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
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
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
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
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
shew mercy and how God by the light and helpe of it draweth him forward vntill hee beleeue for his owne part and in his owne person for these be his very wordes in the beginning of that discourse hee doeth lay downe sixe seuerall workes of the Spirit in six seuerall sections of that fourth chapter the heads of them are these and they are more at large there discoursed of 1 God makes them to beleeue their misery and to be troubled in minde for it 2 They consult in this case what to doe 3 They are broken hearted and humbled 4 They haue a secrete desire of forgiuenesse 5 They conferre and aske pardon 6 They forsake all for it and highly â—rize it and then they come to apply Christ and the promise to themselues which his iudgement is a sauing faith In like manner and to the same eâ— Maister Baynes speaking Maister Baynes briefe directions to a godly life how the knoâ—ledge of misery by sin and redemption Christ workes on a man towards faith Christ he saith thus 1 Hee is drawne by the secret worke the spirit to beleeue that the doctrine taugâ— doth concerne him 2 The Lord directeth him to enter iâ— further consideration with himselfe of and â—bout his present state and consulteth what doe in this extremity 3 From the former consultation bâ—commeth to this holy resolution that he 〈◊〉 not returne to his old wayes but in all huâ—lity meekenesse and holinesse say with 〈◊〉 Paule Lord what shall I doe 4 By this meanes he comes to an vnfâ—ned desire of forgiuenesse 5 With earnest humble and particulâ— confession of his sinnes hee powreth oâ— prayers to God for the pardon of them Christ 6 He hauing found this pearle prize it as it is worth and therefore selleth all thâ— he hath and biddeth farewell to his sweetâ— delights for the obtayning of it and then 〈◊〉 commeth to apply the Gospell to himselfâ— and sealeth vp his saluation in his heart Neither is this the opinion of these learned and holy preachers but of many other in our owne Church Mr. Elton in his Catechisme the foure principle Modell of Diuinity page 274 to 279. Mr. Wheatly of Regeneration ch â—4 Mr. Perkins Catechisme the fourth principle and the state of a Christian Sect. 6. to 16. The next thing to be considered is their reasons whereby they would proue that some of those preparations which I mention do not goe before faith in Christ and they are two The Exception Those preparations doe not go before faith in Christ 1. Because they doe not draw all men to beleeue in Christ in whom they are wrought for say they Gods cords do draw and haue alwayes irresistably comming ioyned with them 2. Because I my selfe in my Treatise say that some of them are effects and fruites of faith following it Therefore cannot they goe before it as preparations to which I will answere seuerally The Defence Their first reason To the first reason is of no force First because though those preparations do not in the euent draw all men to beleeue in Christ in whom they are wrought yet do they at one time or other draw all the elect so to do that are ordained vnto eternall life and to beleeue in him for that end For of these onely is the question Secondly if their reason were good then would it proue that a beleefe of the Gospell is none of Gods cords to draw men to beleeue in Christ nor the Preaching of the Gospell none of Gods meanes to worke faith in Christ for neither the one does draw al men so to come to Christ nor the other so worke faith in Christ in all that haue the one wrought in them or the other taught vnto them witnesse the Parable of the seede in the Gospell Mat. 11.19 to 28. Is not the act of generation Gods ordinance to the begetting of a child because a child is not begotten by euery hand acts I confesse Gods spirit doth not onely draw men to beleeue in Christ but also workes it in them actually at one time or other after those preparations but drawing men to beleeue or preparing them thereunto is a different action from his working of faith or enabling them to beleeue and in the elect comming followes drawing necessarily in respect of the euent Their second reason To the second reason whereby they would prooue that some of the preparations I name cannot goe before faith in Christ is of no power because though I say some of them may go before it in one respect yet may they follow in another Indeede I say that a feare of God goes before faith in Christ as a preparation to it page 222. and that a feare of God followes faith in Christ as an effect thereof page 304. but neither doe I say that a filiall feare is the preparation nor a seruile feare the effect though the faithfull after beleeuing in Christ doe feare to sinne for feare of condemnation else the Holy Ghost would neuer diswade from it on that ground The like may be sayde of sorrow for sinne by comparing page 222. where it is a preparation to faith and page 301. where it is an effect of a sauing faith or rather of one that hath it for I do not say that sorrow for sinne on the same grounds altogether and in the same measure doth goe before and after faith in Christ and therefore their reason is but a Cauill and so I descend to the third generall thing against which they except in handling the sixt rule viz. the particular naming of a beginning of repentance to be one of those gifts of the spirit that prepare to faith in Christ Against this there are three exceptions 1 against the position it selfe 2 against the exposition of it and 3 against the handling of the position The Triall The position it selfe that repentâ—nce is one of those preparations The position it selfe is this Repentance is begunne before faith in Christ The Exception This position they dislike for two causes First because it implies a beginning of repentance before faith in Christ some space of time Secondly because it supposeth that repentance is begun at one time in some part of it and finished at anotheâ— in the residue The Apology To the 1. Exceptiâ—n I do indeede often vse the word Before to expresse the Precedency I meane but neither did I meane a precedency some space of time nor can they shew it by the words of the booke except I had added thereunto some other word as time space season or the like to giue light to such an interpretation which is not done in that whole disputation Or except the word Before in the English tongue did alwayes carry that sence onely which experience disprooues seeing one thing may be before another in nature as fire before heat in order as the second before the third In dignity as an Earle before a Baron and in worth as gold before siluer
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
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
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
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
but by hearing faith preached which is the meaning of that place Gal. 3.2 For at the preaching of the Gospell the Doctrine of faith and vpon the beleeuing thereof were they giuen Act. 10.41.44 2. The spirit of adoption is not giuen before faith in Christ for that is the grace which instrumentally and so onely giues vs prerogatiue and title to our adoption euen as it onely but instrumentally onely receiues Christ and his benefits Eph. 1.13 Gal. 3.26 Rom. 8.13 3. The gifts and graces of the spirit sufficient to saluation are not giuen before faith in Christ Heb. 11.6 Rom. 5.1 2. 4. The gift of sanctification is not giuen before Faith in Christ But for all this will it not follow that before Faith in Christ the spirit is no way giuen the contrary may be seene in illumination and a beleefe of the Gospell for these are gifts of the spirit and therefore parts of spirituall life in some sense 1. because they are supernaturall all naturall men haue them not nor are they wrought by the worke of nature in any no not in the Elect 2. because blindenesse of minde and infidelity which is contrary thereto is a branch of spirituall death 3. The Spirit inhabitant cannot be in men before they haue faith in Christ but the Spirit assistant may and the exciting by assistance may Indeede Illumination and a beleefe of the Gospell are not spirituall life enough to saluation yet is it life enough by Gods blessing and further grace to produce Faith in Christ in the elect for within man and by the working of the Spirit there is no other worke but these and that which is wrought by these which perswades men to beleeue in Christ If illumination and a beleeue of the Gospell c. had no supernaturall life at all but were altogether dead workes then could they produce no such effect as faith and if they be not dead workes then haue they some life and if they haue some life then from the spirit and if from the spirit then may they be called branches of spirituall life and hee that hath them may be sayd to haue some spirituall life begunne in him because as hath beene sayd he hath some life in him more then naturall that is more then all naturall men haue The Exception There is no spirituall life begunne in men before Faith in Christ or faith in Christ is euery way the spirituall life of Christians because sanctification goes before iustification The Apology I answere in nature saanctification is begunne before iustification 1. because regeneration is begunne before iustification namely in illumination and other preparations as hath beene shewed before Secondly because faith it selfe is a sanctifying grace by their owne confession from Acts 15.9 and faith goes in nature before iustification Indeede iustification goes in nature before the perfection of our sanctification in all the parts of it and before the acceptation of it to saluation but iustification doth not go before any or euery measure of sanctification can any way be begunne The will of God in working is the Rule of perfection to the worke and then is it sayd to be perfect when it is wrought in part or in whole according to that perfection of parts or degrees which the Lord intends vnto it at seuerall times and by seuerall meanes The Lord is no way tied for shewing the perfection of his workemanshippe to finish a worke in all the parts of it at sundry times more then he is to finish it in all the degrees thereof at sundry times The Triall Repentance is not begunne before faith in Christ The fift Obiection because repentance is a proper effect and fruite of the Gospell The Exception This Argument is disclaimed therefore is it vaine to spend time about it for if they will not acknowledge and confesse it I haue no reason to confute it any further Onely I would haue the world beleeue I doe not faine an enemy and then flourish against him For two learned and godly Ministers whose worthy workes are in print haue vsed the same They which bring this proposition Repentance is the proper effect and fruite of the Gospell beleeued to prooue that repentance is not begun before iustifying faith must be vnderstood to meane by a beleefe of the Gospell either that beleefe which is faith in Christ or that onely which is an assent vnto the truth of the Gospell If they meane by a beleefe of the Gospell faith in Christ then must it be their argument which I haue propounded to prooue that repentance goes not before faith in Christ If they meane but an assent to the truth of the Doctrine of the Gospell then doe they meane that no other faith goes before repentance but that and then haue they two Diuines of our owne lesse on their side then they thought they had and I haue two more on mine for I hold that a beleefe of the Gospell goes before repentance and repentance before faith in Christ and let this be enough for that fift Obiection the sixt followes The Triall Repentance is not begunne before faith in Christ The sixt Obiection because it is not begunne before regeneration for regeneration is not begunne before faith in Christ This Argument was answered by denying the Antecedent viz. that Regeneration is not begunne before Faith in Christ and the reason of the consequence viz. that repentance is not begunne before regeneration The Exception For making good the Antecedent viz. this proposition regeneration is not begunne before faith in Christ they bring two reasons to which I will answere in order Regeneration is not begunne before Faith in Christ because it issues from Christ and from our vnion with him by faith 2. Corinth 5.17 Ephesians 2.10 Colo. 2.11 The Apology I answere first if by regeneration be meant our being made Gods children actually then I grant that our regeneration must needes flow from our vnion with him by faith but then it prooues not the Antecedent for the regeneration wee speake of is not our beeing actually made the sonnes of GOD but a worke of the Spirit beginning to fit vs for that but if by it they meane any or euery worke of the Spirit beginning to fit vs for regeneration and tending thereunto by GODS appointment as any worke of the Spirit in the vnderstanding or will of one that is elected to saluation to fit him for regeneration by faith then I say that such regeneration may be wrought before our actuall vnion with Christ by Faith and doth not issue from it It is true that Regeneration issues from Christ in the elect whether wee consider him as the efficient cause either by way of meriting it for vs or by working it in vs. Hebrewes 12.3 Ioan. 1.19 Ephesians 1.3 2.10 or as the finall cause Galath 4.19 But it is not true that regeneration so issues from Christ that there is not so much as any the least beginning of it wrought in
vs till wee bee actually vnited to him by Faith which is the question The contrary may bee seene in illumination a beleefe of the Gospell and vocation which are and may bee wrought in the elect before this vnion Romans 8.20 though they tend to regeneration or rather are a branch and member thereof and there can noe inconuenience follow hereupon as long as the regeneration begunne before this actuall vnion is the worke of the spirit in the elect and for Christs sake that shall be perfected in due time appointed by God for that end The Exception Secondly they prooue that regeneration is not begunne before faith in Christ because I my selfe say as much in my treatise pag. 310. The Apology I answere by acknowledging that faith in Christ becomes effectuall to bring forth good workes and new obedience in a holy life and to beget in vs other Christian graces as hope ioy peace newnesse of heart and vprightnesse c. which are the fruites of faith in Christ and it becomes thus effectuall by our vnion with Christ through faith but I doe not there affirme which is alleaged and is the point to bee prooued that no grace tending to regeneration as a disposition to it is wtought before this our vnion and therefore for all these two reasons their last Argument is weake and insufficient As I haue added to my six arguments one more in defence of my opinion so will I adde one more obiection which is an argument of theirs against it and it is this The Exception If faith in Christ goe before loue and loue before repentance then faith goes before repentance But faith in Christ goes before loue and loue before repentance Therefore faith goes before repentance The consequence they thinke is good because that which goes before the cause goes before the effect ergo if faith go before the cause of repentance which is loue then must it goe before repentance which is the fruite of loue The Assumption they prooue in the parts of it 1 Faith goes before loue because faith workes by loue Gal. 5.6 2 Loue goes before repentance for the doctrine of the Church of England sayth so The Apology I answere 1. If by loue be meant any kinde of loue to God then I grant the consequence and deny the assumption But if thereby bee meant that loue of God which proceedeth from our actuall being beloued of God in Christ and our apprehending of the same in our owne perticular iustification then I deny the consequence and grant the assumption Some loue of God may be before iustifiing faith for God is the obiect of loue and God may bee conceiued and apprehended as louing not onely in many temporall blessings but euen in some spiritual before men beleeue in Christ For God may be apprehended louing in sending his sonne to purchase redemption for man and manifesting in the meanes a possibility of obtaining our share therein vpon repentance and faith in Christ and as preparing vâ— by some workes of Gods Spirit to faith in Christ and if we may be some way affected towards God vpon these considerations and grounds before faith in Christ then may there be some loue before faith and if our loue to God bee suteable to such preparing workes of Gods Spirit as haue yer bin past vpon vs and such good as hath bin manifested to vâ— from God I say such loue is true in it kind as being answerable to that which God aimes at in such meanes though not with that perfection which is requisite to saluation immediately yet with that which is requisite by way of disposition and preparatorily But that loue of God which proceedeth from the receiuing and apprehension of our iustification is a fruit of faith in Christ and followes it 2. I answer that if by repentance be meant the practise of amendment of life and new obedience then the loue of God goes before repentance but if by repentance be meant hearty sorrow for sinne past and true purpose to leaue it then I say the loue of God doth not go before repentance Touching the first part of their asumption out of the Galathians that faith goes before loue I say it is not to purpose because it proues not that faith goes before all loue but only that loue which proceeds from our first beeing beloued of God which we apprehend by faith in Christ Neither is the doctrine of the Church of England out of the Homilies rightly alleaged to proue the 2 part of their assumption viz. that repentance hath an ingredient charity that repentance is a fruite of the loue of God for the repentance the Homily speakes of is not repentance strictly taken viz. sorrow for sinne and purpose of leauing it of which I speake but the whole worke of Gods Spirit on man to make him capable of iustification and salvation or the whole conuersion of man in minde and will in affections and actions inward and outward and this appeares in that it makes foure parts of repentance there spoken of viz. 1. Sorrow for sinne 2. acknowledgment and confession of it 3. faith in Christ and 4. amendment of life in which sense it is no maruell if hee include loue and charity in repentance soe that there is no reason to conclude thence that loue is included in repentance strictly taken as I do except they meane by loue some affection to God for making it possible for vs to bee saued and prouiding a meanes to that end and not a loue of God for our being actually saued or meane by repentance amendment of life for this is a fruite of loue and in this sence it is that St. Augustine speakes to this effect Many do daily say they are sinners and yet still they delight to sinne this is but profession not amendment the soule is accused not healed the offence is pronounced not taken away August 10. tom Ser. 7. de tempore nothing makes true repentance but the hatred of sinne and loue of God the fire of this sacrifice is loue Now at length I draw homeward toward a conclusion of the whole namely to the last thing propounded in handling this point of the precedency of repentance vnto faith in Christ which is the vse and application I made thereof in my Treatise with which as with the rest there is fault found It will not be worth my labour to confute muchlesse recite the particular faults and aberations they espie therein The applying of the point because the answere vnto them will little serue to the cleering of the Doctrine it selfe partly because that which I should write in confutation thereof must be gathered out of that I haue already sayd in this Defence and partly also because the whole frame of those exceptions will of it selfe vpon my Defence fall to the ground For I thinke they would neuer haue written against the application but vpon a supposition that the point whereupon it was raysed is vnsound for
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