification Iames 2.26 I verily perswade my self stird vp the meek spirit of the modest and learned Author of the Triall of Faith and this Apologie thereof so farre to inforce the necessitie of repentance as to giue it a kind of precedency to faith in Christ not any way to detract from the Dignity and Excellency of faith which hee must and doth acknowledge to be the mother and Queene of all Christian vertues August Enchir. ad Laurent Fides enim impetrat quod lex imperat but to keepe men from bearing to much on the right hand and sailing to neare to the dangerous rocke of presumption vpon which it is to be feared many more ordinarily make shipwracke of faith and a good conscience then vpon the other opposit to it of despaire ô quam multi cum hac spe ad aeternos labores bella descendunt how many goe to hell with a vaine hope of heauen whose chiefest cause of damnation is their false perswasion and groundlesse presumption of saluation To keepe all true beleeuers from this most dangerous rocke this Author chiefefly penned his treatise entituled The triall of Faith wherein hee discreetly aduiseth all that saile towards those pulchri portus faire hauens in heauen to endeauour to steare their course in the middle way betweene the two rockes aboue named and to this end substantially prooueth that noe man may relie on Christ with assured hope and confidence of saluation and remission of his sinnes before he find in himselfe a true sorrow for them and entertaine an vnfained purpose and desire to leaue them This I take to bee the scope and drift of his discourse which being tried by the touchstone of Gods word hath prooued pretious Doctrine not as some haue giuen out hay and stubble which tearmes better be fit their Weake exceptions against it I professe by weighing and pondering his positions arguments I finde no poysonous weede to lurke vnder his whosesome leaues If any Psylli or Marsi by any extraordinary exstractiue quality can sucke out any such venemous iuyce I am perswaded the Author will as much distaste and detest the same as my selfe do For I finde him ready and desirous to giue satisfaction not onely to moderate examiners of his tenets but also to violent and priudicat obiecters against it hanc libertatem petimusque damvsque vicissim The Apologist freely acknowledgeth a beleefe of Christ and the Gospell to goe before the begunne repentance he speaketh of nay farther also hee professeth that faith in Christ precedeth that repentance which the Diuines cōmonly handle in their common places vnder that Title they meaning therby new obedience and a setled course and measure of sanctification In which regard I aduise the violent opposers of his tenet seriously to consider whether their arguments against it come home or rather in the end proue not meere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially sith they cannot deny that remission of sinnes in Christs blood is no other wayes offered vnto vs in the Gospell then vpon condition of amendment and newnes of life The vndertaking therefore of the performance of this condition God enabling vs therevnto by his effectuall grace which is a purpose of newnesse of life must needes precede the laying claime or taking to our selues the benefit offered by laying hold on Christ and relying on him for this benefit of of remission of sinnes It is true a reward or benefit offered vpon a condition may be challenged and iustly receiued also before the condition be performed but not before the condition be agreed vpon and vndertaken to be performed A man that hath a lease dimised to him vpon condition to pay his rent and fence the grounds may take his lease and enioy some benefit by it before hee hath performed those couenants but not before he hath vndertaken by couenant to performe the same This vndertaking of the performance of the condition viz. newnesse of life what is it else but a purpose and holy promise to God of leauing our sinnes which purpose he who hath not wrought in him by regenerating grace doth still and cannot but hold on his former purpose to continue in his sinnes now for a man yet holding his purpose to continue in sin to trust to Christ or relie on him for the remission of them what is it else but presumption As for many incident or consequent questions which the nice-handling of this point may breede in refined wits as whether the beleefe of the Gospell which we call Historicall faith and a beleefe and affiance in Christ which is iustifying faith in an elect grow into on habit and whether a purpose of amendment before and the amendment of life or new obedience after faith in Christ belong to the same specificall vertue of repentance and whether the
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
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