APOLOGY FOR THE TR●●TISE CALL●● Trial of Fait● CONCERNS 〈…〉 The pr●cedenc● 〈◊〉 stance for sin●● 〈…〉 Faith 〈…〉 AT WILL. CHI●● Ap●● 22. ● Men, Brothers, and 〈…〉 ye my Apology w●● 〈…〉 unto you. LOND●● Printed by 〈…〉 SAMVEL 〈…〉 sold at 〈…〉 Churchyard 〈…〉 of the 〈◊〉 ●●24. To the Courteous Reader. IN a Defence of one point of my Trial of faith opposed by some, I took occasion to write a brief explication of a second contradicted by others. In the conclusion of that explication, I prayed the Reader to be content, that of the later point, as yet I said no more, because as yet I saw no more. By God's providence I have seen more since that time ●●th the spectacles of some which oppose that Doctrine. It remains (because those words implied a promise) that now I writ more of that matter because I understand more, tha● I say more because I see more. But first when I say that now I see more, my meaning is not, that I am s●aggered in my judgement, by somewhat la●●y seen & that therefore now I understanding question otherwise then I did at th●● 〈◊〉 but that now I know more of their 〈…〉 that oppose it, than I did before, and know better how to confirm mine own opinion. That this may appear I pray the Christian Reader to remember the state of the question set down in my Treatise in these words, Repentance is begun before faith in Christ, and therein to consider two things; first of whom I speak in this question, secondly of what. They of whom I speak, are the Elect only, who only are ordained by God to eternal life, acts 23.48. and who for that purpose are appointed also to all the means effectually conducing thereunto, from the beginning to the end, in all the parts and degrees of the same. For because this faith is only wrought in them, therefore is it called the faith of the elect; Tit. 1.1. and because these only are in the event saved by it, therefore do they receive the end of their faith, 1 Peter 1.9. which is the salvation of their souls. That whereof I speak is contained in the words of the Question before recited. Wherein I pray further that two things may be considered. First, the Antecedent, subject matter of the question, or the thing that is spoken of, in this word Repentance. Secondly, the consequent, predicat or saying that is affirmed of this Repentance, in the rest of the words, is begun before faith in Christ, for these terms must be rightly understood. First, the subject matter or thing spoken in that Question, is Repentance, Repentance. and by repentance I mean not the practical repentance of the conversation or practice of the purpose of amendment of life, in a constant, conscionable and cheerful course of new obedience, but only the repentance of the heart: and by the repentance of the heart I do not understand newness of heart or rectitude of Spirit, or mortification, Psalm 51.10 and vivification, or habitual conversion to God with the whole soul in all the powers and faculties of it, joined with a good conscience which all are fruits and effects of faith in nature following it: But by Repentance I mean only hearty sorrow for past sins already committed, and purpose first not to commit the very same sins, if they were not already done, but were again to be committed, and then consequently a purpose not to commit the like sins in kind for time to come, namely a purpose in truth without hypocrisy and dissimulation. Repentance from dead works being a qualification to fit men for belief in Christ, believing in Christ a qualification to fit them to receive benefit by the promise of the Gospel unto justification, and amendment of life or new obedience being a qualification to fit them to the further assurance of their justification and of eternal life. Secondly, in the predicate or saying that is affirmed of this repentance three things are to be observed. 1. What is meant by being begun. 2. By Before. 3. By Faith in Christ. 1 Is begun. First by being begun, I do not mean a being of repentance in the heart sufficient to salvation: but only a beginning of it in all the preparations thereunto, as also a beginning of the habit itself, so fare as concerns sorrow and purpose, namely a being thereof in some measure without dissimulation; and (if it may be proved sufficiently) that amendment of life is a part of repentance, than I say, repentance is begun in some part, viz. in sorrow and purpose touching past sins before faith in Christ, and finished in another, viz. amendment of life after faith. 2 Before. Secondly, by (Before) I do not mean a precedency some space of time: but in nature only and in the order of causes. Thirdly, by faith in Christ I do not mean a belief of the word and Gospel, Faith in ●st. for this of necessity must go before repentance, in as much as it is the means to drive and to draw thereunto: Acts 2.32. Math. 11.68. Hebr. 11.6. but I understand thereby a resting and relying upon Christ with our whole hearts, or a trusting to and putting confidence in the merits of the death and righteousness of jesus Christ for and unto salvation. In the second place in that now I say more, It is not because (I think) I have not said enough all ready to the point itself for the proving of it: but because I have not said enough to some for the persuading of them. Nor yet because I have not sufficiently answered the objections which I knew: but because I knew them not all then, to the end I might have answered them at the first: for now I stop three or four gapps with one bush, and answer the Exceptions of more than one man. As in these regards, this further labour by way of Apology hath been undertaken not without some cause: so in other respects it ought to be well construed, accepted and used, namely because (the Lord knows) my purpose herein is not, to maintain my credit, but the cause of God and the Doctrine of the Church of England, nor to strive for Triumph and Victory, but for Truth and verity: muchless wilfully to oppose any that hold the contrary. Lest of all to detract from precious faith, or our blessed Saviour in any the least measure or meaning. ●. Pet. 1.1. ●uke 1 42. ●om. 9.5. Of my sincerity herein the Christian Reader may the rather be persuaded by considering these particulars. 1. I labour not to darken my opposite with disgrace, (except it be by clouding their names with silence) but only to clear the point in question with a larger explication and confirmation. 2. I seek not to shift of the force of an argument by evasions: but answer thereunto with direct solutions, to my best understanding. 3. I study not to justify any thing that cannot be defended with truth and plainness: for I freely confess the weakness of my disputation where such weakness is discovered. 4. I spend not my spirit to requite in kind, many unkind and some insolent terms in their Exceptions: but only try my strength to untie the knots of their objections, (I mean) not every idle cavil about words, or matter impertinent to the clearing of the main question, but to answer such reasons only as make directest and strongest opposition to my Doctrine. The main purpose being good, and the mean proceeding fair, it remains, that I humbly pray the Reader to peruse my Apology with patience and without prejudice to compare reason with reason, with prudence and without partiality, and to judge of truth by reason, rather than by humane authority. This if they shall do (it is reasonable to request it, it is equal to grant it) It may come to pass (through God's blessing) that hot and confident opposers may be cooled and convinced, that moderate and unresolued Christians may be persuaded and satisfied. That error may be discerned confuted and avoided, and the truth more cleared and confirmed: which God the Father grant for his Son jesus sake, by the grace and wisdom of the Holy Spirit, to his own glory and his Churches good, Amen. Yours in the service of your Faith, William Chibald. To the Christian Reader. MAny of the Ancients observe, that St. james perceiving diverse unstable Christians to suck poison out of the sweetest flower of paradise, by misinterpreting and perverting St. Paul's most wholesome and comfortable Doctrine of justification by faith without works; wrote his Epistle (after a sort) purposedly to redress that abuse, and equally (as it were) to divide between faith and works; jam. 2.21 & 23 giving them both their several iustifications: for these two truths may and must stand together faith justifies our works before God: but works justifies our faith before men. Abacuc. 2.4. Rom. 1.17. james 2.26. The just shall live by faith, but faith itself must live by works: for as the body without the spirit is dead: so faith without works is dead also. That which moved this Holy Apostle to press so fare the necessity of works as to attribute unto them a kind of justification: james 2.26. I verily persuade myself stirred up the meek spirit of the modest and learned Author of the Trial of Faith, and this Apology thereof so fare to enforce the necessity of repentance as to give it a kind of precedency to faith in Christ: not any way to detract from the Dignity and Excellency of faith, which he must, and doth acknowledge to be the mother and Queen of all Christian virtues, August. Enchir. ad Laurent. (Fides enim impetrat quod lex imperat) but to keep men from bearing to much on the right hand, and sailing to near to the dangerous rock of presumption: upon which it is to be feared many more ordinarily make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, then upon the other opposite to it, of despair, o quam multi cum hac spe ad aeternos labores, & bella descendunt, how many go to hell with a vain hope of heaven: whose chiefest cause of damnation is their false persuasion and groundless presumption of salvation. To keep all true believers from this most dangerous rock, this Author chiefefly penned his treatise entitled The trial of Faith, wherein he discreetly adviseth all that sail towards those pulchri portus, fair havens in heaven to endeavour to steer their course in the middle way between the two rocks above named; and to this end substantially proveth, that no man may rely on Christ with assured hope, and confidence of salvation and remission of his sins before he find in himself a true sorrow for them, and entertain an unfeigned purpose and desire to leave them. This I take to be the scope and drift of his discourse which being tried by the touchstone of God's word hath proved precious Doctrine, not as some have given out hay and stubble, which terms better be fit their Weak exceptions against it. I profess by weighing and pondering his positions & arguments, I find no poisonous weed to lurk under his whosesome leaves. If any Psylli or Marsi by any extraordinary exstractive quality can suck out any such venomous juice, I am persuaded the Author will as much distaste and detest the same as myself do: For I find him ready and desirous to give satisfaction not only 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 belief of Christ and the Gospel to go before the begun repentance he speaketh of: nay farther also he professeth that faith in Christ precedeth that repentance, which the Divines commonly handle in their common places under that Title they meaning, thereby new obedience and a settled course and measure of sanctification. In which regard I advice the violent opposers of his tenet seriously to consider whether their arguments against it come home or rather in the end prove not mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, especially sith they cannot deny that remission of sins in Christ's blood is no other ways offered unto us in the Gospel then upon condition of amendment and newness of life. The undertaking therefore of the performance of this condition (God enabling us thereunto by his effectual grace) which is a purpose of newness of life must needs precede the laying claim or taking to ourselves the benefit offered by laying hold on Christ, and relying on him for this benefit of of remission of sins. It is true a reward or benefit offered upon a condition may be challenged and justly received also before the condition be performed but not before the condition be agreed upon, and undertaken to be performed. A man that hath a lease dimised to him upon condition to pay his rent and fence the grounds may take his lease and enjoy some benefit by it before he hath performed those covenants, but not before he hath undertaken by covenant to perform the same. This undertaking of the performance of the condition, viz. newness of life, what is it else but a purpose and holy promise to God of leaving our sins, 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 sins: now for a man yet holding his purpose to continue in sin, to trust to Christ, or rely 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 breed in refined wits; as whether, the belief of the Gospel, which we call Historical faith, and a belief and affiance in Christ which is justifying 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 specifical virtue of repentance, and whether the same grace of the spirit produce faith, and repentance in the soul, or a divers, and whether the grace which produceth them, produce them both in the same instant, or divers, and whether these diverse instances must be diverse instances of time, or of nature only, 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 work before the other; and whether admitting that the work of repentance is first felt in the soul before any work of a justifying faith, yet that the work of a justifying faith, may not be in the nature of the thing before it, as the thunder in nature is before the lightning: yet we see the lightning before we hear the thunder. I say for these and the like subtleties I hold it needless, and unprofitable to employ the harvest of our time in tithing th●se minutas decimas of mint and cumin: It sufficeth that we Ministers of the Gospel in our Preaching, and God's people in their hearing, and all of us in our practice follow the method used by the holy Ghost, and begin with john Baptist, and proceed to Christ; begin with terror, and proceed to comfort, begin with sorrow for sin, and proceed to joy in the Holy Ghost, having first a sense of our sin and searching deep into our wounds; and then applying to ourselves the sovereign salve of faith in Christ's blood: being first weary and heavy laden, and then expecting to be refreshed by jesus Christ. In whose bowels I earnestly beseech my brethren in the Ministry, not to interfere, nor hinder one another in their holy courses, muchless virulently detract from the persons or labours one of another, but to set aside all preiudicat opinion, and allay all heat of passion, and contestation. Cyp. de zelo & livore. Purgare mentem quam serpentinus livor infecit & amaritudinem omnem quae intus incedit Christi dulcedine lenire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Paul exhorteth, Ephes 4.15. 1 john 3.18. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. as St. john persuadeth, that as we all agree in the love of the same truth, so we may seek, and follow after the truth in love. Thine in the best beloved Christ jesus. Daniel Featly. To the Author. GOOD Sir, I have perused your little Treatise, or Apology, which you committed to me, and I see no cause why you may not safely send it abroad into the world with his fellows, that have seen the light already, for as for your conclusion (in mine opinion) it is sound and orthodox, and as you explain it (to my thinking) not much different from theirs, who in words seem to speak contrary. And for your proofs and answers though I hold not every particular to be demonstrative and certain: yet (I think) there is enough in them, to evict the cause you strict for. Notwithstanding you must not make account, that all men should presently yield to be of your opinion: for sober minds may descent from you and you from them, without b each of charity or love; and fiery spirit's will descent from you, if it be for no other cause, but only for that Salamanders cannot live out of the fire. But I would wish you to consider of that Rule of ●he Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.16. If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, ●or the Churches of GOD, and (as much as may be) to imitate the stayed discretion of wise Travellers, who for ●eare of letting their journey, will not stand still, and strike at every dog that marks at them. For (as a Learned Writer upon the ●ormer words of Saint Paul notes to ●ood purpose) There will never be an ●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, because though he be an Hundreth ●imes foiled, yet will he never be wearied. We have all work enough to do in ecessary things, and therefore howsoever kind of necessity for satisfying the world have forced you thus fare, as to clear hat hath been objected already: yet if ●ere shall come any new repetition of ●d Arguments, or any further friuo●us cavils, your good hours may per●ps be better spent then in pursuing angling disputes: which mine opinion notwithstanding, I leave to your discretion to do as occasion shall require; and s● I leave you and your labours, to GOD'S blessed Protection and Mercy, Yours ever in the Lord jesus. Henry Maso● An Apology for the precedency of Repentance, unto faith in Christ. IN the Treatise called a Trial of Faith, the Author intended to teach Christians to examine rhemselues, whether they had a saving Faith, or no. As means to that end, he propounded in the first book certain reasons to persuade unto this Trial; and in the second, some rules to direct them therein. Against the reasons there is no exceptions taken (for aught I hear) but against the rules only: nor yet against all: but only the first, and the sixth rule. That which hath been objected against the first, hath been fully answered in a brief defence not long since published, and that which is excepted against, in the sixth rule shall now, (God willing) be cleared and satisfied, in a further confirmation thereof. In handling the sixth Rule of trying our Faith, I did three things principally. First I proved generally, that there are some preparations wrought in men, before they can believe in Christ, whereby God draws them thereunto. page 219, 220. (namely) that most usually and ordinarily it is so. Secondly, and more specially, I shown what these preparations were, viz. Some gifts and abilities wrought by the spirit of God, in the understanding, and will, of those whom the Lord hath a purpose to save, 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 down this proposition to be discussed. Repentance is begun before faith in Christ. 1. ᵉ Sinners begin to sorrow for their sins, and to purpose to leave them, before they can believe in Christ, viz. So, as to have any benesit thereby. First I proved this point by arguments, secondly, I cleared it by answering some objections, and lastly, I applied it by making some further use thereof. Against these general heads, and many particular members of each, there are (I understand) exceptions taken by some, and their exceptions (to omit longer introduction) are either against the fixed rule itself, 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 me reduced, to these two heads, for my more orderly proceeding, and the Readers better understanding. The Trial of Faith. The Rule itself The Rule itself. is laid down in the eight Chapter of the second book of my Treatise the 219 page, in these words, whether wast thou rightly prepared to believe in Christ by other gifts of the spirit; which he works in men, before they have a saving faith. The Exception, against the Trial. This Rule (say some in effect) is idle, because it pretends that men may try their faith by it: but indeed no man can, for (say they) all men are either regenerate, or unregenerate, (there is no third condition betwixt them, and different from them) and neither the one, nor the other, can try their faith by this rule. Not the regenerate because there is no gift, power, quality, disposition, habit, or affection (other then saving faith) that is or can be said, to be a preparative to regeneration. Neither can unregenerate me● try their faith, because there is no gift in men unregenerate, whereby themselves, or other can difference them, from those that remain in their natural estate, and that shall perish for ever. The Apology for the Trial. I answer, first generally to both regenerate and unregenerate, that though by their exception they seem to give two different Reasons, one for the regenerate, and another for the unregenerate: yet the reason belongs to all equally, because it denies either to the one, or the other, all or any preparations before faith or regeneration, either to difference the regenerate from the unregenerate: or one unregenerate man from another for ever. Secondly, I answer to their reason concerning the Regenerate, that it is of no force, why they may not try their faith by this Rule, because it affirms, that there can be no preparations at all to Regeneration but faith itself which cannot be true, because a belief of the Gospel which is a steadfast assent to the truth of that doctrine, is a gift of the Spirit, It is not a saving faith, but a a Heb. 11.6. means to it: yet is this belief a preparative to regeneration, and therefore may a regenerate man try himself by some other gift then by a saving faith, as by a preparation to Regeneration, and consequently try his faith by this rule. Thirdly, I answer touching the unregenerate, that their reason is unsufficient, why they may not try their faith by this rule, because though they have not a saving faith (as indeed they have not) yet may it not be in vain for them to examine themselves concerning a sluing faith by these preparations, for they may think they have it, when indeed they have not, and so may deceive themselves with a vain presumptuous hope of salvation. Now by this trial with these preparations they shall clearly discern they have it not: (for he that is fare from the preparation to faith must needs be further of from faith itself: he that hath not the lesser which is more common, hath not the greater which is more rare,) whereupon they may be occasioned, considering the danger of being without faith, and the benefit of having it, to seek in the use of the means for it, and by seeking to find and obtain it. May not a man try whether he have a good lease or no, if he have any lease at all though his lease be not good: yea, if he have any writing which he takes to be a lease, though it be not, may he not try whether he have a good lease or no? Besides though unregenerate men have no such gift whereby they may be differenced, from such as remain in their natural estate, and shall perish for ever: ye● may they try whether they have a saving faith or no: and by trial know they have it not, because they have no such gift; fo● all that have faith have such a gift: ever as the want of election into a College shows that a man is not fellow there though he have no gift whereby to difference him from all that are fellows o● scholars in that College; for all that are fellows or scholars of a College are elected into it. If they had given some good reaso● why there can be no preparations at all to faith in Christ, then had they spoken to purpose against my Rule; but seeing they have not done it, therefore is the Rule good for the purpose to which I intended it, for all their exception. Fourthly, touching the proof of their exception, viz: that there is no third state or condition betwixt men regenerate and unregenerate, I answer that they bring no proof of it, therefore can I not allow of it; and besides the contrary seems to me very probable, understanding this to be their meaning (as it must be if it be to purpose) that there is no third condition betwixt a mere natural man and one fully regenerate: for I think a third condition somewhat different from both, may be assigned: and given namely, the condition of preparation, which may be compared to the twilight, that is betwixt clear day, and dark night, wherein whosoever is (being elected) may be said to be in his passage from the one, which is mere nature, the other which is perfect regeneration, and between both: that is, some way forwarded unto regeneration, and about to enter into God's Kingdom, and yet not actually admitted thereunto, as one conceived, not borne, or in the birth, not quite brought forth, for as we read of some that were entered into God's Kingdom and were * Mat. 13.38. children thereof, and of some that were * Eph 2.13.14. fare from it, so do we read of some that were * Mark 12 34. not fare from the Kingdom of God, and that * Mat. 23.13. were entering in, or about to enter, but not quite in. I know there are but two places to be enjoyed by men after this life, Heaven and Hell, and but two sorts of persons to inherit them, Elect and Reprobate: yet may the Elect, before they come into Heaven, be said to pass through a threefold condition, the first of mere nature, in which there are no works of the Spirit toward Regeneration. The second of Preparation, wherein there be some gifts of the Spirit bestowed on them to dispose them to Regeneration. And the third is the full work of Regeneration itself. And I can see no reason in the world why this should be counted a Paradox or strange position, seeing (ordinarily) all they that are of age, pass through this preparation, Mat. 11.28. All that come to Christ and believe in him, must be weary and heavy laden. And as long as it is confessed: first, that these d spositions, preparing unto Regeneration are not the work of nature but God's Spirit: (else they would be in all mere natural men, and even in the very Elect, when they continue in their state of ●eere nature, which experience disproves) ●econdly, that they are not wrought ●y the Spirit always, but then of purpose, when the time of their effectual calling is ●ome: thirdly, that they are not sufficient ●o salvation, (if a man could be truly imagined being elected to die in that estate;) but only that they are appointed as preparations to Regeneration in the Elect, who because they are ordained to that end which is eternal life, and to the means of that end which is Faith; therefore are they also predestinate to the means 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 merely natural, or fully regenerate, and consequently in a third condition some way different from mere grace or nature. And so much for answer to the exceptions against the Rule itself. Now follows the handling of the Rule. The Trial. The Rule gins to be handled, Page 219. viz. That a saving Eaith, etc. The Exception. The handling of the Rule. The first point in handling the Ru● that is excepted against, is a general pr●position, that there be some preparation wrought in men by the Spirit, before th● believe in Christ. Against this there lie two exceptions first, that I do not distinguish the gifts 〈◊〉 the Spirit, which I say go before Faith 〈◊〉 Christ as preparations to it, nor show wh●ther they be common graces to Reprobates, or peculiar to the Elect, do tend necessarily unto salvation, and have the promise: secondly, that the places allege by me to prove the general proposition do not prove it: but only this, that Go● works Faith, in those in whom it i● wrought, and that there is neither will, no● deed in man's power to believe in Chris● for salvation. The Defence. ●o the first exception. To the first Exception I answer, tha● though I do not make all those same distinctions, of the preparing graces which they desire: yet do I distinguish them a● much as is needful: for in the Treatise they are divided into Legal and Evangelicall, which is enough to my purpose: secondly, I say that to the proving of the point in question, there is no need of such distinctions, as they propound, because in all that disputation, I speak of working of those preparations in the Elect only (in whom only a saving Faith is wrought because they only are to be saved, page 224. line 17.) So that as long as it is evident, that the preparations to Faith that I speak of be ordinarily wrought in all the Elect (that is in them that are of years 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 Model of Divinity pa. 278. them by God's Spirit to prepare them to believe in Christ, and that they may be saved, therefore do they necessarily tend unto their salvation, and consequently must be such, as have the promise, being by God's appointment, ordained as means to that end: not in respect of themselves, singly considered in themselves, and in their own nature, but in a threefold consideration. 1. In relation to the persons in whom they are wrought, which are the Elect, to whom salvation, and the promise belongs. 2. In respect of the ground from whence they proceed, which is the lo● of God in their election, of which they a● the fruits and effects, as well as justify in faith itself. 3. In reference to the end for whic they are wrought in men ordained vnt● eternal life, viz. to make them fit persons, in whom Faith may be wrought fo● the obtaining of that salvation, to whic● they are elected. So that as long as all Reprobates hau● not these preparations wrought in them but all the Elect have: As long as many reprobates have but some of them; but the Elect have all ordinarily: and as long as by God's appointment they do not tend to the salvation of the Reprobat (because God never intended their salvation) but of the Elect they do, therefore is there no need 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 alleged by me, a●e expounded by the learned, not of working Faith itself: but of the preparations unto Faith, as shall appear in the particulars. Luk. 3.4. Tertull●an de de baptismo chap. 10. The first Text taken out of Saint Luke's Gospel, speaks of Preparing the way to Christ: which not only Turtullian, but Master Caluin, and Master Piscator expound of preparing the way by repentance; preparing the way to Christ by repentance is not the working of faith in men, but working in them repentance to the end they may be prepared to believe in Christ. The words I shall have occasion to city hereafter, among the testimonies of the learned, in proof of the main point, therefore will I respite the citing of them till then. joa. 6.44, 35. The second place of Scripture in Saint john's Gospel speaks of drawing men to come to Christ, that is, to believe in him; which by the judgement of the learned is not to be interpreted of working faith in men: but of preparing them to the work of faith; namely, by illumination. Caluins' comment on joh. 6.44. He teacheth (saith Caluin) that those are drawn whose minds he doth enlighten, and whose hearts he doth bend, and frame to the obedience of Christ. That by the metaphor of drawing (saith Piscator) Piscator's comment on john 6.44. is understood the illumination of the mind, the Lord himself declareth, where he saith, every man that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh to me. So that coming to Christ being believing in him; drawing to come, being not coming itself; nor illumination being faith itself, therefore in the judgement of those two learned men, the Text of john is not to be expounded, as they have said: but as I have delivered it. This (I hope) is enough to confute that which they object against my interpretation of the Texts which I alleged to prove my general proposition: namely, that there are some preparations wrought by the Spirit in men before they believe in Christ, The general proposition concerning preparations. which was the first general thing propounded in handling of the Rule. The Trial. The cords by which God draws man to believe, etc. The Exception. The second general herein, was a special recital of the particular preparations which, and what they be, which I say go before faith in Christ. This they first deny, saying that there are none such. Secondly they disprove it, by giving two reasons why there can be none such, or why some of them that I name can be none. The Defence. Against their bare Denial I will only oppose the testimonies of two learned Divines of our own time and country Master Rogers, Master Baynes. Master Rogers speaking how the knowledge of man's misery by sin, Master Roger's Treatise 7, 8. c. 4. p. 9 ad 21. and of redemption by Christ, doth work in him on whom God will show mercy; and how God by the light and help of it, draweth him forward, until he believe, for his own part, and in his own person (for these be his very words in the beginning of that discourse) he doth lay down six several works of the Spirit, in six several 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 believe their misery, and to be troubled in mind for it, 2 They consult in this case what to do. 3 They are broken hearted and humbled. 4 They have a secret desire of forgiveness. 5 They confer and ask pardon. 6 They forsake all for it, and highly ●rize it, and then they come to apply Christ, and the promise to themselves, which his judgement is a saving faith. In like manner and to the same e● Master Baynes speaking, Master Baynes brief directions to a godly life. how the knowledge of misery by sin, and redemption Christ, works on a man towards faith Christ he saith thus. 1 He is drawn by the secret work the spirit to believe that the doctrine taug● doth concern him. 2 The Lord directeth him to enter i● further consideration with himself, of and ●bout his present state, and consulteth what do in this extremity. 3 From the former consultation, becometh to this holy resolution that he 〈◊〉 not return to his old ways, but in all hu●lity, meekness, and holiness, say with 〈◊〉 Paul, Lord what shall I do? 4 By this means he comes to an unfined desire of forgiveness. 5 With earnest, humble and particule confession of his sins, he poureth o● prayers to God for the pardon of them Christ. 6 He having found this pearl, prise it as it is worth, and therefore selleth all th● he hath, and biddeth farewell to his sweet● delights, for the obtaining of it, and then 〈◊〉 cometh to apply the Gospel to himself and sealeth up his salvation in his heart. Neither is this the opinion of these learned and holy preachers, but of many other in our own Church, Mr. Elton in his Catechism the four principle. Model of Divinity, page 274, to 279. Mr. Wheatly of Regeneration ch. ●4. Mr. Perkins Catechism, 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 prove, that some of those preparations which I mention, do not go before faith in Christ, and they are two. The Exception. Those preparations do not go before faith in Christ. 1. Because they do not draw all men to believe in Christ, in whom they are wrought for (say they) Gods cords do draw, and have always irresistably coming joined with them. 2. Because (I myself) in my Treatise say, that some of them are effects and fruits of faith following it: Therefore cannot they go before it as preparations, to which I will answer severally. The Defence. Their first reason To the first reason. is of no force: First because though those preparations, do not in the event draw all men to believe 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 unto eternal life, and to believe in him for that end. For of these only is the question. Secondly, if their reason were good, then would it prove that a belief of the Gospel, is none of God's cords, to draw men to believe in Christ, nor the Preaching of the Gospel none of God's means, to work faith in Christ, for neither the one does draw all men so to come to Christ, nor the other so work faith in Christ, in all that have the one wrought in them, or the other taught unto them: witness the Parable of the seed in the Gospel. Mat. 11.19. to 28. Is not the act of generation God's ordinance to the begetting of a child, because a child is not begotten by every hand acts. I confess God's spirit doth not only draw men to believe in Christ: but also works it in them actually, at one time or other, after those preparations: but drawing men to believe, or preparing them thereunto, is a different action, from his working of faith, or enabling them to believe, and in the elect coming follows drawing necessarily, in respect of the event. Their second reason To the second reason. whereby they would prove, that some of the preparations I name, cannot go 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. Indeed I say, that a fear of God, goes before faith in Christ, as a preparation to it, page 222. and that a fear of God follows faith in Christ, as an effect thereof: page 304. but neither do I say, that a filial fear is the preparation, nor a servile fear the effect: though the faithful after believing in Christ, do fear to sin for fear of condemnation, else the Holy Ghost would never dissuade from it on that ground. The like may be said of sorrow for sin, by comparing page 222. where it is a preparation to faith, and page 301. where it is an effect of a saving faith, (or rather of one that hath it) for I do not say, that sorrow for sin on the same grounds altogether, and in the same measure doth go before and after faith in Christ, and therefore their reason is but a Cavil, and so I descend to the third general thing against which they except in handling the sixth 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 itself. 2 against the exposition of it; and 3 against the handling of the position. The Trial. The position itself that repentance is one of those preparations. The position itself, is this, Repentance is begun 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 another in the residue. The Apology. To the 1. Exception. I do indeed often use the word Before to express the Precedency I mean, but neither did I mean, a precedency some space of time, nor can they show it by the words of the book, except I had added thereunto some other word as time, space, season, or the like, to give light to such an interpretation, which is not done in that whole disputation. Or except the word Before in the English tongue, did always carry that sense only, 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 Earl before a Baron; and in worth, as gold before silver: As well as in time, as the begetting of a child is before his birth. Secondly, they had reason to interpret my meaning of a precedency in nature, rather than in time, because I made the beginning of repentance to be a means unto Faith in Christ (as is to be seen by my two first Arguments and other places of the book) and therefore before it only in the order of causes, and consequently in the order of nature. 2. Because in my disputation, I oppose the common opinion, and the received opinion concerning the precedency betwixt Repentance and Faith, is, that faith goes before repentance not in time, but in nature, therefore my opinion that contradicts theirs, should be understood of the same manner of precedency viz. that repentance goes before faith in order of Nature. Thirdly, though I meant a precedency in nature, yet did I not mean that so much, as the proof of this, namely a necessity of the being of repentance with faith in Christ. For my chief intent was to show that sinners cannot, warrantably with any expectation of benefit by thei● faith believe in Christ for salvation, except they repent; when they do the on● they must do the other, as appears by this in that by way of exposition, I say men cannot believe in Christ as long 〈◊〉 they live in their sins, page 244, line 27 and that I expound the word Before b● till or until. page 279. line 26, 27. & 278 line 25; & 281. line 17.24. & 282. l. 25 27. and in other places. In the fourth place. If I say to my Tenant, that owes me the rent of the two la● quarters: you shall not bring me the on● quarter's rend, before the other. I will n● receive the first before the last; can it be hence concluded necessarily, that I mean he shall bring his first quarters rend in tim● precisely before the last: may not my Tenant, with as good reason, conceive my meaning to be, that I will have him bring both together, and if he do so, may not he think I will be well content? In like manner, when I say sinners may not believe in Christ before they have repent: It cannot be necessarily concluded, I meant, they must repent some space of time before they believe in Christ. They may with as good reason understand, they must do both at one time, when they believe in Christ they must repent, and if they so do, it will be well pleasing to God: Charity might have taught them to interpret me the best way rather than the worst. Fifthly, they that hold repentance and faith go together in time, (but give the precedency to faith in nature) yet speak of the precedency of faith unto repentance, and when they speak of this precedency they say faith goes before repentance: and why then may not I which hold, repentance and faith go together in time, but give the precedency to repentance in nature; speak of this precedency, and say repentance goes before faith, why should I be understood of predecency some space of time, more than they, and be blamed therefore rather than they. Lastly, (if I may freely speak my mind) I think it may be maintained, that in some cases, and in some persons, in these days, repentance in some degree may be wrought before faith in Christ some space of time, according as those doctrines may be preached first or last in time, and be made effectual to the good of the hearers by Preaching; for I could never yet conceive how it crossed any commandment or promise of God, or hindered any duty or comfort of the faithful, or discountenanced the sincerity of profession, or disparaged the perseverance of the Elect, in the estate of grace, or derogated from the free grace of God in Christ, or lifted up man in any proud conceit of his own free will, as long as it is affirmed, that repentance is but begun only: that it is wrought by the Spirit only, and by the word only, and in the Elect only, and only as an effect of their Election, and only as a means to work Gods will on them, by disposing them to faith in Christ, whereby they may be brought to that supernatural end, to which they are ordained in him, and therefore there needed no such clamour, as hath been noised about it, supposing the position hath been so understood. But (it may be) others see what I cannot, they discern more untruth in the Doctrine than I, and descry more mischief likely to ensue thereupon, than I can apprehend; else there is no reason they should be so violent in opposing it: be it so, than I hope it will appear by their arguments against it. Surely if the opinion were so absurd and dangerous, I suppose the holy Scripture would afford arguments many and strong enough to confute it, and if they did, I make no doubt but they would be diligent enough to collect them, and if they had, I guess shrewdly, they would be forward enough to produce them, let us then take a view of them, to the end we may believe if it be possible. The Exception. Their Arguments are four in number, and I will propound them in due form that their strength may be better discerned. The first Argument. If all saving graces be wrought all at once and together, so that when one is wrought, the other is wrought also, then is not repentance begun in time before a saving faith: But the first is true, therefore the second. The Assumption they prove, as shall be seen by and by. The Defence. 1 I answer, If by saving graces the mean such as are appointed by God 〈◊〉 save sinners instrumentally, than I deny t●● consequence; and grant the Assumption for though all such saving graces (supposing there were many of them) we● wrought all at an instant; so that when o● is wrought, the other is wrought also: y● might repentance be wrought in time b●fore all these: for in this sense only fait● in Christ is a saving grace, because it onel● apprehends and lays hold on the Saviour Christ and his merits for salvation. Repentance is no such saving grace: but if by saving grace be meant either those that ten● to salvation, or are wrought in all the● that shall be saved, to make them person capable of salvation, than I grant the consequence and deny the Assumption, because some of these viz. illumination an● belief of the Gospel, and the beginning o● repentance, may in time be wrought before faith, for aught this argument prove to the contrary. But let us see how they prove the a●sumption in which lieth the strength o● the Argument. The Exception. If regeneration be wrought all at once and together, so that when one grace of regeneration is wrought, all other of the same kind are wrought also, than all saving graces are wrought all at once and together. But the one is true, therefore the other. The consequence (they imagine) is good, because by the work of saving graces men are regenerated, and borne of the Spirit. The Assumption they will prove anon. The Defence. I answer by granting the consequence of the proposition: but by denying the Assumption, and that for this ●eason. Illumination of the mind and understanding, with the knowledge of the mystery of the Gospel in Christ, is a grace of Regeneration, as well as the sanctifying of the will and affections: yet may illumination be wrought in time before sanctification, in the Elect, because it is wrought in the reprobates without sanctification at all, and therefore regeneration is not wrought all at once and together, as they hau● alleged. That Illumination is a grac● of Regeneration I prove: first, because it is a part of the new man: Colos. 3.10. Eph. 1.17. Eph. 4.23.24. Act. 26.19. Eph. 1 18. & 21. secondly it is a part of the renewing God's image i● us: thirdly, it is a part of our turning an● conversion: fourthly, because it is a part 〈◊〉 our spiritual quickening. But let us hear how they prove th● Assumption. The Exception. If all God's works be perfect, in thei● several kinds; so that when part of the● is wrought, the other is wrought also then is regeneration wrought all at once and together; so that when one grac● thereof is wrought, all other of the same kind are wrought also at the same time. But the first is true, therefore the second. The consequence they take for good, because regeneration, is one of the worke● of God that argue his perfection in working: yea, one of the chiefest of them. The Assumption they think needs no proof. The Apology. I answer, by granting the consequence; but by denying the Assumption. 1. Because the Creation of the world, was not perfected in all the parts thereof all at once but successiively, and in six days. 2. The creation ●f Adam was not, for his soul was created and put into his body (in likelihood) in time after his body was framed. 3. Sexin lacte dies ter sunt in sanguine trinibis seni carnem, ter seni membra figurant. The generation of man man (which is God's work) is not perfected all at one instant; for neither is the body perfect all at one instant, but in some days and weeks, after the child is conceived and begotten, nor is the soul put into the body as soon as it is begotten and conceived; but some days and weeks after the child is conceived and begotten, for the man is not perfect till both soul and body be united together: fourthly, jesus Christ doth frame the Church and make it perfect, not all at once and together, but successively by calling one member after another, and adding them thereunto. Act. 2.47. Heb. 11.40. Eph. 4.12. I grant all God's works are perfect in their several kinds, with that perfection which God intends them at several time but one time they may be imperfect in regard of the whole; for unto some part that are already wrought, others may b● added at other times when God pleaseth I grant also that if by regeneration, th● mean Gods making a man actually h● child, then is regeneration wrought all one instant and together, for that gra● that gives him prerogative to be God son, viz: faith in Christ is wrought all 〈◊〉 once and together: but if by regeneration be meant every or any grace of the Spi● tending or disposing thereunto, or a● part of regeneration; then I say regeneration may be begun in one part at one tim● and perfected in another grace at another time, as hath been showed in the instant of Illumination and Sanctification but ●uen now, and as may be further declare● by peace of conscience, and joy in the hol● Ghost, which are graces of regeneration yet are not wrought all at one instant wi● faith in Christ, (at least not in all men) b● some time after. Neither can this be any way a disparagement to God, which works it thu● if he please so to work; seeing his wi● cannot disparage his power, nor his pleasu● his wisdom: therefore their first Argument is not strange enough to prove the question, the second follows. The Exception. If a true change of the heart, The second Argument. cannot be begun in time before a saving faith, than repentance cannot be begun in time before a saving faith. But the one is true, therefore the o●her. The consequence they say is good, because repentance is a true change of the heart, the Assumption they prove. The Defence. I answer, if by a true change of the heart, be meant the change of the whole soul in all the parts and powers thereof, ●hen I deny the consequence, and grant the Assumption. For the repentance I speak of is not such a change. But if thereby he meant an hearty sorrow for sin and a true change of the purpose of the heart, without hypocrisy to leave sin; then I grant the consequence, and deny the Assumption, for this change of the heart may ●e begun in time before a saving faith. But they prove their Assumption thus. The Exception. If the beginning of a true change 〈◊〉 the heart do presuppose that faith in Chri● death and resurrection, goes in time befog this change, than a true change of th● heart cannot be begun in time before saving faith. But the first is true, therefore the s●cond. The consequence they think none wi● deny. The assumption they offer to proo● out of my book, where page 301 refr●ning sin is made a fruit of faith, an● page 310. we are said to draw down virtue from Christ's death to die unto sinn● and from his resurrection to walk in newness of life. The Apology. I answer, 1. generally that this argument directly crosseth the first Argument, for saving graces be wrought all at once a● together, then cannot a true change of t● heart presuppose faith in Christ death to go before this change in time. Secony, and more particularly I answer, th● The consequence I grant, the assumption I deny, for I do not say (which is the question) that at the first conversion, when the heart begins first to be changed, this change doth presuppose faith in Christ to be in it at the same instant, and that there can be no refraining of sin in any measure so much as begun till there be in men faith in Christ, whereby they draw down virtue from his death and resurrection, etc. But I only affirm there, that refraining of sin for conscience sake in sincerity and in a settled and constant course is a fruit of faith, and requires virtue from Christ's death and resurrection, to be drawn down by faith in Christ, and so doth power to mortify our corrupt nature in the lusts of it, and to quicken us in our new man, to cheerful, constant, and conscionable new obedience, require and presuppose this faith in Christ's death and resurrection: faith that Christ's obedience Active and Passive, hath merited pardon, and that if we repent, and believe therein, we shall be pardoned, is with God's Spirit sufficient to soften and change the heart as fare as in repentance sticktly taken is required. It is true, Repentance is a change o● the heart, for in repentance the heart 〈◊〉 changed first in the affection of joy 〈◊〉 sorrow; for whereas a sinner before his repentance rejoiced in doing evil, now he sorrows for the evil he hath done. S●condly, in the purpose of doing; for wher● as formerly he purposed to live in his si● Now he purposeth to leave them, but thi● change of the heart may be wrought before faith in Christ, as well as the chang● of the mind from darkness to light 〈◊〉 wrought before it, Acts 26 18. and the change may b● true in the one, that is, the heart, as well a● in the other, that is, the mind. Indeed the beginning of the chang● of the heart, doth presuppose that fait● which is a belief of threatenings to th● impenitent, and promises to the repentant, which comprehends a belief of th● truth of the death and resurrection 〈◊〉 Christ; and in the elect the beginning 〈◊〉 this change of the heart doth suppose th● faith in Christ's death and resurrection w● follow, for the perfecting of it, in mortification and vivification. But it is not tru● that the beginning of this change doth p● suppose this faith as present, at the very i●stānt, when this change is a beginning, whic● is the question, and which is not prove by this Argument, and therefore it proves nothing, the third follows. The Exception. If a man can never begin to return, till he believe that God will be merciful to him in special, The third argument. than repentance is not begun in time before a saving faith. But the first is true, therefore the second. The Apology. The consequence is naught, 1. because it takes for granted (which I deny) that a belief that God will be merciful to a man in special, that is in particular to john and William, is a saving faith. This is false. 1. because this is but an assent to the truth of a proposition, such a belief is but an Historical faith, and such a faith is not a saving faith. 2. because such an assent cannot be faith, because it doth not rest upon the authority of God, revealing it in Scripture, for he hath revealeth no such thing, touching the salvation of any particular man but generally to all, but upon this believing in Christ. Indeed it is revealed that God will be merciful, in general to mankind, and in special to those of mankind, which believe in Christ, so that till they believe in Christ, they may not believe, or persuade themselves that God will be merciful to them in special. Before sinners do believe in Christ they may believe and persuade themselves it is possible for God to have mercy on them, and that God will certainly be merciful to them when they repent and believe in Christ, but before this they may not. For though exhortations to repentance are founded commonly vpo● the mercy of God in the Gospel: yet no● upon the Mercy of God already receiue● by justifying faith: but offered by God and to be received upon Repentance, an● faith in Christ; for the conditions must be performed before we may expect the accomplishing of the promise, and we mus● feel in ourselves by the reflex of our ow● conscience, that we do indeed heartily sorrow for our past sins, and purpose unfeignedly to leave them, before we may rest o● Christ or trust to him for salvation: fo● till then we are not persons well qualified to receive mercy, nor fit to trus● in him for it, so as to be sure to obtain it certainly in the end: for though the Scripture say, Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, yet doth it not say repent for ye are all ready in the Kingdom of Heaven by a justifying faith. Secondly, the consequence is naught, because it proves no more but that repentance is not begun till faith in Christ, and not that it is nor begun in time before it: for betwixt these two propositions there is great difference as hath been well observed by them in their answer to my 3 argument. The Assumption likewise is not true, 1. because a man may begin to return by illumination, for that is a turning of men from darkness to light, except they need not repent of their ignorance and infidelity. 2. Acts. 26 18. because a man may begin to return by a belief of that word that threatens the impenitent and for fear of punishment, he may also proceed further herein, by a belief of that word which promiseth mercy to the repentant, and in hope of pardon, but a man must begin to return before he believe that God will be merciful to him in special, or else he will never begin to return, because there is no such special promise in the word, to be believed, as may appear by this reason. The belief that God will be merciful to a man in special, must be either absolute or conditional. Absolute it cannot be, because no man can believe in this manner absolutely, but he to whom such mercy is absolutely promised. Now in the word there is mercy promised to none but under the condition of repentance and faith in Christ, nor is this mercy promised in special and particular, but in general to all mankind, viz. which believe in Christ. If it be not absolute, then is it conditional; if conditional, then may not a sinner believe, that God will be merciful to him in special, till he have performed the condition. And therefore for all this, their third reason is weak, and sinners may begin to repent in time before they believe in Christ. The Exception. The fourth argument. There is a fourth reason alleged to disproone my (supposed) position of repenting some space of time before believing in Christ, viz. because I say, page 231 301. 303. that the practice of repentance follows faith, meaning in time. The Apology. This reason is not worth the framing, or answering, for it answers itself. He that speaks of the practice of Repentance, following faith, and thereby means the actual performing of that, concerning his former sins which he hath purposed, viz: the leaving of them, necessarily implies that a purpose to leave them, doth go before faith in Christ. Oh but say they, the following of the practice is in time, therefore the going before of the purpose is in time also. I deny the consequence; because to the one, there is no need of time (that is) betwixt a beginning to repent and believing in Christ, there needs no space of time; but betwixt believing in Christ, and practising repentance, there is required space of time, viz: all our life after. Indeed in one place; I mean, by the practising of Repentance, Pag. 261. l. 25. the action of Repentance with the heart, or purposing so to do, and this I say goes before faith in Christ (that is, in nature, not in time) but by practice of Repentance, viz: I mean, Pag. 301. 303. the putting in practice in our lives and conversations, that which the heart hath purposed concerning the leaving of our sins, to the end the sincerity of our Repentance may appear; And so much for answer to their Arguments, whereby they endeavoured to prove against me (upon 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 unto Faith in Christ, the second exception follows. 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 answer: first, Master Perkins speaks of Repentance, begun in his Treatise of Repentance, chap. 1. will they make the like exception against him? secondly, they have given no reason why repentance cannot be so begun and perfected, therefore is their exception of no worth; but I will give one reason why it m●y be so wrought: namely, because I have already proved, 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 follows. The exposition of my position consists in this, that I mean by the Repentance I speak of a true purpose of heart to leave our former evil lives, etc. The Exception. These words (say they) define repentance, The ezposition of the position. but they think the definition ●aught: 1. because it makes repentance, consist in the heart only, which should be ●n the whole man soul and body. 2. because it supposeth that truth and sincerity ●f heart can go before faith in Christ. 〈◊〉 because it implies that true repentance may be before saving grace or faith 〈◊〉 Christ. 4. and lastly, because in handling this point, I say a man may die with his true repentance, and not be saved, to ●ll which I will answer in order. The Apology. I answer first, To the first exception. that I had reason to call ●rue repentance, a true purpose of heart to ●eaue our former sins, etc. 1. because impenitency or unrepentance, is a purpose of heart to go on in our former evil ●ourses, and to live in them still. 2. because Mr, Perkins so describes the nature of it. Mr. Perkins golden chain, chap. 39 Repentance (saith he) is when a sinner turneth to the Lord, this is performed when as any one by the instruction of ●he Holy Ghost doth purpose, will and desire and endeavour, to relinquish his former sins 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 〈◊〉 virtue, habit, or quality, (and so I describe it,) which only hath his seat in the soul heart, will, and affections, and not in an● part of the body. 2. because the repentance of the body (as they speak) is no● the virtue itself, but the practice of it, o● the actual leaving of our former sinne● according to the purpose of our hear● Now this is not a part of repentance, Math. 3.2. Acts 26.20. Model of Divinity. pa. 290. Perkins gold, chain, ch. 37. Buc. iustit. loc. 30. pag. 289. b● an effect or fruits of that virtue, and wit● this agree not only the Scriptures, but th● judgement of many learned Divines, 〈◊〉 our own, and other Countries. If they say that only is true repentance which bringeth forth a godly life. I answer, if by true repentance the● mean that which in the event shall stan● for true before God, which in this worl● shall help forward the assurance of ou● salvation, and in the end be crowned wit● Heaven; then I say that is true repentance which bringeth forth a good life. But 〈◊〉 thereby be meant (as I understand it) th● which in the nature of the thing is tru● repentance, that is, Repentance without dissimulation, than I say true repentance i● an hearty sorrow for past sins, and 〈◊〉 true purpose to leave the same. If I describe faith in Christ by it office, ●s it justifies, than I will say it is a grace of God, whereby a sinner trusts unto Christ for salvation: But if I describe it as it may ●e distinguished from the faith of hypocrites that shall fail them, then will I say, ●t is a grace of God that works by love, ●nd stirs up unto good works: yet is ●ot working by love, and stirring up to good works of the nature of Faith, as it justifies (though it be of the nature of that faith which justifies) but an effect of that which doth justify, or rather a fruit of him, that is justified by faith, by which he is declared and manifested to be justified in God's sight. Even so if I describe repentance properly, and by the nature which it hath as a virtue, or holy quality, distinct from other graces and virtuous habits, I will say it is a grace of God whereby sinners sorrow hearty for their past sins, and purpose unfeignedly to leave them. But if I describe it so, as it may be differenced from the repentance of hypocrites which will fail them, than I will say it is a grace of God, whereby a sinner sorrowing for his sins, and purposing to leave them, doth accordingly leave them and amen● his life, yet is not this amendment of li● a part of repentance the virtue it se● but a effect of it, and an fruit of him that hath it in his heart, which the repentance of his heart is declared, by the efficacy of it unto sal●tion. And indeed (to speak as the tru● is,) though in respect of the inward natu● of the virtue itself, and as it is seated the heart, that is true repentance which i● sorrow for sins past, and a purpose leave them: yet in respect of efficacy v● salvation in the event, and in respect manifestation, that only is true rep●tance and is declared so to be, whi● bringeth forth a good life. And if a m● may not persuade himself he is ●●ued though he believe in Chri● except this faith be accompanied 〈◊〉 him, with inward fruits of other graces', and outward fruits of a holy lif● than may not a man persuade himself that he hath repent, unto salvation 〈◊〉 the heart, except his inward repentant in sorrowing for sins, and purposi● to leave them be accompanied with outward amendment of life. But they bring two reasons, to pro● that true repentance is not this true purpose of heart, etc. The Exception. Reason 1 True repentance is not a true purpose of heart to leave our former sins etc. because this purpose may fail: but true repentance cannot fail. The Apology. I answer, 1. that if we consider this purpose and repentance, only in the nature of them, they may fail: for there is nothing in their nature, as they are in themselves considered, that can keep them from failing, but considering them in relation to the ground from whence they proceed which is election; to the end for which they are wrought in the elect, which is to make them persons capable of the salvation, unto which they are elected; or to the efficient cause which is the spirit, who perfects his graces begun, so they cannot fail totally and finally: for in the elect this purpose of repentance is seconded with practice accordingly, in the event. 2. Repentance not dissembled, (of which I speak) may fail both of the end which is eternal life, and of the effect which is amendment of life. For a m●● not having received the grace of perse●rance, may give over this purpose and sturne to his former sins, and conseque●ly fail of eternal life, as may be suppo●● in Ahab, and the Ninivites. The Exception. Reason 2 True repentance is not a true purp● of heart to leave our former sins, & because this purpose may be in Repr●bates, but true repentance cannot be them. The Apology. I answer, as to the former argume●● that true repentance, or a● purpose 〈◊〉 heart to leave our former sins (not d●sembled) may be in Reprobates, as Ahabs' case, though true repentance whi● brings forth new obedience in the li● constantly, conscionably, and sincerely, ca●not: So that for all this I might warrantably describe the true repentance I spea● of, by a true purpose of the heart to le● our former evil ways. I did not write a Treatise of Repentance, but of Faith (of repentance in 〈◊〉 Treatise I spoke, but by the way and occasionally) therefore was it not needful should define repentance precisely, a description if it would serve the turn. If (of set purpose) I had treated of that common place I would have defined it otherwise then I have done, and I would have showed that the object of it is sin only and sins past, for of that only must a man repent, for the doing whereof in time past, he must be sorry; and the doing whereof he must leave in time to come; and what can that be but sin only, that is, 2. Cor. 12.21: Act. 18.22. Revela. 2.22. sin past (for there is no reason we should repent of them before we have committed them,) though we must endeavour to prevent them before we have committed them. And if I had directly meant to define repentance, I would have left out of that which they call my definition, some words which are in, and have put in some other which are left out. That which I would have left out, which is in, should have been these words, viz. and purpose to serve God better, for indeed they be but a consequence, following upon our purpose of leaving our former sins, or rather an amplification of it by the contrary, than any part of the nature of repentance, the ob●ect whereof is only sin, and therefore not new serving of God. That which would have inserted into the Definition which is left out, should have been thes words, is a godly sorrow for sin, for th● is the first part of repentance, as shall 〈◊〉 seen by and by. If any ask me why I meant to describe repentance as I did. I answer. 1. I added the form● words, not because I meant thereby 〈◊〉 describe any part of repentance, but b●cause they contain a necessary consequent and effect following, upon our purpose 〈◊〉 leaving our former sins. For to what 〈◊〉 should we purpose to leave our sin's 〈◊〉 time passed, excepr we resolved in time 〈◊〉 come to serve God better: how shall th● former be manifested without the latte● 2. I omitted the other words not because I thought not sorrow for sin, to be a● part of repentance, which shall be shew● by and by, but because purpose to lea● past sins necessarily presupposeth sorrow for the committing of them, else wh● should make a man to resolve to lea● them but the sorrow of his heart for 〈◊〉 doing thereof. 3. I only described rep●tance by a purpose of the heart to leave 〈◊〉 former sins, not because I thought t●● to be all requisite in repentance, but b●cause this purpose and resolution is the last act of the heart as it reputes, or the last act of repentance, as it is seated in the heart. Now that the nature of Repentaance consists in two things, vix: unfeigned sorrow of heart for sins already committed, and purpose of heart not to commit the same again, (to prove this) I shall not need to produce testimonies of Scripture, for common sense teacheth us, that Repentance in men concerning things in the world, hath for the object of it things hurtful only: that is, that either are such, or seem to us to be such. I (mean) we fear or feel for something, that we have done; and that our Repentance for the things that we have done, and for the doing whereof we are sensible of such hurt, consists in sorrow for the doing thereof; and in purpose to do so no more, if it were to be done again: I will make it plain by a familiar example. I want a convenient house, hereupon I purpose to build one, I confer with workmen about it, and the charge of the building, I am told it will cost me but three hundred pound, upon this charge I reckon, and go about it, but before it be finished I find it will cost me four hundred pound: when I see this I repent o● the building of my house: that is, it irked me, it vexes me, and makes me sorry fo● the cost I have bestowed on it, and not only so, but I wish it were undone, and resolve if it were to do again, I would never build it: yea, I purpose never to undertake the building of a house again, but will be sure it shall cost me no more than expect. In like manner, for a long time a sinn● goes on in an evil course of life, without fear of Hell, and with a presumptuous hope of Heaven, at length when the tim● of his conversion is come, the Lord is pleased to let him see the folly and fowlenes● of his sins, the danger of his course, if 〈◊〉 go on, and the benefit of his repentance● he return, these considerations believed and laid to heart, makes him repent: that i● to be hearty sorry: yea, pricked in heart, f●● his evil life past, and to resolve to live 〈◊〉 longer in them: yea, that now he woul● not do the same things again, if the were to be committed, and were not a● ready done, and thus much be enough 〈◊〉 have written in defence of those word● wherein I describe the nature of the tru● repentance which I say goeth before fait● in Christ, and for answer to the first Exception against the Exposition, the second follows. The second exception likewise is idle, To the second Exception. for whereas for the ground of it, it is imagined and alleged, that there can be no manner of sincerity in a man's actions before he believe in Christ. This I shall easily disprove by one that was no Proselyte, nor ever had faith in Christ (for aught the Scripture saith) yet doth the Lord say of him concerning one action, viz: Gen 20.6. the taking away of Sarah Abraham's wife, that he knew he did it in the integrity of his heart, now if the heart of one man may be sincere in respect of Chastity, before he have Faith in Christ, why may not the heart of another be upright in respect of Repentance before faith in Christ, I do not say, or mean, with that integrity, that is acceptable to God unto salvation, but with that which is some way acceptable viz: for the obtaining of temporal blessings, and removing the like evils and punishments. For as a regenerate man, though otherwise sincere and upright generally, yet in some particular actions may dissemble and play the hypocrite, as David in the matter of Vriah and Bathsheba: even so an unregenerate man, may in many of his action generally, be naught, and unsound, deceitful and hypocritical; and yet in some one, sincere and upright. To the third Exception. In like manner their third exception i● frivolous; for it supposeth an untruth for the foundation of it, viz: that no true repentance can go before saving grace, or faith in Christ: the contrary is plain in the Ninivites who are said to repent, jonah. 3.4 5. ●at. 12.41. and ye● is it not revealed that ever they had a saving faith. If any say that theirs was not true repentance. It is disproved: first, because it was wrought through a belief of the word preached: secondly, because the holy Ghos● calls it Repentance: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Math. 12.41. thirdly, because it was manifested so to be, by the signs of their sorrow for their sins, in fasting and humiliation, and by the practice of their purpose in leaving their sins. jonah 3.10. Or if any chance to say, the Ninivites had saving grace or faith in Christ. It cannot be proved, seeing the saving grace of jesus Christ was never preached to them by the Gospel for aught can be showed. Indeed their repentance in some sense might be called a saving grace; because it saved them from a temporal destruction threatened to come upon them within forty days, if they had not repent: but it saved them not from the eternal punishment of their fins. And now to the last Exception. In handling the exposition of my position; It is alleged that I say, To the fourth Exception. a man may die with this beginning of Repentance and not be saved. I answer that they mistake and do me wrong in this collection, for it is not a flat position, but a supposition: not that an Elect child of God may die with this repentance; but that (if it were possible for him to dye in this state) having only sorrow for his sins, and purpose to leave them, and not faith in Christ; yet could he not be saved, and my reason is, because he hath not that grace, that entitles him to Christ's benefits, and unites him unto Christ for the partaking of them; without which no man or woman of years of discretion, and understanding can be saved. If any object it was to no end to make a supposition of an impossibility. I answer, it is indeed impossible any such event should fall out, as the dying of an Elect vessel with a beginning of Repentance, and without faith in Christ, and consequently without salvation, therefore in respect of the event such a supposition is needless: but for all this there is some end of such a supposition in regard of that use that may be made thereof, viz: to prove the absolute necessity of faith in Christ, in all men and women of age and discretion, which is so necessary, that with no other grace, either of Repentance, Love, Patience, or Obedience, we can please Go● unto salvation: the reason is, because b● no grace else (besides faith) have we Christ to please God for us, unto our salvation. Our Saviour Christ makes a supposition about the deceiving of the Elect; whe● he faith that the false Apostles should deceive (if it were possible) the very Elect shall any man say this supposition w● idle? Math. 24 24. because it was of an impossibility (God forbidden) for though it were idle i● respect of the event, because it is impossible for any of the Elect so to be deceiue● and corrupted by the heresies of false teachers; yet is it not idle in respect of the 〈◊〉 and end which Christ aimed at therein which was to show that the subtlety 〈◊〉 false Apostles, Priests, and Preachers in th● Antichristian Church, by the depth of Satan should be so great, and they shoul● so fair prevail with their pleasi● doctrines, and lying words, that (if it were possible) the very Elect should be deceived thereby, to the end that they might take heed how they heard them, or gave credit to their doctrine, but abandon it, and them, as appears by the 25. and 26. verses. Secondly, I answer to their exception: suppose I meant positively that a man might die with this repentance and be damned, yet is not this untrue, understanding by this true repentance, that which I do, viz: only sorrow for sin, and purpose to leave it without dissimulation, as in the case of Abab and the Ninivites, and not the tree with the fruit, the purpose with the practice, the change of the heart, with the change of the li●e. Object. 1 Oh but (say they) though in one place I say repentance is not sufficient to salvation, pag. 232. yet in another I say the repentance of the Publicans & Harlots, was sufficient to their salvation. I answer that there is no contradiction between these two places, Solut. for in the former I do not say, it was not repentance sufficient unto salvation; but that it was not grace sufficient to salvation (good cause by reason of the supposition, that saving faith is not yet wrought, pag. 275.) Neither do I say in the latter place, that the repentance of the Publicans was grace sufficient to salvation, but that it was repentance sufficient thereunto; for who knows not by all that discourse that I speak of repentance properly and strictly therein, and take repenting for an action of the soul, and as it is a virtuous quality seated in the heart, and what can be more required of the heart for repenting, then hearty sorrowing for sins, and unfeigned purpose to leave them? Indeed God requires more of the repenting sinner, than this sorrow and purpose, for he requires practise of this purpose, and new obedience; but practice is not repentance itself, but a fruit of it, and new obedience in life is not a part of repentance to constitute it: but an effect, to testify it, not to be the nature of it, but the efficacy thereof unto justification. Object. 2 Oh but (say they) to this Repentance begun before faith, is promised forgiveness of sins. True, but not directly or immediately, as if it were the hand to lay hold thereupon, or the instrument to receive it; for that is faith only, which lays hold upon Christ the Saviour himself and receives him: but because it is a way and means together with other preparing graces to fit us for faith, whereby we are entitled to Christ and all his benefits; even as Heaven is promised to patience, to love a●d new obedience, joa 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 speak of, viz: sorrow for sin, and purpose to leave it, is available to salvation: that is, to qualify us for it, but not that whosoever hath this and no more grace, shall be saved and forgiven: for what then should become of faith in Christ? but because in the Elect they which have this wrought in them, as a preparation to faith, shall in time have faith wrought in them also, to the end they may be saved, Philip. 1. for God will perfect his work in them when he gins it. Now I come to the third and last thing propounded about the position itself of the precedency of repentance, The handling of the position. unto faith in Christ which is the handling of the position: which is done three ways 1. by proving it, 2. by clearing of it, and 3. by applying it. The Trial. The point is proved two ways: first by the testimony of a learned Divine: s●condly, by reasons taken from Scripture and none of all these like them. The Exception. The proving of the point, or portion by testimony. The testimony is Mr. Perkins, and ●gainst it they except two ways: first, (th● say) I mistake the meaning of the author for he is not understood to speak of repentance, before or without faith in Chr● but with it: secondly, though I had n● mistaken his meaning, yet is it but one si●gle testimony, because I had no more: an● thirdly, that his mind concerning th● point is not there declared directly and 〈◊〉 set purpose, (as it is else where) but occasionally and by the way only in another discourse, and that it is delivered in 〈◊〉 book that he never perused before he died, but was put out after his death. The Apology. I answer, to the end we may rightly conceive, To the first Exception. and distinctly understand th● meaning of Mr. Perkins in the words alleged we must take three things fo● granted which cannot be denied: first, tha● he speaks of a certain order betwixt that repenting and believing, and the laying hold of the promise there spoken of: 2. That he saith the order he speaks of i● God's order. 3. That the order of God about repenting, believing, laying hold of the promise, is to be observed in Baptism. This being premised, In the next place we come to speak what the order is in Mr. Perkins judgement, namely whether repenting go before believing, or believing before repenting. Some say, his meaning is, first believe and lay hold of the promise then repent of your sins, I say, first believe the Gospel, then repent of your sins, then by hold of the promise of forgiveness and eternal life by faith in Christ. For their conjecture at his meaning, they give no reason, but against it, my reason is this. If their conjecture were right, than the believing he speaks of, and the laying hold of the promises, were all one faith, but that cannot be Mr. Perkins mind, because he evidently distinguisheth betwixt them, for the believing he speaks of, he joys with repenting, and the believing that he joins with repenting, he distinguisheth from laying hold of the promises, that shall be made clear thus. The believing that he joins with repenting, makes men Christ's Disciples, that appears page 257. Col. 1. B. in these words mark, first it is said, make them my Disciples by calling them to believe a●● repent, and the making men Christ's Disciples, by calling them to believe and repent, doth in the order there spoken of b● Mr. Perkins go before laying hold of th● promises; because speaking of propha●● men that do not consider the order whic● God useth, in covenanting with men i● Baptism, he saith, they deal preposterously overslipping the commandment o● repenting and believing, and in the firs● place lay hold of promises made to them i● Baptism, ibid. Col. 2. B. So that if the order of God perverted by profane man be (in Mr. Perkins opinion) first to lay hold of the promises, and then to believe and repent, than the order of God rightly kept by the godly must needs be first to observe the commandment of God by believing and repenting, that is, first to believe the Gospel and repent, and then to lay hold of the promises, that is, by faith in Christ to rest and rely on his merits, for salvation; the rather is this true because in the same place. Col. 2. C. and upon the former words, he infers that which I have cited in my Treatise. viz. we must as good Disciples obey the commandment, which bids us turn and believe before we can have any benefit or profit by the promise of God, etc. Object. 1 Oh but (say they) he means not repenting without believing in Christ. Solut. True, understanding 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 judgement in that place) must go before faith in Christ, For in his opinion faith in Christ is a laying hold, or an apprehending for a man's self, Perk. on the Reve. ch. 2. v. 14. and an jud. v. 1. or applying the promises of God in Christ. Object. 2 Oh but (say they) Mr. Perkins joins repentance with believing, therefore the repentance he means is not without faith, but with it. True, Solut. but the believing he joins with repentance, is not saving faith (for that is laying hold of the promises by faith in Christ, which he disjoines from believing, joined with repenting) but a belief of the Gospel, which is the means 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 an● it is therefore but one, because I had 〈◊〉 more, therefore now will I show, why cited but one, and that I have more. I brought but one testimony, because thought it enough, in regard it was the testimony of so learned & godly a Divine 〈◊〉 our age and Country, whose works prai● him in the gates of our jerusalem. And now will I add unto that o● some other, to the end it may appear have more, and I will begin with th● Doctrine of our own Church of England, which ought to prevail with us b●yond other testimonies of particular D●uines. Homily of salvation the 3. part. How can a man have this true fait● this sure trust and confidence in God, th● by the merits of Christ, his sins are forgiven him, and he received to the favour 〈◊〉 God, and to be partaker of the Kingdo● of Heaven, when he liveth , and d●nieth Christ in his deeds; and in another Homily. As he that readeth Caesar's commentaries, Homily of faith the 1. part. believeth the History of Caesar 〈◊〉 be true: yet it is not properly said, that 〈◊〉 believeth in Caesar, of whom he seeketh 〈◊〉 help or benefit: so he that believeth all th● is spoken of God, in the Bible to be true, and yet liveth so that he cannot look to enjoy the promises and benefits of God. Although it may be said, that such a man hath a faith and belief to the word of God, yet is it not properly said that he believeth in God, or hath such a faith or trust in God, whereby he may surely look for grace, mercy, and everlasting life at God's hands, but rather for judgement and punishment, according to the demerits of his wicked life. With this agrees the Common Prayer Book, The Common Prayer book. where in the form of administering the Lords supper, it exhorts the repentant only, to come to Christ, that is, to believe in him for salvation, (in these words.) Hear what comfortable words, our Saviour Christ saith, to all those that truly turn to him, come unto me all ye that travail and be heavy laden and I will ease you: So God lived the World, that he sent his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, According to which the Catechism in the common Prayer book requires, those that are to be baptised, and are to come to the Communion, repentance or a steadfast purpose to lead a new life, before a lively faith in God's mercy. After the Doctrine of our Church shall follow the testimony of some learned Divines and Preachers of our Church. If you have not found the Son (sait● Mr. Fox) seek for him by repentance seek and ye shall find, Mr. Fox of Christ crucified. fol. 16. B. in quarto. repentance seeks Christ, faith findeth him and obedien●● holds him. This faith is a great state, a Lady, 〈◊〉 Duchess, (saith Mr. Latimer) first sh●● hath a Gentleman Usher, that goeth befor● her, Mr. Latimers' fourth Sermon before K. Edward, page 57 this Gentleman Usher is called th● knowledge of sin. When we enter into o● hearts and acknowledge our faults, an● stand not about to defend them, he is none of these winkers, he kicks not when he● hears his fault. Now as the Gentleman usher goes before her so she hath a train● that cometh behind her, etc. and these are the works of our vocation, viz. to be good to his neighbour, D. Halls works page 147. of baptism. and to obey God, etc. Never will Christ come unto that soul, where the Herald of Repentance, hath not been before. The Key of David, pa. 27. printed at London, 1610. in octa. The Scriptures calls this work of the Holy Ghost, which is the beginning of our regeneration, by the name of Repentance even the thing whereby we are prepared to receive the sanctification of faith. And afterward. It is most impossible for any one, Ibid pa. 30. 31 to obtain this confidence of grace, except he first repent himself of his former life, sincerely, and from the bottom of his heart: for even as the faith of knowledge, namely to believe without all doubt, that God is, and that he is a rewarder of all that seek him in jesus Christ, and contrarily, one that taketh vengeance, on all those which turn away from him, for all their sins and wickedness which ever they committed, as (I say) this faith must of necessity go before true repentance towards God: so our repentance: namely, that we converting from our own ways unto God, do return into the right way, must needs go before that faith of jesus Christ, and immediately after. The beginning of the Gospel of God is repentance as it is written, The beginning of the Gospel of jesus Christ, prepare you the way of the Lord, viz. perform repentance, and again. True Repentance towards Gods, must of necessity go before the faith of jesus Christ, and lastly. Repentance is the first beginning and (as it were) the entry of our regeneration, but faith is the very perfection, and (as it were) the highest top of our Regeneration, viz. the insculpture and engraving of the Holy Ghost, whereby the repentant doth assuredly believe, that all, his iniquities are forgiven, and that he is united with God in everlasting love in jesus Christ. Next to the testimony of our Church, and her Divines, I will produce the witness of the Divines of other Churches, and first the ancient Doctors and Fathers, and then the latter writers. Of the ancient Doctors, these shall suffice. Iust. Mart. qua. 37. ad orthodoxos. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The baptism of john, (which was the baptism of repentance, Acts 19.4.) was (saith justin Martyr) the beginning or entrance of the Gospel of Grace, wherefore it was above the Law, otherwise he had not admitted them which had sinned according to the Law, that hereby they might by repentance and faith in Christ receive forgiveness of their sins commited. Tertul. lib de. ●aptismo c. 10 ●uasi candida●u● etc. Tertullian speaking of the baptism of john, saith that in those days, therefore the baptism of Repentance was acted, as if the party baptised were thereby declared to be a suitor for remission, and sanctification by Christ, to follow after. And in another place. Tertul. lib de ●enitentia. ss. 6. The laver (of baptism) is the seal of faith, which faith is begun and commended by the faith of repentance. With what tears (saith Basill) o●ght that soul burdened with many sins depart from sins, Basil: mag: quest compendio explicat. quest: 10. and with what hope and affection approach unto God? Respons. first it ought to hate the former condemned life, so that it ought even to abhor the remembrance of it, and to detest it. St. chrysostom speaking of john's ministry and baptism in the Wilderness of judea, saith thus: chrysostom in Matth 3. Homil. 10. Because he came to Preach the baptism of Repentance &c, he inferred for remission of sins, as if he should say; I persuaded them to confess their sins and to repent: not altogether that they might be punished, but that the more easily they might receive the gift of remission; for unless they had condemned themselves they had never sought for grace, and not seeking for grace, neither could they obtain remission: for this Baptism prepares the way to another Baptism that is of Christ, and therefore he said that they should believe in one that was to come after himself. Next to the ancient Doctors, follow the latter, (but learned) Divines. Let us (saith Caluin) prepare the way: Caluins' comment on Luke 3.4. that is, leaving our sins which stop the way to the Kingdom of God, let us give access unto his grace. ●elancth pro●gom: on ●e Epistle to ●●e Romans. justification (saith Melanct●on) ought to be understood of the good will of God, accepting us, not infusing into v● habits (that is, virtues) and yet there ought to be virtues in us because the Gospel preacheth Repentance, and Faith cannot be but in Repentance, therefore to the end our faith may be increased, piscators commentary on Luk. 3.4. our repentance must be increased. That Christ may come into us (saith Piscator) as our Saviour, we must prepare the way unto him by true Repentance, & by bringing forth fruits worthy of Repentance. Faith (saith Rolloc) doth always follow a heart dejected and contrite in the sight of sin and and misery. Rollocks' commentary on joa. 5.44. Dietericus Instit: Catecheticae pag. 241. de aenitentia. Good works follow Faith; but Faith is in none but th●se that are converted. I know well, that they allege many testimonies against me, both out of ancient and latter writers, but being well considered, they make nothing against me; therefore one answer will serve for all: for if they say Faith goes before Repentance, they speak either of a belief of the word, or of amendment of life. When they speak of Faith which is a belief of the Word, than the sense is, a sinner must believe the threatening of the Word to the impenitent, and the promises of it to the repentant before he will sorrow for his sins, or purpose to leave them: and to this purpose spoke Clemens Alexandrinus of the precedency of Faith unto Repentance: saying, Cle●: Alexand● Stro: ●. 2 l● et graece p: 7 Repentance is the office and work of Faith; for unless (a sinner) believe that there was sin, wherewith he was formerly held, he will not be removed; and unless he believe that punishment hangeth over his head which offendeth, and that salvation is promised for him that liveth according to the commandments, he will not be changed. Answerable to which is that known place of St. Ambrose. Ambros: de penitentia. l. 1. c. 1 No man can repent rightly, but he that hopes for pardon. In like manner when they speak of repentance, that is amendment of life, their meaning is; a sinner must believe in Christ before he amend his life, Augus: See: d tempore Se●: 7. Hom: 10. Gal: 5.6. and practise new obedience, and in this sense is St Augustine to be understood, where he speaks of Repentance, saying; Nothing makes true Pepentance but the hatred of sin, and the love of God; the fire of this sacrifice is love; for that repentance that proceeds from the love of God, must proceed from faith in Christ; for faith works by love, Gal: 5.6. but faith works not by love our first repentance (at our first conversion,) which is sorrow for sin, and purpose to leave it, but amendment of life which follows faith. Fare be it from me to presume to blame those worthy Authors, for speaking promiscuously of Repentance the virtue, and amendment of life, the fruit thereof; there is warrant enough from Scripture phrase so to speak, 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 means 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 me, when either they speak not of the same faith, or not of the same repentance that I do: for touching faith, they speak of a belief of the word, and I of believing in Christ: and as for repentance, I speak of the virtue itself, they of the fruit of that virtue: I of the purpose, they of the practice; my repentance is inward in the heart, their outward in the life: mine in the affections, their in the actions; for I have often and plainly affirmed, that a belief of the Word and Gospel goes before any repentance, jonah: 3 5. and that faith in Christ goes before the practice of repentance in amendment of life, and in the mortifying of our sinful nature, that it break not out to the committing of the same sins again. To the third and last exception, I answer that those allegations do rather fortify the testimony for me then any way weaken it: To the third 〈◊〉 last exception against the testimony out o● Mr. Perkins. and make rather against them that allege it, for first in that it is urged, the point was delivered but in a passage only, where he had no such cause to discourse of that matter, this shows that he had the better mind to deliver it (belike because he thought it needful and profitable to be opened, and that he was more confident in the truth thereof: secondly, In that it is said, the book out of which the testimony was taken, was the last of his writings, which he had not leisure to peruse, and that it was put out after his death; this implies, that he wrote that book when he was of most sound and settled judgement, and that therefore the Doctrine in question was most free from exception, and lest needed correction: and therefore howsoever there may seem some contradiction in his other works, to that which is here delivered: 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 proving it, and of proving it by the testimonies of men; now follows the proving of it by arguments taken from Scripture, which of the six generals, was the fourth point propounded to be observed 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 Trial. Repentance is begun before Faith in Christ, The first Argument. because the Repentance of the Publicans and Harlots. Mat. 21.31. was begun before their Faith; and theirs was true Repentance and saving Faith. The Exception. To this they answer, by granting that the Repentance and Faith of the Publicans and Harl●t, were true and saving, but by denying that their repentance was to their Faith, as a means to an end, for (say they) the Text in Matthew shows this only; that the Pharisees persevered in their infidelity, and abode in their unbelief, though the Publicans and Harlots believed: or that the Pharisees, neither repent not believed, though the Publicans and Harlots did both, before whom they should have gone into the Kingdom of Heaven, and given them an example to follow. The Apology. This answer I will take away, by proving that the Repentance of the uPblicans and Harlots, was to their Faith, as a means to an end; and this I will make good two ways: first, by the context of the place, and a reason drawn out of it: secondly, by the judgement of the learned. First the context, or the precedent and subsequent matter of that place, proves my interpretation, because the condition of the Publicans, touching entering into God's Kingdom is amplified, Ver. 28. and 29. by a parable of a son, who when he was bidden by his father to go into the Vineyard and work, the Text faith, He said he would not; but afterward he repent and went. ver. 29. Now because by that son is meant the Publicans, and of that son, it is said not only and barely he went, (though he said he would not) but that he repent and went; therefore this shows not only and barely he went: but that therefore he went, because he repent first of his not going formerly, and of his saying he would not go; and therefore consequently will it follow, that th● holy Ghost thereby meant, not only a● barely that the Publicans repent a● believed; but that therefore they beleeue● because they repent first of their other sins: for as the repenting of the son f● his not going, and of his saying he woul● not go, was a cause why he went, a● was a means unto it (for sorrow for past fault, and purpose to leave it, mus● needs be a means to the amending of it so the repenting of the Publicans an● Harlots for their sins in time past, was 〈◊〉 cause and means of their believing i● Christ afterward, and therefore was to i● as a means to an end, and consequently was in nature before it. The rather is this true, because whe● the holy Ghost comes to speak of the Scribes and Pharisees described by the other son, which said, he would and went not, ver. 30. he saith they repent not afterward that they might believe: what less can hence be gathered, but that therefore they did not believe in Christ, viz: because they did not first repent of their former wicked lives, nor were pricked in heart for them, nor purposed to leave them? Secondly, I prove my interpretation, by the judgement of the learned: namely, that the repentance of the Publicans was to their faith as a means to an end. For in express words Mr. Beza saith, Bezae annot. on Math. 21.32. that the repentance there spoken of, was a way to the faith there mentioned. I dispute not now what repentance Beza means, Iter igitur. ad fidem est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have proved it to be true repentance in my Treatise, and the reasons are not answered, and beside now the point is granted by them. Secondly, Morton of repentance, the argument of it toward the end Mr. Morton a learned Divine of our Country doth so expound the words, Matthew 21.32. you did not repent to believe, or that ye might have believed, and thereupon concludes that repentance is distinguished from sanctification as being but a preparation thereunto. For if the pharisees did not repent to believe or that they might believe, then on the contrary, the Publicans did repent to believe, or that they might believe: and consequently, their repentance was to their faith as a means to an end. And verily if the words had gone thus in the verse, they believed to repent or that they might repent. I believe they would have concluded quickly, that their faith was to their repentance as a means to an end, and consequently as a cause of an effect, and therefore in nature before which is more than that they continued their belief, or that they both repen● and believed. Wherefore my exposition having warrant from the grammar of the text, agreement with the scope of the place, and consent with the opinion of the learned; a● theirs being but a bare affirmation. therefore (I hope) it will hence easily follow, that 〈◊〉 Doctrine grounded thereon, concerning the precedency of repentance to faith 〈◊〉 nature, is warrantable, & consequently 〈◊〉 first Argument to prove it, good for ough hath yet been showed to the contrary. The Trial. Repentance is begun before faith 〈◊〉 Christ, The second argument. because God gives men repentant to the end they may believe in Christ. 1. Tim. 2.25. The Exception. To this second Argument they answer that it proves not the question, because the text of Scripture, on which it is founded is not rightly expounded. For (say they) by acknowledging the truth, in Timothy 1. not meant believing in Christ (as I have expounded it:) but professing the truth, not only in word, but in life and conversation, accompanied with an inward change. The Apology. In defence of my interpretation, I have given four reasons, to three of which they answer: let us examine the validity of their answers in order. The Trial. First, by acknowledging the truth, in Timothy is meant believing in Christ, because by it we come out of the snares of the Devil, that is, of the Devil's children are made the children of God. The Exception. This (they say) is not a good reason, because we come out of the snares of the Devil by repentance, as well as by faith. The Apology. Upon this I reply, that this instance overthrows not my reason, because recovering out of the snare of the Devil, is a translation from being the Devil's child to be God's child. Now we are not made Gods children by repentance, but prepared to be God's children, but it is directly said so of a joa. 1.12. Gal. 3.26. faith. It is plainly said of faith in Christ that b 1 joan. 5.4, 5. it is the victory whereby we overcome the world. c 2. Pe, 2 20. To the acknowledging of our Lord and saviour jesus Christ, is attributed the escaping of the pollutions of the world, namely for time to come d 2 Pe. 1.3. . Through the knowledge of Christ, is given all things, which appertain to life and godliness, namely, to do good works and to perform new obedience in a settled & sincere course which are no where said of repentance. The Trial. Secondly, by acknowledging of the truth in Tymothy is meant faith in Christ, because in other places, Coloss. 2.2. 1 Tim. 2.4. Eph. 4.13. this faith is expressed by this Phrase. The Exception. To this reason they answer, that though in other Scriptures, a saving faith be expressed by that phrase of acknowledging the truth, yet here in Tymothy it cannot, Why? because this exposition cannot stand with the analogy of faith, and why? (forsooth) because repentance cannot stand without faith in Christ, or be without it. The Apology. By this answer, a blind man may see, that they take it for granted, that if by acknowledging the truth be meant believing in Christ, it cannot be avoided, but repentance must go before faith in Christ. To the end therefore that they may prevent this, they will disprove my interpretation, saying, that by acknowledging the truth in Timothy is not meant faith in Christ, why? because it cannot. Why can it not be so meant? because it is against the analogy of faith, why is it against the analogy of faith: because repentance cannot be without faith, what is this but to run in a ring, and to hunt Counter, without proving any thing? who sees not that this is to beg the question; and (upon the matter) to prove, ●dem per idem, movere & non promovere? I prove repentance goes before faith ●n Christ, because repentance goes be●ore the acknowledging of the truth, ●hich is a saving faith. They answer, ●e reason is not good, because by acknowledging the truth there, cannot be meant ●aith in Christ, why cannot faith in Christ ●e meant there? because repentance is not ●efore, or without faith in Christ. The Trial. Thirdly, by acknowledging of the truth in Timothy, is meant faith in Christ, because it is called the faith of the elect, Tim● 1.1. for only the elect have a saving faith, because only the elect have a Saviour and are saved by him. The Exception. To this they answer by denying my interpretation of the Epistle to Titus; for (say they) the Apostle doth not there explicate, what he meant by acknowledging of the truth, namely the faith of the elect: For those words do not show what the faith of the elect is, but distinguish it from the faith of the elect. The Apology. Upon this I rejoin in this manner. 1. Ancient Interpreters, both a Gagneius. Guilliaudus. Papists and b Calvin. Beza. Piscatur. Protestants, do expound the words as I do, that the latter are put exegetically, for the interpretation of the former. 2 My Adversaries barely say, the words distinguish, and not interpret without any reason of their affirmation, and therefore it is not good. 3 If those words, acknowledging of the truth, be a distinction, between the former words, viz. the faith of the elect, then do they distinguish two faiths, then do they distinguish the faith of the elect which is a saving faith, from an acknowledging of the truth, or an assent unto it, which is an Historical faith, then by acknowledging the truth must be meant an Historical faith: but by the acknowledging the truth in Timothy, cannot be meant an Historical faith, because an Historical faith cannot follow repentance in nature, but go before it, for the acknowledging the truth there spoken (whatever it be) doth follow the repentance there spoken of, because it is thereunto as an effect unto a cause, or as an end to a means: for so much they confess themselves, in their exposition of the sense, of that place, which in their judgement and words runs thus, that God may give them repentance, that those which now oppose the truth, may be won to the profession of it. So that either those words the acknowledging of the truth, must not distinguish that which is meant by them from the faith of the elect, and by them must be meant an Historical faith, and then repentance must go before an Historical faith, or a belief of the Gospel, or the acknowledging the truth doth interpret, the nature of the faith of the elect there spoken of, and then repentance must go before the faith of the elect, utrum horum? and so much in defence of the reasons of my exposition of the text to Timothy, wherein my second Argument is grounded, now a word only in answer to their Interpretation of the place. The Exception. By acknowledging the truth. 2. Tim. 2.25. must be meant (say they) the profession of the truth, and their reason is, because in Peter the phrase is so to be taken. 2. Peter 2.21. The Apology. I answer, 1. Neither do they bring any good reason, why the phrase must be so understood in Peter: nor (if they did) could that prove it must be so understood in Paul, nor have they given any good reason from the text of Paul, of their exposition, and therefore their interpretation, without reasons for it, is not so good as mine with reasons. 2 In that place Paul speaks of the conversion of Infidels, in this conversion a belief of the Gospel hath the first place, than repentance, than faith in Christ, than profession, as a fruit of faith, but if their exposition of the words, acknowledging the truth, by professing of the truth were good, profession must go in the first place, for there is no mention at all of any other; so that either by those words, cannot be meant profession of the truth: or men, must profess the truth at their first conversion, before they have either an Historical or saving faith. 3 In their own words they expound what profession they mean, viz. not only in word, but in life and conversation accompanied with an inward change. Now hereby they confound repentance and acknowledging the truth, which are different: for the one is a means to the other, whatsoever is meant by them, for what is repentance in their judgement, but an outward, and inward change of soul and body; of words, and works. The Trial. Repentance is begun before faith in Christ, The third Arment. because men cannot believe in Christ, as long as they live in their sins. joa. 5.44. The Exception. This Argument (they say) proves not the question, for it only proves, that a man must repent of his sins, as soon as he believes in Christ, and not that he must repent before he believes. The Apology. To this I say, that had I intended, to prove a precedency of repentance, unto faith in Christ, some space of time, then (I confess) this answer had been sufficient to that Argument, because (as it is propounded) it proves no more: but forasmuch as my purpose was not so much but less, viz. a precedency in nature only, therefore is not the answer to purpose, and consequently (for all that) it is sound and good: for two things may be in time as soon one as another, and yet in nature the one may go before the other, as fire and heat, a father and a child, else how can they with any colour hold faith and repentance to be together in time, and yet faith to go before it in nature and in order of causes. Though my Argument be good as it is in the Treatise for all that which they have answered unto it, yet (as I shall now propound it) it shall be more strong. If living in sin go before not believing in Christ as a cause and means thereof, then repenting of sin, goes before believing in Christ, as a cause and means thereof. But the first is true therefore the second. The consequence is good, because to live in sin, and to repent are contrary, so are not to believe in Christ and to believe in him, so that if unrepentance, impenitency, or living in sin, be a means and cause of not believing, and to be a means and cause of a thing goes before it in nature, than penitency, repentance, or not living in sin, is a means and cause of believing in Christ, and consequently goes before it in nature. The Assumption I prove by joan. 5.44. Thomas Aqui. Caluin. Mus●nlus. Illiricus. Rollocrus. Piscatori commentary on the place. where by the judgement of learned Interpreters) the Holy Ghost assigns this for a reason, and cause of the infidelity of the Scribes, and Pharisees, and why they believed not in Christ, viz. they lived in worldly pride, ambition, and covetousness. And if this were truly verified of them in those days, then may it be said of men in these days that living in their sins, is a cause why they believe not in Christ, and consequently leaving of men's sins, (viz. in purpose) is some cause or means of believing in Christ, and therefore goes before it in nature. The Trial. The fourth argument. Repentance is begun before faith in Christ, at the first conversion, because sinners must first repent of their sins, committed after their first conversion, before they can trust in Christ for the pardon of them. The Exception. To this they answer by denying the antecedent, for (say they) both the habit of faith, and some acts of it, viz. uniting and engrafting into Christ, receiving and apprehending Christ do go before repentance: secondly by denying the consequence, because through repenting after the first conversion, in nature goes before faith in Christ, yet doth it not follow, it must so do, at the first conversion. The Apology. First their answer to my Antecedent, had been to purpose if they had proved 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 believing in CHRIST, had gone before the act of repenting, that is, of sorrowing for past sins, and purposing to leave them: but seeing they do neither of these, the Antecedent is good. They say indeed, that these acts of faith, viz. uniting and engrafting into Christ, receiving and apprehending Christ, go before repentance: but neither is this to purpose, except they proved they were all one with the act of believing in Christ, for of that act is the question: nor do they prove what they say, for they do barely affirm it: nor do I think it possible to be proved, because in nature I think it impossible for any unrepentant sinner, to be united to Christ, engrafted unto him, and made a member of his mystical body. Indeed upon another occasion, they say repentance goes before these acts of faith, viz. persuasion and assurance of salvation and praying for pardon: and yet else where (in effect) they deny it, where they say to believe in Christ, is to be persuaded and assured of salvation by Christ, and that no man can pray for this pardon of his sins before he have faith in Christ, Mr. elton's Catechism 4. principle. Mr. Perk. state of a Christian, Sect. 14. Mr. Rogers Mr. Baynes as is cited before. the first of which points hath been confuted by me in my Treatise, and the second is contradicted by other Divines, where they say praying for pardon of sins, goes before the application of faith, and the persuasion of God's love in Christ. If they had given any reason, of their denial of the consequence of this Argument that had been sound, it would have answered my Argument, but seeing they have not (good cause why? they cannot) therefore is the Argument as yet good, because as yet it is unanswered. And indeed I know not how they should answer it, as long as the habit of repentance and faith in Christ, are the same virtues, both at and after men's first conversion, for nature and use, and so are the acts of repenting and believing in Christ. If any man can give me a good reason why the spirit of God should not incite men, to repent and believe in Christ, i● the same manner and order at the first conversion, as he doth after it, when through weakness they fall and offend God, the● would I say, the consequence of my Argument were weak, and consequently m● argument: but because (I think) they cannot: for if they could, they would, therefore as yet, is my fourth Argument good. ●●●ect. But (they say) this Argument implie● a successive working of saith by God, an● of pardoning sins, as if a Christia● ceased to believe, when he falleth into an● gross sin after his first conversion, an● that therefore faith must be wrought a new in them, and be pardoned a new. I answer to the first, that though I do not mean that the habit of faith is lost, Solut. by the committing of any enormous sin, and therefore there is no fear of need to have it planted in them again: yet do I think that a sinner falling into enormous sin, doth not exercise his faith, nor use the act of it, and he may in some sort be said for a time to lose the use and exercise of this believing in Christ: and that therefore after such a fall the Spirit of God must incite him up again, to the use thereof, before he can trust in Christ: and that the spirit doth not thus incite a sinner to trust, until he have stirred him to repent of those great sins which he hath committed. And as touching the second member of their exception, concerning successive pardoning of sins, I can see no reason, why we should every day ask pardon of our sins, if God did not pardon them every day, I see not why this may not be called successive pardoning, Math. 6.11, 12. for if the godly sin every day, must repent, and believe in Christ every day, and crave pardon of the sins of every day, then will God forgive every day (speaking after the Scripture phrase) and then there is a daily and successive pardoning. The Trial. Repentance may be begun before Faith in Christ, The fift Argument. because as great a work as the beginning of repentance is wrought before it. The Exception. To this Argument they answer, that i● is naught, because it is founded upon a false supposition, viz: as if I perswade● myself they thought that therefore repentance was not wrought before faith i● Christ, because it could not be so wrought by God; as if they thought any too hard to hard the Lord, and therefore first or las● wrought. The Apology. Upon this I reply thus; first as they use, so they muse, because they think meanly of me, therefore do they persuade themselves I do the like by them, as if my shoe were of their last, or as if they knew, they deserved I should so judge of them; but (the Lord knoweth) I had never such an imagination of them, or so mean a conceit of their judgement, that they should think that simply God could work it so by his absolute power: but that by his actual power, (which is limited by his will) he cannot: that is, looking to the order and means, which God in his word hath prescribed for the working of those graces, he doth not give power and efficacy enough to work 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 have named.) It is direct, to prove that repentance may be begun before this faith; and to prove that repentance may be begun before this faith; it is to good purpose to show, that as great a work as the beginning of repentance is wrought before it, viz: a belief of the Gospel: for the full working of one evangelical and supernatural grace in all the parts of it, is a greater work than the beginning of another, and the working of that by fewer means, is a greater work than the beginning of this by more. These points have been proved in my Treatise, concerning the working of a belief of the Gospel, and the beginning of repentance, and (if they had answered them well) they should have proved; either, that a belief of the Gospel is not a harder work (in itself considered, and looking unto the means 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 upright, in that probability of truth which it hath; except they will take the state and authority upon them, that their very denial shall be a sufficient confutation. Indeed they cavil 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 beside they have been and shall be upon other occasions answered else where, and so at last I come to my last Argument. The Trial. Repentance is begun before faith, because it was preached before faith, for it was the first Doctrine that was preached by john Baptist, The sixth Argument. by Christ, by his Disciples and Apostles. The Exception. To this Argument they answer: first, by saying it is but a weak one, and that by the judgement of Mr. Caluin: secondly, by denying both antecedent and the consequence. The Antecedent, because (say they) God doth not always 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 always first wrought, the last in words may be the first in sense. The Apology. First I answer generally to the whole Argument. If this were all the Arguments that could be brought to prove the point, and that the weight of the cause lay on this foundation, then would it be but weakly supported, it might truly be said of it (as Mr. Caluin doth) that it is too weak; Caluins' Institution, l. c. 5. for Mr. Caluin speaks of such as only rely on this Argument, which I do not: the contrary is seen by five other, on four whereof I rely, and not on this sixth, 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 words are these In this place (saith Musculus) john requires Repentance, Musculus comment: on Math. 3.2. which the Prophets call turning to God, and of which the Angel p● his father in mind, when he said, he shoul● turn many of the childaen of Israel to th● Lord: Luk. 1.17. viz: to call sinners to th● acknowledgement of their evil life, and t● a change of their mind and true piety t● God, and this preaching of repentance i● such, that not only is it necessary to the e● those that have sinned may be capable of grace; but without which no man hath access unto the throne of grace, according t● Heb. 6.12. And this is the Reason why john, and Christ also, and after him th● Apostles, did first preach repentance, t● them that were to be converted unto God. So that in Musculus opinion, Repentance in nature goes before access to the throne of grace, and before our being capable of grace, (and consequently before faith, by which only we have 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 answer to them severally. First, God doth not always call for faith in Christ first, for in that place first he preached john's Baptism of Repentance, ver. 37. and of the day of judgement, 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 proves the precedency in nature of faith in Christ unto Repentance, (which is their opinion,) then the precedency of Repentance unto Faith, which is mine. To the consequence I answer first, that (notwithstanding their Reasons) it is very probable, if we consider these particulars. First, that the preaching of john, Christ, and the Apostles, was effectual to some of their hearers. Secondly, that this efficacy of their preaching consisted in working (through God's blessings) in their hearers, an ability to do 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 appears plainly 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 means whereby they were enabled to do it, and this ability were given to them, an● wrought in them as they preached it; th● must Repentance be the first grace tha● was wrought, because it was the first tha● was preached and taught in their ministry (I mean usually and ordinarily, not limiting God always thus to work without alteration:) the rather, because they were wrought by preaching to make them capable of salvation, 1. Cor. 1.21. And they might as conveniently be wrought in their hearers for that end, according to the order in which they are taught, as any other way, or in any other order and manner. Secondly I answer to the consequence, for as much as it is evident; that neither john, no● Christ, neither the Disciples no● Apostles, did hit upon the preaching of repentance first, by chance or fortune; but by the appointment and direction of God's Spirit, therefore must it be upon some good ground; and if upon some, upon what more likely than this, viz: that the duty of repentance, was one of the first duties that was required to be practised of them that were to be saved, and before they could believe in Christ for salvation. Their reasons likewise brought to overthrew 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 prove, that in nature repentance goes before faith, but only that they both go together in time, and that both at one time, they are wrought together. Now for all this circumstance, the work of Repentance may in nature go before faith in Christ. The second, because though that which is first placed, be not the first wrought, 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 usually wrought graces as they were taught, as hath been showed out of the Acts, but even now; and therefore repentance may be first both in sense as well as in words, because it is first in nature as well as in words. If they had given any reason why repentance could not be first in sense or nature though it were so in words, than had they indeed weakened my Argument, but till than it is good enough. The Exception. But they will say Repentance was first preached, because it was first felt. The Apology. I answer first, if they could prove this to be the reason of their preaching it first, I would discard my Argument, and the probability it seems to have, 2. I would fain know a reason why the duty of faith which is believing in Christ (of which the question is) should not be as soon felt as the duty of repenting, if the one be as truly wrought as the other? Indeed the duties of repentance, which are hearty sorrow for past sins, and purpose unfeigned to leave them, are sooner felt then the comfort of faith, which is assurance and persuasion of salvation by Christ: but I can see no reason why the one habit or virtue, should not be as soon perceived, and felt in the duties of it, as the other. The Exception. But they urge in their answer to this Argument, that in my proof hereof, I contradict something delivered else where: for first, in one place, I say, that repentance is the first grace that is wrought in men by preaching of the Gospel, pag. 261. and in another place I say that other graces go before repentance, pag. 259. 260. Secondly, there I speak of the practice of repentance as soon as it is wrought; but in another, I say that practice of repentance follows faith in Christ. The Apology. To the first I answer that I do not say simply, pa: 262. that repentance goes before all grace, for I never meant it went before a belief of the Gospel, the contrary is evident by the state of the question, pag. 231. but only 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 said else where to go before Repentance; do but prepare to it, & so after a sort, may be said to make up but that grace of Repentance. To the second supposed contradiction, I answer, that the imputation is unjust, for where p. 261. l. 21. I speak of the practice of repentance as soon as it is wrought; I only meant the duty of repentance, in the heart or the act of repenting, as it is, in the soul, viz: actual sorrowing for past sins, and resolving to leave them: and in the latter place, pag. 231. 21. 22. I speak of the practice of repentance in the life and conversation: that is, of the effects and fruits of it, when the inward purpose of the heart to leave sin, is brought unto an outward act and execution: and therefore betwixt these (no more than betwixt the other two) is there any contradiction, as is pretended either to the truth of God's word, or of mine own opinion: and this is sufficient to have said in defence of my six Arguments, against that which by some hath been objected against my opinion. The Arguments I have already brought to prove my opinion, being defended against the exceptions of some. It remains that as yet they stand for good: so that the main question needs no more confirmation. Notwithstanding it will not be amiss by way of advantage to add one more to the former, to drive the nail to the head. If repentance go in nature before remission of sins, than it goes in nature before Faith in Christ. But repentance goes in nature before remission of sins. 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 prove thus. If repentance go before remission of sins, and not before faith in Christ, then either it must go hand in hand with justifying faith; or come between justifying faith, and justification itself; neither of which are true. First repentance doth not go hand in hand with justifying faith: first, because than it should have as great a hand in remission of sin, as faith in Christ; or we must determine what part it hath in remission: secondly, they cannot answer so, because they say repentance is a fruit of sanctification which follows justification, and therefore repentance cannot come before justification with justifying faith. Secondly, repentance doth not come between justifying faith, and justification itself; for the one follows so immediately on the other, that nothing can come between: for no sooner can a sinner believe in Christ, but immediately he hath remission of his sins and is justified. The assumption (viz: Repentance goes before remission of sins) I prove by testimony of Scripture. The testimonies of Scripture are these, Deut: 30.2. jer. 18.8. & 4.4. & 26.3. Ezek. 18 21. Zech, 1.3. Act. 2.38. & 3.19. & 26.18. 1. joa. 1.7.9. whence I thus reason. That which is required as a condition to be performed before we obtain pardon is before it in nature. Repentance in all those is required of sinners as a condition to be performed before they obtain pardon. Therefore repentance is before remission of sins: for it cannot be denied but that howsoever the end (as apprehended possible to be had) may stir up a man to use the means which be in order to the observing thereof: yet the means must needs in nature be before the actual obtaining of the end; neither can it be denied but that God's Spirit in the place afore named, directs us unto repentance as a means of obtaining forgiveness, by the apprehension of it, appointing us to use the means to get it. With this agrees the Doct: of our Church. We have a perpetual rule (saith the Homily) appointed unto us which ought to be observed and kept at all times; Ser. of repentance, 1. part in the beginning. and there is none other way whereby the wrath of God may be pacified, and his anger assuaged, that the fierceness of his fury may departed, and be removed and taken away, where he saith: But now therefore, saith the Lord, joel. 2.14. return unto me. It is not without great importance that the Prophet speaketh so, for he had afore set forth at large unto them, the horrible vengeance of God, which no man was able to abide, and so he doth move them to repentance to obtain mercy. Answerable to this is the Catechism appointed to be taught in public schools where he saith, Nowel's Catch. in quar. fol. 5. Repentance is most necessary for sinners, to the obtaining of the mercy of God: and afterward, Fol. 47. 48. sinners for the obtaining of pardon have need of repentance. And hereunto consents Doctor White, Doct. Franc s Whites defencen pag. 17. where he saith. Ordinarily before the Lord forgiveth fowl enormous & monstrous sins, a sinner beginneth to detest & forsake them. I might and could heap up many other testimonies, both out of the Fathers and latter Writers for the further proof thereof; but that I think it needless, for I suppose my adversaries will not deny it, and if they grant that repentance in nature goes before pardon, then must they grant also that it goes in nature before faith in Christ, Act. 10.43. for we believe in Christ for pardon. The Trial. The first Objection. Repentance is not begun before faith in Christ, for than it should be sin; for whatsoever is before faith, is without it, and whatsoever is without faith is sin. Rom. 14. etc. This they call a solid and sound Argugument, but it hath nothing but a sound and show of truth, or proof, as hath, and shall appear yet more clearly God willing. To this Argument I answered by denying the Antecedent, viz: whatsoever is without Faith in Christ is sin, and because the supposed truth of this proposition stands upon the interpretation of a place of Scripture, Rom: 14. therefore did I answer they did not rightly expound it: first, because the faith mentioned in the place alleged, is not faith in Christ, the Faith understood in the question, but another kind of Faith, viz: a persuasion to the conscience of warrant to do the things we do. The Exception. To make good their interpretation of Romans 14. vlt. (and consequently their Antecedent) they now bring testimonies of Divines, and reasons from Scripture. First (say they) the text hath been a thousand times urged by the learned against the Pelagians and Papists in this sense. The Apology. I answer first it cannot be denied but the text Rom. 14. vlt. hath been expounded by many Divines of faith in Christ, but neither do the ancients so interpret it: Patres fidem, scientiam libertatis exponunt quae conscientiam precedit, & vel bonam vel malam eam facit. Calvin justit. l 3. c. 13. ss. 17. Zanchiusde operibus Dei lib. 4. chap. 1. pag. 420: Paraeas ad Rom. c. 14. ver. vlt. (A learned Divine of Germany, upon the same place confesseth as much in his commentary.) Nor do all the latter Interpreters. For Caluin in his commentary upon that place, and in his institutions, expounds it as I do, and Zanchius. Nor if they did all interpret it, one after another, may their exposition be admitted, against or beside the interpretation, which the Holy Ghost in the precedent and subsequent verses of the text gives of that place itself, which is the same with that I have alleged. That this interpretation of Rom. 14. vlt is not to be understood of Faith in Christ, but of another faith as I have alleged, is evident, by considering that v. 2. of the same chapter, Paul speaks of believing, that I may eat this or that meat, verse. 5. of esteeming one day above another or all days alike, and of full persuasion in our minds about the observation of them, verse 14. of knowledge and persuasion concerning th●● cleanness or uncleanness of meats, that i● the lawfulness or the unlawfulness of the● to be eaten, verse 22. of having faith with ourselves, which is opposed to doubting or fear, and lastly, verse 23 the (verse out of which the words are quoted) of allowing or condemning ourselves in the things we do, Neither of all which have any affinity with the nature of a saving faith, which is the casting of ourselves o● Christ; and the relying on his merits for salvation, or the believing in his name for it, of which there is not one word in the whole Chapter. Besides, the Apostle, Rom. 14.23. doth not deliver a rule for all our moral actions, that are either commanded, or forbidden, the rule whereof is his written law: but for those actions that be in nature such, as those of which he speaks in that place, viz. indifferent actions, in themselves neither simply commanded, nor forbidden, neither good or evil, which may prove in the event either good or evil, according as his opinion, judgement, ●nd conscience is, of the lawfulness or vn●●wfulnesse of them. Now in these action's, for the giving of us a warrant to do ●r not to do them, there is no need of ●aith in Christ: the persuasion or belief ●●at we have in our conscience, by the ●●ght of nature, true reason, or the word, is ●●le enough to warrant us in the doing of ●hem, or leaving of them undone, and this 〈◊〉 that faith whereof Paul speaks, ver. 23 Rom. 14. Add unto these two reasons, this for a third: the Apostle doth not in the place cited, set down a Rule how any or all our actions may be accepted of God unto salvation, in which case he must have treated of faith in Christ, without which it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11.6. Heb. 11.6. but. how we may know whether in our own conscience, our actions are warrantable for us to do them, or to leave them undone. Now in this case there is no need of faith in Christ, the persuasion or belief, that we have upon the former grounds of nature, reason or the word do warrant us in the doing, or not doing of them, because these tell us, (and we believe it for truth) that they be not unlawful and forbidden actions. In my Treatise I have given one reaso● more, why in that place of the Romans by faith should not be meant faith in Christ, but a belief of warrant to our consciences, for the things we do, namely, because though a true believer in Christ, ha●● faith in him: yet he sins in the actions 〈◊〉 doth, if he have not another faith the● this, viz. a warrant to his conscience for the thing he doth upon some good grounds, for he cannot choose but sin, tha● rushly rusheth upon the doing of something not being persuaded, he may lawfully do it, but doubting hereof. But this Argument, was not touched as being too hot for them. So that it appearing by these reason, that the meaning of those words, whatsoever is not of faith is sin, is not this, that whatsoever a man doth before he believe in Christ he sins: but whatsoever a man doth doubting he doth ill, or fearing he doth, not well, or not being well resolved in his mind, it may lawful be done either in itself or by him, and yet will venture to do it, he sins (saith the Apostle) because this acton is not of faith, (that is) not of that faith of which he speaks. Secondly I answer, that they which urge this place in this sense, to prove whatsoever is without faith in Christ is sin, do not well (reserving reverence to their learning otherways,) for the Doctrine of 〈◊〉 text must be according to the sense of the words rightly expounded. If then this place being rightly expounded, speak not of belief in Christ, then must no Doctrine concerning this belief be raised out of that text, Rom. 14.23 except we will make the Scripture say any thing any where which is presumption. Thirdly, I answer they which urge this place against the Papists, they do it ●o disprove their will worship devised by man without warrant of the word, and such points as these, and in this case the text may be alleged against them, because all such worship is without faith, that is, a man can have no belief, or persuasion to his conscience, that he may lawfully use it, but in our question there is no talk of matters of this kind, and therefore their alleging of it, is no disparagement to my interpretation or defence to their Argument. The Exception. But they offer now to prove their exposition by reasons, to the end their Antecedent may be made good thereby, to which I will answer severally. The Apostle Rom. 14.23. speaks of faith in Christ, To the first reason. because he speaks of that faith which is faith of meats, or of liberty from meats, and this is a saving faith because they that believe in Christ, ha●● this liberty by faith. The Apology. I answer, first it is supposed that t●● faith spoken of in the place quoted, is 〈◊〉 faith of liberty from meats, but it is 〈◊〉 this only, but faith of bondage concerning meats; for they are bound by th● text, to abstain from eating of the● they have not that faith there mea● (though they had a saving faith) as w● as they have liberty to eat them, t●● have the faith there spoken of, when th● have a saving faith also: else by their ru●● man that eats of any meat, sins not ●●uing faith in Christ which is absurd: s●condly, though he had spoken only faith of liberty from meats, etc. yet d● he not say there, that they have this libe● by faith in Christ (which is the ma● question,) as shall appear by these t●● reasons. First they have this liberty, to eate● the meats there spoken of, that have a belief and persuasion to their conscience from some good grounds, that they 〈◊〉 lawfully eat of them: for this is the fa● there spoken of, as hath been showed 〈◊〉 three reasons even now, and this is not faith in Christ. 2 by faith in Christ all the elect have liberty a like from sin, hell and the devil &c, that are bound by them: but the Apostle speaks of a liberty from a bondage with which all men are not bound, for all men were not bound with the bondage of observing of days and meats, but the jews only and Proselytes, and therefore not all Christians, but the jewish Christians, have liberty by the faith spoken, from the things to which they are bound, and consequently the faith there spoken of, must be not a saving faith (which pertains to all Christians, jews, and Gentiles) but a faith which pertains to Christians which were bound, to the law of abstinence, viz. a belief or persuasion of liberty to eat the meat there spoken of, though otherwise forbidden. Besides if it would follow that because only believers in Christ have liberty from meats, therefore the faith there spoken of Rom. 14.23. is faith of liberty from meats, then by a like consequence might it follow, (but absurdly) that because only believers in Christ are saved and sanctified, therefore faith in Christ is sanctification and salvation. The Exception. Secondly, the Apostle Rom. 14.23. speaks of faith in Christ, To the second reason. because he speaks of that faith whereby we are persuaded, we have warrant and precept for liberty out of the word of God, for th●● is a saving faith. The Apology. I answer the reason is not good, because this faith whereby we are persuaded we have warrant and precept from the word for liberty out of the word of God (suppose it be for Christian liberty else, I can make no sense of the word,) a but a persuasion; of a truth, or an assured assent in my opinion and judgement of the truth of this Doctrine, and this can be but an Historical faith, it is not a saving faith. The Exception. But they will object though the Apostle Rom. 14.23. do not directly intent to speak of faith in Christ, yet by a consequence the Doctrine may be true from that place: for if whatsoever be without a persuasion to our conscience and this belief be a sin, than much more whatsoever is without faith in Christ, which is a more excellent Faith, and more necessary than this, The Apology. I deny the consequence, except the want and absence of the one faith, made an action to be sin, as well as the want and absence of the other. This cannot be: First, because than I know not how it can be avoided, but that the presence of faith in Christ, should make an Action not to be sin, which is absurd, in as much as faith in Christ doth not cause an action to be no sin: but not to be imputed for sin unto us for our condemnation. Secondly▪ because that which makes an action to be no sin, is the likeness and nearness it hath with the Rule of God's will, prescribed for the doing thereof: which in moral actions commanded or forbidden is the Law of God, and in indifferent actions which are neither commanded nor forbidden is this Faith, whereof the Apostle speaks Rom. 14. viz. a persuasion or belief we may do or may not do them: neither of which is faith in Christ. Indeed faith in Christ is more necessary and excellent unto salvation then this persuasion, but this persuasion, is more proper and necessary than faith in Christ, to warrant unto our consciences, the actions that we have to do, that be indifferent. But it may be, though the Doctrine, be neither directly, nor by necessary consequence, to be proved from the text to the Romans, yet by other Reasons taken from other places it may be. Let us hear and try them. The Exception. Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin, because whatsoever is not of Christ is sin, for to be without faith, and to be without Christ are all one. The Apology. I answer as touching acceptation unto salvation, it is all one in the event, to be without Christ, the meritorious cause of salvation; ●arke 16.16. as to be without faith the instrumental. For a man cannot be saved without either. Mar. 16.16. But to all intents and purposes, it is not all one to be without Christ and faith, for it is not all one to the making of our actions to be sin in the nature of sin. It is neither being without Christ, nor faith, that doth this (for these only do cause, that our actions be not imputed for sin unto us, and not that they be no sins) The swerving from the law and Rule of God, is that only which makes an action sinful. The Exception. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, 1. joan. because whatsoever is done without spiritual life is sin. The Apology. I answer. How fare and in what sense, faith in Christ is the spiritual life of Christians, shall be showed (God willing) in the fourth objection. For the present it is enough for the answer of this objection to say, that it proves idem per idem, which is as much as to say, it proves nothing in the question: for with them faith in Christ, is the spiritual life of Christians as shall appear in the fourth objection, and the spiritual life of Christians is faith, as appears by this objection. If with them, faith be the spiritual life of Christians, and if the spiritual life of Christians be faith, than that Argument that proves every action sinful, that is done without spiritual life, namely because it is done without faith: and again, that Argument that proves every action sinful that is done without faith, namely because it is done without spiritual life: I both their say, arguments prove nothing, for (upon the matter) in this question, they beg the question. The Trial. To conclude in answer to this Argument, and for a reason of denying the consequence, I said, that though Repentance be begun before faith, yet it is not sin for all that, because a belief of the Gospel goes before faith in Christ, yet is it not sin. The Exception. This instance they offer to take away, and give three Reasons, why an Historical faith, going before a saving faith is sin, to which I will answer. An Historical faith without faith in Christ is sin, because it is no where alone required. The Apology. I answer. First, to the Antecedant, that if 〈◊〉 by these words required alone, be meant that a belief of the Gospel is so required alone in one place, that there is no more else where required of men to their salvation, than I confess, that a belief of the Gospel is no where required alone: but if thereby be meant (as it must be, if it be to purpose) that there is no place of Scripture in which the duty of believing the Gospel is only taught: and that in every place, where believing the Gospel is only taught, believing in Christ is taught also, than I deny it: for the Scripture doth not teach every duty in every place, except we shall observe no rules of Art in expounding Scripture. Secondly, to the consequence I answer, that though believing the Gospel were no where alone required: yet will it not be sin for all that; because it is a duty in the word commanded to be performed of all the Elect, to make them capable of salvation, and no such thing can be sin. God doth require of men that which is taught them, and as it is taught; and sometimes it may fall out a Preacher, by occasion of his text, or in a Catechism lecture may only teach men to believe the Gospel upon Gods own authority: shall we say the Minister sins in teaching it alone, or the people in learning it alone at that time, not having then a saving Faith? Surely God is not a hard man that takes up where he lays not down, Luk. 17.21. nor requires that which he doth not teach, or offer to work. The Exception. An Historical Faith without Faith in Christ, is sin, because God requires more Faith than this. The Apology. To the consequence I answer, that though God require more Faith than the belief of the Gospel, of them that shall be saved, yet is not this sin when it is alone without a saving Faith, for God requires more than godly sorrow of a Repentant sinner, viz: an unfeigned purpose to leave his sins, and in time to practise new obedience: Is therefore godly sorrow for sin, sin indeed in a man, because as yet he hath not a godly purpose to leave his sins wrought in him? surely such Divinity can never do good in the Church of Christ. The Exception. An historical faith without faith in Christ is sin, because it may be in Reprobates. The Apology. It cannot be denied, but a belief of the Gospel may be in Reprobates; yet will it therefore follow to be sin? Math. was ●he gift of miracles sin, in the Reprobates because it was in them? surely no. It is not the having of the gifts of the Spirit, that makes them to be sin to reprobates or in them, but the not using of them well to the honour of God, and the good of the Church: and it is their contenting of themselves only with those, when they should labour for other and more, that causeth them to be sins in reprobates: for as they be had, so they come from God; and as they come from God, so they are good, and as they are good, they cannot be sin; though as they are in them not used at all, or not well used, or not enough used, or abused, they may prove sin in them, yet simply because they are in them, or as they are in them, they are not: and so much in answer to their Defence of their first objection, against my Doctrine of the precedency of Repentance unto Faith in Christ. The Trial. Repentance is not begun before Faith in Christ, The second Objection. because than it should proceed out of an heart unpurified, for the heart is purified by Faith, Act. 15.9. To this I answered, that it proves not the question, because the proof of it, out of the Acts is not to purpose: first, because it doth not at all speak of purifying by sanctification (of which the question is) but by justification of which it is not: secondly, though it had spoken of purifying by sanctification, yet doth it not prove that Faith so purifieth the heart, that till Faith in Christ come, there is not so much as the least measure of this purifying begun, for so is the Antecedent to be understood. The Exception. To make their Argument good, they bring reasons: first, they prove that the Text in the Acts is to be understood of purifying by sanctification, from the filth of sin, as well as by justification from the guilt of sin: secondly, they show that though it could not be proved by that place of the Acts, that Faith purifies in that manner, yet by reason from other Scriptures do they endeavour to prove it, to which I will answer in order. The Text (Acts 15, 9 is to be understood of purifying by sanctification, as well as by justification, because it is Faith in Christ's blood, and Christ's blood purifies both ways. The Apology. The reason is not good, because it takes for granted, that wheresoever the holy Ghost speaks of cleansing by Christ's blood, both must be understood. The contrary is clear by these places, Ro. 3.18. & 5.9. Eph. 1.7. 1. Pet. 1, 9 joa. 1.7.9. which must be understood only of one, viz: purifying by justification: for though Legal purifyings taught both, and Christ's blood be effectual to the Elect in both kinds, yet will it not follow to be so understood every where of both, and that the holy Ghost means both: and therefore not Act. 15.9. Besides, the Text, Acts 15.9. by the precedent & subsequent matter shows clearly it means but one, viz: justification in that the words are an answer in part to a question, & that question was not whether sinners were sanctified, but whether or no they were justified by faith in Christ. Men are not to make the Scripture a nose of wax, to say every thing in every place, specially when it expounds itself directly of what purifying it speaks: and the point of purifying by sanctification is not denied to faith simply (for I confess it may be proved by another Text) but only to be meant there, viz: Acts 15.9. The Exception. Secondly, the Text, Acts 15.9. Is to be understood of purifying, by sanctification as well as by justification, because it speaks of purifying by saving, and saving comprehends sanctification, as well as justification. The Apology. The reason is not good, because it is not true (which is supposed) that wheresoever the holy Ghost speaks of saving, viz: spiritually, he comprehends both: for these Texts, Rom. 5.9. 1. Cor. 5.5. Io. 5.20. are understood of saving by justification only. Indeed they that are saved are sanctified, yet where saving faith is attributed to any, it doth not follow, that there, by saving should be meant sactifying. The Exception. Thirdly, Act. 15.9. must be understood of purifying both ways, because sanctification is directly attributed unto faith, Acts 26.18. The Apology. I answer: first, that if it be a good rule, to expound one Scripture by another, and the darker by the plainer, then may the Text, Act. 26.18. be expounded by Acts 15.9. for the circumstances of the Text in the 26. chap. do not show of what purifying it means, but the scope of the place in the 15. Acts doth. And therefore the clearer, Acts 15. should expound the darker in the 26. chapter, the rather because in the 26. chapter, sanctification is expressed by other words of turning them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, and therefore for all this, Acts 15.9. must not be understood of purifying by sanctification. Secondly, I deny not, but faith in some sense sanctifies us, viz: as it teacheth it, Tit. 2.11. as it stirs up to it by the comforts thereof, Rom: 121. joa. 2. but neither will it be proved from thence, that therefore purifying, Acts 15.9. must be meant of purifying by sanctification, because it is so understood, Acts. 26, 18. (unless the Apostle had in both places spoken of the same matter, upon the same occasion, and to the same end in both, which cannot be verified of these two places in the Acts.) Nor yet will it follow, that before faith do sanctify the heart, it is totally impure, with the filth of sin, notwithstanding any graces of the Spirit wrought therein, which is the point to be proved in the Antecedent. Indeed upon saying we are justified by faith, it will thereupon follow that we are totally uniustified: that is, actually before we believe in Christ; but in saying we are sanctified by faith, it will not thereupon follow that we are totally unsanctified before faith come: and the Reason is because faith, by it office doth more properly justify then sanctify, and justification doth not suscipere magis & minus, a● sanctification doth; neither is wrought by parts and degrees as sanctification is. The Exception. In the last place, they allege that many learned and sound Divines do expound, Act. 15.9. of sanctification. The Apology. I grant it, but not to prove an absolute and total impurity in man's heart before Faith, as they do: but that there is not purity enough to salvation, without Faith in Christ, and that it stirs up the heart of a man more to labour for an increase of sanctification begun. But though they had, yet do not I think it reasonable or possible for every Writer among the Protestants in these days to maintain every position in Divinity, of exposition of Scripture, that hath been given and delivered by others in former times. To conclude, If a man be elected in Christ, and for his sake, before he be actually in him, or have any faith in him, why may they not for his sake also, be in part sanctified before Christ be actually in them by Faith, or Faith be wrought in them actually? The Exception. The second thing undertaken for the proof of this their Argument is, that by Reasons from other places of Scripture, it may be proved that Faith doth sanctify as well as justify though it cannot from Acts 15.9. The reasons they bring are three, and I will answer them all briefly and in one answer. Faith (say thy) doth purify by sanctification as w●ll as by justification: first, because it is Faith in Christ's blood which purifies both ways: secondly, because the larger Catechism saith so: thirdly, because I myself say so in my Treatise. The Apology. To all these three Reasons, I answer that neither any one singly, nor all of them jointly, prove the point in question, which is, that Faith so sanctifies the heart, that there is not so much as the least measure of sanctification begun in the heart, till faith be wrought: for (at the most) they prove that which I deny not, but confess as well as they, that faith in in Christ teacheth sanctification, increaseth it, and makes it acceptable to our salvation. The Exception. Object. 1 Oh but say they, before Christ be in men, there can be no sanctification in them, and before faith be in them, Christ cannot be in them. The Apology. Solut. Before Faith be in men, Christ is not in them actually, by his sufficient saving grace: but Christ may be in men, some way; namely, by his wisdom, and enlightening grace before faith in Christ be in them. Before Christ be in men there is not sanctification enough in measure, nor sufficient unto acceptation for our salvation wrought in us; but before Christ be in us actually by faith, sanctification may be begun, by the preparations and dispositions to regeneration. If God be moved for his infinite mercy and free grace in Christ, to bestow faith upon sinners, when as yet Christ is not in them actually, why may he not upon the same grounds, and for the same reasons, for Christ's sake begin sanctification in them when as yet Christ is not actually in them. The Exception. Object. 2 Oh, but say they, how can sanctification be wrought, before they have faith in Christ? whereby they draw down virtue from his sanctification to that end? The Apology. I answer, First, 1. Cor. 1.30. Christ is made unto us wisdom, as well as sanctification, and illumination of one Elect descends from Christ's wisdom upon them, and this descends before faith in Christ. Why then may not a beginning of sanctification? All our good is from Christ; but all is not drawn from Christ by faith, for preventing grace is not so drawn: Are we not called before we are justified. Rom. 8.30. In like manner, all that is drawn is not from Christ, as ours by justifying faith; for faith itself is not so drawn, for that faith should be before and after itself: and if faith be not so drawn, why should Repentance? Secondly, For the Spirit blows where, when, and as it lists; so in what measure, and order it pleaseth him to begin, and finish the work; so that as long as the beginning of Repentance, and sanctification in the preparations (though before faith in Christ) be not attributed to the work of Natute, or good use of our own Freewill, but only to the work of the Spirit in the Elect, (which yet is not sufficient to salvation; nor acceptable thereunto without faith in Christ) I can see no inconvenience 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 have said. Indeed, some challenge me for bordering upon Pelaganisme and Popery; as if I divided some part of Repentance, betwixt the work of the Spirit, and of Nature; because I said, Nature only doth n●● work the preparations to Repentance and Faith recited Pag. 222. l. 24. But how they can conclude it thence against me, 〈◊〉 cannot see, and therefore do I refer it them to conclude, and to the judicious Reader indifferently to determine. This I am sure, I abhor Palaganisme and Popery, and I have often and plainly affirmed them, all to be the work of the Spirit in the Elect; and have denied them to be the work of Nature; yea, I have given reasons for it, both in my Treatise, and in my Apology,. Indeed I say, Pag. 258. that by the light of Nature, a man may know many actions be doth to be sin, and that he ought to repent of them, and leave them: yea, that hereby many are moved for a time to refrain some evil actions: But this proves not that to repent, or to be prepared to repent is the gift of Nature. I have often affirmed that the work of all those preparations, is the work of God's Spirit in the elect. If they can bring any place out of my Book where I say any one of them is the work of Nature, in them that do repent, then may they poove my supposed Division: In the mean time such wresting of a man's writing savours neither of love nor judgement. The Trial. Repentance is not begun before faith in Christ, because than it should be acceptable without faith, The third Objection. but no grace can be acceptable to God without faith, Heb: 11.6. The Exception. This Argument (they say) I can never answer; but whether I have or no, or now sh●ll, let the Reader judge. The Apology. To this Argument I answered, that i● proves not the question, because th● Text out of the Epistle to the Hebrewe● proves not the Argument; for both question and Argument are to be understood of pleasing of God, any or every way, b● the proof out of the Epistle to the H●brewes, is of pleasing God one way only viz: unto salvation. To remove my answer, and maintain their own argument, they shoul● have done two things. First they should have taken away m● distinction, in one of the members there● concerning acceptableness, and shewe● that no repentance can be any way acceptable without faith in Christ: But beli● it was too hard a tas●e; for some repetance is not at all acceptable unto sa●ua●on, as Ahabs and the Ninivites; and y● the same Repentance without Faith 〈◊〉 Christ, is some way acceptable unto Go● namely, to the averting of a tempor● judgement, as in the same examples. Secondly, they should have proved, that the Text alleged out of the Epistle to the Hebrews to prove their argument, is to be understood of a saving faith only, for of that only is the question, which is not done. I grant the Apostle in that chapter speaks of a saving faith, vers. 5. but it seems that in the verse alleged, 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 seek him, for he that doubts of either of these cannot please God at all: for how should he please God that believes not there is a God: But neither of these have they done, and therefore for all this the argument is unsound. The Exception. Oh but will they say, though the Text, Heb: 11.6. do not prove that all our actions done wiehout faith, are every way unacceptable; yet may it be proved by reasons taken from Scripture: let us hear them, and answer them in order. Without faith all our actions are every way unacceptable, because without Christ they are every way unacceptable. I answer: first, there is some pleasing God without Christ to the obtaining of some blessings, as the examples of Ahab, and the Ninivites, and jehu show, and as the example of Cyrus will easily prove. Isay 44.28. & 45.1.2.3. Secondly, I answer, that this reason begs the question, because to be without faith, and to be without Christ, makes an unacceptablenes to one and the same end, viz: unto salvation and not any or every way, as the proof should be; Faith in Christ makes us acceptable to God, with that acceptableness to which we are elected in Christ, which he hath purchased, and which faith apprehendeth, but this is acceptableness to salvation: for spiritual and heavenly things are the treasures of the covenant of grace, to which we are elected by the father, which are purchased by the Son, and which we receive instrumentally by Faith. The Exception. But without Faith in Christ, all our actions are every way unacceptable, because they are every way sin, & no sin can any way please God. The Apology. I answer, though all our actions done before faith in Christ, are unavaileable to everlasting life, yet are they not sin: Is the action of a youth blessing his meat by saying grace before he have faith in Christ, sin? I say not that any action of a man out of Christ is altogether void of sin, but that some action of his, is not sin, and my reason is this. No sin 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 seen in Ahab, Ninivey, jehu, and Cyrus; and therefore some actions of a man out of Christ is not every way sin. This likewise may be seen in the action of the Midwives of the Hebrew women in Egypt, in saving the male children alive. This was without faith in Christ, (for aught the Scripture saith,) Exo: 1.17.19. It was sinful some way, viz: as it was accompanied with a lie, which they told Pharaoh, concerning the speedy delivery of the Hebrew women, before the Midwives came to help them in their office: yet was it not every way a sin, because it proceeded in part out of the fear of God: that is, fear to murder 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 every way unacceptable to God, for the public great Catechism allowed to be taught in Grammar schools in England's faith as much. The Apology. I answer: first, the actions, whereof the Catechism speaks, are good works, commanded in the law, which I acknowledge to be fruits of faith as well as they, and to be made acceptable by it; but every action is not such a work: there be some, that be neither commanded nor forbidden, but indifferent: secondly, the acceptableness which the Catechism speaks of there, is but one way, viz: unto salvation, as appears by the place where he interprets it, by the reward which God gives to the works he speaks of, and that reward is heaven, as will easily appear to him that will peruse the precedent and subsequent Question and Answer. The Exception. Oh but say they, the distinction of pleasing God unto salvation, and to some other way, and to some other end 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 salvation? The Apology. I answer: first, If all the Papists said were untrue, and all their distinctions in Divinity unsound, and erroneus, then were this reason to purpose, if they can prove they have made this distinction as Papists and Heretics I will yield. For my p●rt, I do not think it fit to oppose Papists in every thing they deliver; least by contradicting them in some thing which may be true, we keep them back from being gained, and reclaimed from their known errors, and expose our sel●es to just refutation, give them occasion to glory over us, and move people to suspect our soundest truths. Secondly, I say t●at our actions may be some way acceptable, and to some other end then salvation, for the repentance of the Ninivites, was acceptable to corporal and temporal preservation, and salvation, not to Spiritual and Eternal, to save from fire, sword, famine, pestilence or the like, which they might have endured, and not from Hell fire; so that for all this, begun 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 salvation thereby. They likewise cavil at other things, in answer to that objection, and give reasons why Cornelius had a saving Faith, and why Ahabs and jehus actions were sin. The Exception. The reason to prove Cornelius had a saving Faith is, because he prayed and was heard, which cannot be without a saving Faith. The Apology. I answer, a sinner may pray and be heard, before a saving Faith; else why do our Divines make this as a preparation to it, viz: with an humbled and sorrowing heart to approach to the throne of grace, to confess his sins, and to crave pardon, as hath been showed before. Surely obedience to God's Commandment, that bids us pray, and belief of the promise, to hear us, may some way make our prayer acceptable, and to be granted, though we have not Faith in Christ, though not available unto salvation: 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 saving faith, which ministers just occasion to doubt, whether Christ be come in the flesh or no: 1. joa. 4.3. 2. joa. 7. Thirdly, Cornelius was not a proselyte; as yet he was unclean, as appears by the vision: for Peter durst not Preach the Gospel to him being a Gentile and uncircumcised: therefore is it not likely that as yet he had Faith in Christ. Likewise the reason, why jehus action and Ahabs, were every way sinful and unacceptable, is not good; for the Rule propounded of the acceptation of our persons in Christ; of aiming in our actions at God's glory, and of sincerity in the manner of doing them, doth make a man that doth such actions acceptable unto salvation, the want of those doth not make them every way unacceptable as they imagine. The Trial. Repentance is not begun before a saving faith, The fourth Objection. because than it should be begun in men before they ha●e any spiritual life in them, for faith is the spiritual life of Christian. Gal. 2.20. To this Argument I answered in effect, that it proved not the question, because the proote of it, out of the Epistle to the Galathians was not to purpose: first, because the place alleged is to be understood of the spiritual life of justification with which we have nothing to do in our question: secondly, because the question is of spiritual life but begun but the proof is of spiritual life, perfect in respect of being in all the parts (not degrees) of it: thirdly, the question is that faith is so the spiritual life of Christians, that there is not so much as the least measure of spiritual life begun in men before they have a saving faith, but the proof is of no such matter. The Apology. To this former answer of mine; I now add this: first, to the argument it sell e, that if by spiritual life, be meant the life of justification, or sanctification, than I say repentance is begun before a man hath this spiritual life in him: but if sptrituall signify, whatsoever a man hath in him which is not natural, than I say repentance is not begun in a man before he have something in him which is not natural: something is begun in a man before a saving faith, which is not begun in him before he have any spiritual life for there is something in a man (which he hath not by any strength of nature) before saving faith, as a belief of the Gospel, sight of his sins, fear of damnation, etc. Secondly, to the proof of this argument out of the Epistle to of the Galathians, I answer: first, that where they say it is the spiritual life of the soul every way. I answer, that neither doth the Apostle say so; nor do they prove it sufficiently. I have said enough to the contrary, pag. 178. which is not answered: secondly, I answer that saving faith is the life of a Christian, in respect of justification, and sanctification: not in respect of whatsoever is in him which is not natural. The Exception. To maintain their argument, now they iudeavour to prove two things: first, that the text, Gal: 2.20. is to be understood of spiritual life every way. Secondly, that though it could not be proved from that place: yet might it be proved by sufficient reasons, grounded on other Scripture, that faith in Christ is the spiritual life of Christians every way. To prove the first concerning that Text to the Galathians they bring this reason. The life spoken of, Gallat. 2.20. is life by salvation, therefore by justification, and fanctification, therefore every way. The Apology. I answer, Paul's living by faith must be understood of such a life, as is attributed unto others by faith in the same chapter and epistle, but to others viz. all the elect, in the same chapter is attributed the life of justification, and life is expounded thereof only. Chap. 2.16. & 3.11. and therefore the life which Paul lived by faith spoken of in the 2. chapter and 20. must be the life of justification only, and not of sanctification at all. The Exception. Oh but will they say, I myself in my Treatise say that the text, Gallat. 2.20. is understood of spiritual life, unto justification and salvation. pag. 278. The Apology. True, but by mine own words it is evident what salvation I mean, viz. justification, or forgiveness of sins, or saving from hell: not salvation which comprehends sanctification, as they would interpret me. Besides neither the word save, nor Saviour is used in all the Epistle to the Galathians, therefore cannot be understood of such a salvation. Add to this, that when we say Christ is our Saviour, we do not mean he is our sanctifier, but one that keeps us from hell, and brings us to heaven. For the power of sin is a distinct thing from the punishment, and as the power of sin is taken away by sanctification only; so is the punishment by justification only: salvation is understood of justification and of that which as a consequence follows on it, our glorification. Oh but may they say Paul's living by faith, ver. 10. was the same with his living to God, ver. 19 and that is the life of sanctification. I answer, living to God ver. 19 must either be the same with living in his favour, and free grace by Christ, and then it is al● one, wtih being justified by God through faith ver. 16. or else it must be opposed unto death to the Law; and death to the Law, is (in his meaning) renouncing it to justification, as being unable to keep it, and by keeping it to be justified by i●; and therefore living unto God, is seeking unto the means, appointed by him fo● justification, and living in his sight by fait● in his free grace. 2. If by those word● were understood, I am sanctified by faith, then must the meaning of them be to this effect; in that I have had any motions to holiness, preparations to sanctification, or any the least inclination thereunto, I have had it by the faith of jesus Christ; before I believed in Christ, I had not the least beginning thereof in any kind: but this is contradicted by other Texts of Scripture, where it is said of S. Paul, He was taught according to the perfect manner of the Fathers, Act. 2.23. and was zealous towards God, and that he had lived in all good conscience before God, vnti● that day, Namely, according to the light he had by the Law and the Prophets. 3. Suppose it could be proved, that Paul lived unto God, any way before he believed in Christ, yet will not this prove he had no beginning at all of spiritual life before he believed in Christ, for to live to God is a plain fruit of saving faith, and a man may have foam spiritual life begun in some sense, and not live to God. Lastly, though it could be proved, that Paul had no spiritual li●e begun in him, before he believed in Christ, yet will not his example prove, that no man hath any spiritual life begun in him, before he believe in Christ, inasmuch as P●ules conversion was extraordinary, for the gifts and graces of the spirit needful to salvation, where in (all likely hood) wrought in him at once, and together, in an enthusiasm, so are they not usual in all men and women in these days, but one after another successively, Sermon after Sermon, and week after week: and so much for answer touching their proof out of the epistle to the Gallathians, the first thing propounded to make good their Argument. The Exception. The second follows which is to prove, that faith in Christ is the spiritual life of Christians, every way, and that there is no spiritual life begun in men, before they believe in Christ, and their reasons are four, to which I will answer severally. There is no spiritual life begun in men before faith in Christ, because till then then they are dead in sins and trespasses. The Apology. I answer, in him that is dead in trespasses and sins, there is no spiritual life, of justification or sanctification: but in him in whom repentance is begun and other preparations, there is somewhat more than that which is natural, whereby in some sort he is in a middle estate, although indeed he be still a natural man, because nature hath the predominancy in him: and in this state he continues till he be regenerate in all parts which is as soon as he believes in Christ, and in this state was Nicodemus joa. 3. who came to Christ & was taught of him, & that which was not natural was wrought in him, and yet he had not a saving faith. The Exception. There is no spiritual life begun in men before faith in Christ, because till then they have not Christ. The Apology. The reason is not good, because though before faith in Christ, they have not Christ in his righteousness, to their justification, and in his sanctification, to their sanctification, and full conversion both of heart and life: yet may they in whom repentance is begun, and these preparations, have him in them some way, viz. in his wisdom to their Illumination, and the beginning of their conversion. The Exception. There is no spiritual life begun in men, before faith in Christ, because till then they have not the spirit. Gal. 3.2. I answer, 1 the extraordinary gifts of the spirit, were not given but by hearing faith preached, which is the meaning of that place, Gal. 3.2. For at the preaching of the Gospel (the Doctrine of faith) and upon the believing thereof, were they given, Act. 10.41.44. 2. The spirit of adoption is not given before faith in Christ for that is the grace which instrumentally (and so only) gives us prerogative and title to our adoption, even as it only (but instrumentally only) receives Christ and his benefits. Eph. 1.13. Gal. 3.26. Rom. 8.13. 3. The gifts and graces of the spirit sufficient to salvation are not given before faith in Christ, Heb. 11.6. Rom. 5.1, 2. 4. The gift of sanctification is not given before Faith in Christ. But for all this will it not follow that before Faith in Christ, the spirit is no way given, the contrary may be seen in illumination and a belief of the Gospel, for these are gifts of the spirit, and therefore parts of spiritual life in some sense. 1. because they are supernatural, (all natural men have them not, nor are they wrought by the work of nature in any, no not in the Elect) 2. because blindness of mind, and infidelity which is contrary thereto, is a branch of spiritual death. 3. The Spirit inhabitant cannot be in men before they have faith in Christ: but the Spirit assistant may, and the exciting by assistance may. Indeed Illumination and a belief of the Gospel, are not spiritual life enough to salvation: yet is it life enough (by God's 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 work but these, and that which is wrought by these, which persuades men to believe in Christ. If illumination and a believe of the Gospel, etc. had no supernatural life at all: but were altogether dead works, than could they produce no such effect as faith, and if they be not dead works, then have they some life, and if they have some life, then from the spirit, and if from the spirit, then may they be called branches of spiritual life, and he that hath them, may be said, to have some spiritual life begun in him, because (as hath been said) he hath some life in him more than natural, that is more than all natural men have. The Exception. There is no spiritual life begun in men, before Faith in Christ, or faith in Christ is every way the spiritual life of Christians, because sanctification goes before justification. The Apology. I answer, in nature saanctification is begun before justification. 1. because regeneration is begun before justification, namely in illumination and other preparations as hath been showed before. Secondly, because faith itself is a sanctifying grace, by their own confession from Acts 15.9. and faith goes in nature before justification. Indeed justification goes in nature before the perfection of our sanctification in all the parts of it, and before the acceptation of it to salvation, but justification doth not go before any or every measure of sanctification can any way be begun. The will of God in working is the Rule of perfection to the work, and then is it said to be perfect, when it is wrought in part, or in whole according to that perfection of parts, or degrees which the Lord intends unto it, at several times, and by several means. The Lord is no way tied, for showing the perfection of his workmanship, to finish a work in all the parts of it, at sundry times, more than he is to finish it in all the degrees thereof, at sundry times. The Trial. Repentance is not begun before faith in Christ, The fift Objection. because repentance is a proper effect and fruit of the Gospel. The Exception. This Argument is disclaimed, therefore is it vain to spend time about it, for if they will not acknowledge and confess it: I have no reason to confute it any further. Only I would have the world believe, I do not feign an enemy, and then flourish against him. For two learned and godly Ministers, whose worthy works are in print, have used the same. They which bring this proposition, Repentance is the proper effect and fruit of the Gospel believed, to prove that repentance is not begun before justifying faith, must be understood to mean by a belief of the Gospel, either that belief which is faith in Christ, or that only which is an assent unto the truth of the Gospel. If they mean by a belief of the Gospel's faith in Christ, then must it be their argument which I have propounded, to prove that repentance goes not before faith in Christ: If they mean but an assent to the truth of the Doctrine of the Gospel, then do they mean that no other faith goes before repentance but that, and then have they two Divines of our own, less on their side, than they thought they had, and I have two more on mine, for I hold that a belief of the Gospel goes before repentance, and repentance before faith in Christ, and let this be enough for that fift Objection, the sixth follows. The Trial. Repentance is not begun before faith in Christ, The sixth Objection. because it is not begun before regeneration, for regeneration is not begun before faith in Christ. This Argument was answered, by denying the Antecedent, viz. that Regeneration is not begun before Faith in Christ, and the reason of the consequence, viz. that repentance is not begun before regeneration. The Exception. For making good the Antecedent, viz. this proposition, regeneration is not begun before faith in Christ, they bring two reasons, to which I will answer in order. Regeneration is not begun before Faith in Christ, because it issues from Christ, and from our union with him by faith, 2. Corinth. 5.17. Ephesians 2.10. Colo. 2.11. The Apology. I answer, first if by regeneration be meant our being made God's children actually, than I grant, that our regeneration must needs flow from our union with him by faith, but than it proves not the Antecedent, for the regeneration we speak of is not our being actually made the sons of GOD, but a work of the Spirit beginning to fit us for that: but if by it they mean any or every work of the Spirit, beginning to fit us for regeneration, and tending thereunto by GOD'S appointment, as any work of the Spirit in the understanding or will, of one that is elected to salvation, to fit him for regeneration by faith, than I say that such regeneration may be wrought before our actual union with Christ by Faith, and doth not issue from it. It is true that Regeneration issues from Christ, in the elect whether we consider him as the efficient cause, either by way of meriting it for us, or by working it in us. Hebrews 12.3. joan. 1.19. Ephesians 1.3. & 2.10. or as the final 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 us till we be actually united to him by Faith, which is the question. The contrary may be seen in illumination, a belief of the Gospel, and vocation which are, and may be wrought in the elect, before this union, Romans 8.20. though they tend to regeneration, (or rather) are a branch and member thereof, and there can no inconvenience follow, hereupon, as long as the regeneration begun before this actual union, is the work of the spirit, in the elect, and for Christ's sake, that shall be perfected in due time, appointed by God for that end. The Exception. Secondly, they prove that regeneration is not begun before faith in Christ, because I myself say as much in my treatise, pag. 310. The Apology. I answer, by acknowledging that faith in Christ, becomes effectual to bring forth good works, and new obedience in a holy life, and to beget in us other Christian graces as hope, joy, peace, newness of heart and uprightness, etc. which are the fruits of faith in Christ, and it becomes thus effectual by our union with Christ through faith: but I do not there affirm (which is alleged, and is the point to be proved,) that no grace tending to regeneration, as a disposition to it, is wtought before this our union, and therefore for all these two reasons, their last Argument is weak and insufficient. As I have added to my six arguments one more, in defence of my opinion so will I add one more objection (which is an argument of theirs) against it, and it is this. The Exception. If faith in Christ go before love, and love before repentance, than faith goes before repentance. But faith in Christ goes before love, and love before repentance. Therefore faith goes before repentance. The consequence (they think) is good because that which goes before the cause, goes before the effect, ergo if faith go before the cause of repentance which is love: then must it go before repentance which is the fruit of love. The Assumption they prove in the parts of it. 1 Faith goes before love, because faith works by love, Gal. 5.6. 2 Love goes before repentance, for the doctrine of the Church of England saith so. The Apology. I answer: 1. If by love be meant any kind of love to God, than I grant the consequence and deny the assumption. But if thereby be meant that love of God which proceedeth from our actual being beloved of God in Christ, and our apprehending of the same in our own particular justification, than I deny the consequence and grant the assumption. Some love of God may be before iustifiing faith, for God is the object of love, and God may be conceived and apprehended as loving, not only in many temporal blessings, but even in some spiritual, before men believe in Christ. For God may be apprehended loving in sending his son to purchase redemption for man and manifesting in the means a possibility of obtaining our share therein, upon repentance and faith in Christ, and as preparing v● by some works of God's Spirit to faith in Christ, and if we may be some way affected towards God upon these considerations and grounds before faith in Christ, then may there be some love before faith, and if our love to God be suitable to such preparing works of God's Spirit, as have yet been past upon us, and such good as hath been manifested to v● from God, I say such love is true in it kind, as being answerable to that, which God aims at, in such means, though not with that perfection which is requisite to salvation immediately, yet with that which is requisite by way of disposition and preparatorily. But that love of God which proceedeth from the receiving and apprehension of our justification is a fruit of faith in Christ, and follows it. 2. I answer, that if by repentance be meant the practice of amendment of life, and new obedience, than the love of God goes before repentance: but if by repentance be meant hearty sorrow for sin past, and true purpose to leave it, than I say the love of God doth not go before repentance. Touching the first part of their asumption, out of the Galathians that faith goes before love, I say, it is not to purpose because it proves not that faith goes before all love, but only that love which proceeds from our first being beloved of God, which we apprehend by faith in Christ. Neither is the doctrine of the Church of England out of the Homilies rightly alleged to prove the 2 part of their assumption, viz. that repentance hath an ingredient charity, & that repentance is a fruit of the love of God: for the repentance the Homily speaks of is not repentance strictly taken viz. sorrow for sin and purpose of leaving it of which I speak, but the whole work of God's Spirit on man to make him capable of justification and salvation, or the whole conversion of man in mind and will, in affections and actions, inward and outward; and this appears in that it makes four parts of repentance there spoken of, viz. 1. Sorrow for sin, 2. acknowledgement and confession of it, 3. faith in Christ, and 4. amendment of life: in which sense it is no marvel if he include love and charity in repentance: so that there is no reason to conclude thence that love is included in repentance strictly taken (as I do,) except they mean by love some affection to God for making it possible for us to be saved and providing a means to that end, and not a love of God for our being actually saved, or mean by repentance amendment of life: for this is a fruit of love, and in this sense it is that St. Augustine speaks to this effect. Many do daily say, they are sinners, and yet still they delight to sin, this is but profession, not amendment, the soul 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 sin, and love of God the fire of this sacrifice is love. 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 unto faith in Christ, which is the use 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 (muchless recite) the particular faults and aberations, they espy therein: The applying of the point. because the answer unto them, will little serve to the clearing of the Doctrine itself: partly because that which I should write in confutation thereof, must be gathered out of that I have already said in this Defence, and partly also because the whole frame of those exceptions, will of itself (upon my Defence) fall to the ground. For I think they would never have written against the application; but upon a supposition, that the point whereupon it was raised, is unsound: for the use of a Doctrine is good or bad, according as the nature of the Doctrine is true or false, as well as if it be proper & natural, or strained and impertinent. Now than if it may appear as I (hope it shall to all that are willing and able to judge) that I have answered all their exceptions, then doth my Doctrine touching the precedency of repentance unto Faith in Christ as yet stand upright, and consequently the application thereof by way of confutation, instruction, reprehension, exhortation, and consolation, must go for currant being natural to the point and not wrested. As it will not be needful for me to defend all those uses, so neither to enlarge them, only I would add out more to the other five, and clear one of them which I have already made. That which I would add to the other should be by way of caution, which is to advertise the Christian Reader, that in perusing this my Defence, and meditating on the point itself, he would not do either the one or the other, with a mind only intent to understand the truth of the point, but with a heart to be affected with the truth, when it is understood: not labouring so much, to inquire whether of repentance or Faith, the one or the other goes before in nature or in time, as whether they have them both or no, and how they may get them both, both being necessary in their kind unto salvation. That use which I would clear, 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 saving faith, which is not wrought after Repentance. To this I answer, far be it from me to imagine, must less to determine, that a true faith in Christ, (supposing it to be true) cannot be a saving Faith. For Faith in CHRIST is a true saving Faith, let it be wrought by the Spirit of GOD when it will, before or after repentance: for I think the hand of the Lord, is not to be tied, in as much as he may work how, and when he will, with, and by the usual means, and ordinarily, or without them, or against them, and extraordinarily. But this I say, that for as much as it hath appeared, that usually, and in the common order of Gods working, generally and in his ordinary course, God prepares men to believe in Christ, by the fore-worke of some graces tending to it, and that many will presumptuously say and persuade they believe in Christ, when indeed they do not: and therefore to restrain men from presumption, I say that such persons, may not persuade themselves, as yet they hau● a saving faith, 233. such may be conceived not to have a saving 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 believing in Christ that continues in a purpose of sinning. And that this is so, may appear because in that use I speak only of carnal Gospelers, who cannot have a saving faith indeed, yet may they presume they have it. May not a Minister of the Gospel, knowing that Preaching is the way and means to work faith in Christ (viz. ordinarily) reprove carnal Gospelers, that neglect and contemn hearing of Sermons and yet think they have faith in Christ: may they not say that their faith us not a saving faith, viz. because they submit no● themselves to the ordinary means which should beget it, may not they say safely and truly that their faith is not a saving faith, though God can, and will, and sometime doth work a saving faith without these means, viz. extraordinarily? why then may not I say, that the faith of carnal Gospelers is not true saving faith, seeing they were never prepared to believe in Christ by the dispositions, which Gods holy Spirit works ordinarily in those in whom he begets a saving saith, though sometime God can and will, in an enthusiasm, and sudden rapture, work a saving faith, without these preparations? Surely yea, for not Gods extraordinary ways and works but his ordinary, are the paths wherein we must walk, the rule by which we must proceed, and the Touch by which we must try ourselves in cases of this nature. To conclude. By that which is written in this Apology, the Christian Reader may discern the material Exceptions against my Doctrine, and the Defence of my Doctrine against those Exceptions. I know full well that a Master of Defence would have put by these thrusts, with more skill, or have beaten them back with more strength, but I am only a learner in this School, and therefore only as a Scholar in this faculty (pro meo mart & art) I have played my prize. That which by God's providence I have seen materially objected against my Doctrine, I have (with God's grace) answered, the pertinency and sufficiency of which answer I refer to the more learned and judicious Readers to be determined. Some object my Doctrine is new, but I answer it is not a new: but a renewed Doctrine. Witness my testimonies, and reasons. It is not new though it seem new, it skills not how new a doctrine be so it be true. As it is not good to receive every Doctrine for this is to be carried about with every blast. Eph. 4 14. So neither is it safe to reject every Doctrine which seems new: for this was the error of the jews who refused the Gospel because to their judgement it seemed a new Doctrine. Acts 17.19. The way to prevent error by mistaking is to follow the rule of the Apostle, Prove all things, 1. Thes. 5.21, 22 hold fast that which is good, abstain from all appearance of evil. that is, Examine the Doctrines you hear by the word of God, and if after Trial they evidently appear, to your judgement to be good & sound embrace and hold them fast, if naught and erroneous, reject and let them go. If any man after Trial shall descent from me in this opinion, I will not be offended so he descent as a brother in judgement and opinion, and not in love and affection; and so from answering Exceptions to my book in one point, I proceed and conclude with a removal of some imputations against it in another, the Authors in both not being the same. There came to my hands very lately certain papers, containing an accusation against me concerning my first Book called A Trial of Faith, and my second A Defence thereof. The things laid to my charge, are no less than perjury, lying, and contradiction, heresy, blasphemy, and aequivocation, as if my book were a mirror of errors, and absurdities, and myself a monster of Ministers. The matters being so foul, and the opportunity so fair to purge myself, I thought good to add a sew leaves 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 book was almost printed, I deemed that GOD (by his providence) would have me defend myself for the credit of my Ministry, which is as tender as the apple of mine eye, that cannot endure little motes of disgrace unjustly to dim it, much less such great beams of slander to put it out if it were possible. Pudet hac opprobria nobis, Et dici potnisse, & non potuisse refelli. If the accusations were true, it were better my book were burnt in Paul's Churchyard, then sold there, & it were fit for me to stand at a stake in Smithfield, then in a Pulpit in the Church, and if they be not true, then is it not meet to suffer simple people to be seduced to believe them, nor myself to be traduced by the report and belief of them, neither of which can be avoided without some answer. Whether they be true or no I refer to the Christian Reader to determine, when he hath read over the Defence of my Trial of Faith, and this Apology for it. In this action and accusation, I will be but a Defendant, I will not give rebuke for rebuke, 1. Pet. 3.9. only I say, the Lord rebuke him. This is not my rebuke but the Lords, nor is it against him, but for him, (the Lord knoweth) even for his unfeigned humiliation and consolation in Christ jesus. And so letting pass in modesty the very words of the accusation as offensive to moderate ears, I proceed to answer the matter, and first the heresy and blasphemy. The heresy and blasphemy is instanced in three particulars, 1. The first heretical and blasphemous position is this, Trial of faith, p. 41. li. 30. I say Faith in Christ is the only condition of the covenant of grace, that is required of all those that are capable of salvation. I answer, this, is not heresy nor blasphemy, because the Doctrine of our Church saith as much, where it saith, Articles of religion in Q Elizabeth's time. Art. 11. Ser. of salvation, 1 part toward the end. that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and that Paul declareth nothing. Rom. 3.25. upon the behalf of man, Concerning his justification, but only a true and a lively faith, and afterward, faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread and the fear of God to be joined with faith, in every man that is justified, but it shutteth them out from the office of instifying. 2. A second Heretical blasphemous Doctrine is, I say, God as sovereign Lord of all, can appoint what means he will to make us capable of life. Neither is this an heretical and blasphemous position, because the power of God is to be considered two ways, Perk. gold chai. ch. 3. either actually or absolutely: Gods absolute power is that, by which he can do more, then either he doth, or will do, Math. 3.9. Philip 3.29. God's actual power is that by which he causeth all things to be, which he freely willeth. Psal. 135.6. Now then where I say, God as sovereign Lord of all, can appoint what means he will to make us capable of life, I do not speak of his actual power, but of his absolute, for I do not mean. Though the Lord hath actually willed and appointed that faith in Christ shall be the means to make us capable of eternal life (that is, instrumentally only and in no sense meritoriously) yet God as sovereign Lord of all, can now appoint another means to make us capable thereof, as he would strain his wit to interpreat me. But my meaning is (which is evident by the context) that before the Lord appointed and willed that faith in Christ should be that means, by his absolute power, as sovereign Lord of all, he might have appointed any other grace, to have been the means (instrumentally and conditionally) to have made us capable of Heaven. If God by his absolute power can do more then either he doth or will, (as is confessed out of Mr. Perkins) then in case God had not willed that Faith in Christ should be this means, he might by his absolute power, have appointed any other means, and consequently what means he would to make us capable of life. For that action which depends upon God's free will or ordination, that, by his absolute power, he could have done otherwise, (for that is the nature of freewill to do so as that they might have done otherwise:) but the appointing of the means to make us capable of salvation depends upon God's freewill and ordination, therefore he might have done otherwise, and consequently by his absolute power, he could have appointed what means he would, to make us capable of salvation. And that the appointing of the means to make us capable of salvation, depends on the freewill and ordination of God appears because the merits of Chr●st depend thereupon, according to that of Mr. Caluin. Christ could not deserve any thing, but by the good pleasure of God, Caluin justit. l. 2 1. 17. the 1. but because he was appointed to this purpose with his sacrifice to appease the wrath of God, and with his obedience to put away our offences, etc. Now if this be true in the meritorious cause of our salvation, which doth purchase it, much more is it in the instrumental, which makes us but persons capable of it now it is procured by him; and so much for clearing the second supposed heresy and blasphemy. The third heretical blasphemous position is this that I say, the act of faith, which is believing in Christ doth justify us, and is our righteousness. Of this sentence I will not say much here, because I have maintained it to be sound Doctrine (in my sense) in a private writing to himself, which he promised to answer, but yet hath not performed it, as also in a public defence in print, and in the view of the world, which was perused and also allowed by two very learned and godly Doctors of Divinity, for that end (which I humbly pray the Reader to peruse for his satisfaction, if he be doubtful,) even as this Apology also hath been proved and approved by the same worthy Divines. And so I pass from the heresy and blasphemy with which he charges me, to the perjury, lying, and contradiction, which is instanced by two particulars. The first instance to prove the perjury lying, and contradiction is this, viz. because in my second Book, I protest I never wrote, that Christ hath merited that faith should be our righteousness, and justify us, Defence, pag. 35. and yet in my first book I say, the act of faith justifies us for the merit of Christ. Trial, page 196. I answer, in these two sentences I do neither forswear, nor lie, nor contradict myself, because I do not affirm and deny one and the same proposition. That I do not in the two sentences forenamed, Arist. deinter: lib 1. chap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ram. logi. l. 2. cha. 2. contradictio est quando idem axioma affirmatur & negatùr; deny and affirm one and the same sentence, or proposition is plain because I do not in one place deny, Christ hath not merited that faith should be our righteousness, and justify us, and in another place say, Christ hath merited that faith shall be our righteousness, and justify us, for I only say, faith justifies us 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 between them, and consequently no lie, and therefore no perjury. But it may be the propositions in the several books are the same in sense and effect, therefore if in one place I deny, that Christ hath merited that faith should justify us, and in another place affirm as much in effect, then have I contradicted, and consequently perjured and lied, I answer, I have not in effect contradicted myself, first because justification in the first sentence is taken for our being justified formally, or for the nature and being thereof, and for that very thing, whereby man of a sinner is made just, and in this sense it is true I never wrote that Christ hath merited that faith should be our righteousness and justify us. In the latter sentence justification is taken efficiently, for our being justified, as by an efficient cause, and in this sense I might truly say without contradiction to the former, the act of faith doth justify us, as the instrumental efficient for the merit of Christ, viz. apprehended thereby, that is, faith as an instrument apprehends and applies Chri●ts merits for our justification by them, and in this sense I say, in my first Book, Trial pag. 178. ●in. 1. Faith justifies us, not as it is in us: but as it rests on Christ, and in this sense speaks the Synod of Dort, faith justifies in as much as it apprehends the merits of Christ. Synod of Dort in ●ng. pa. 23. oer. 4 For even as if I say a spoon feeds a child, my meaning is not, that the spoon is the food and nourishment of the child, but only that it is the instrument, whereby the food and nourishment is reached and conveied to the child, and by which he receives that food whereby he is nourished. Even so when I say, Faith is our righteousness, and justifies us, I do not mean that faith is that righteousness itself, by which we shall be presented and stand righteous before God in his sight, for that only is the righteousness 〈◊〉 Christ active and passive, but that faith 〈◊〉 the instrument whereby the righteousness of Christ is reached and communicated unto us, and whereby I receive it to my justification. Of the manner of this participation and communion or imputation I have declared my mind fully and plainly in the Defence, Defence pa. 2● to 30. to which I refer the Reader. Secondly, I answer: In the first proposition my meaning is, I never wrote; that the merit of Christ is communicated to faith, and that by communion therein faith justifies us, (as the Papists speak of the merits of our works, when they are dipped or died in Christ's blood:) For then should faith either deserve, or be the justice whereby of sinners we are made righteous, both which are fare, and ●uer were from my thought (the Lord knows.) And in the second sentence my meaning is, the merits of Christ come between our faith and justification, not to give virtue unto faith to justify us: but to lead us unto Christ by whose merit we may receive that righteousness, whereby of sinners we are made just; Trial pag. 199. and in this sense I say, in my first Book, that faith justifies us rather than any other grace of God, namely because it makes us go out of ourselves, to seek to the all sufficiency, of the death and obedience of Christ, to rest and trust in him for justification and salvation, Ser. of salvation 〈◊〉 part the end. according to the Homily, as great and as godly a virtue as the lively faith is, yet it putteth us from itself, and remitteth or appointeth us unto Christ, for to have only by him remission of our sins, and justification. So that our faith in Christ (as it were) saith unto us thus. It is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ only, and to him only I send you for that purpose, forsaking therein all your good virtues, thoughts and works, and only putting your trust in Christ. The second instance by which he assays to argue me of perjury, lying, and contradiction, is, in my second Book, I protest I never wrote in my first Book, that faith is our righteousness, and yet in my first Book I say, faith is our righteousness. I answer, that this doth not argue me of perjury, lying, and contradiction, because I do not speak of faith being our righteousness in the same sense and respect in both, for in the first sentence righteousness must be taken properly and formally for that very justice, whereby men are made just and righteous, as by a form, and of sinners made righteous formally. And in the second sentence, righteousness is taken improperly for an attribute given to faith, and it is the same with obedience, which the Apostle Paul attributes to faith. Romans 16.26. (For believing in Christ is obedience to that commandment of God, which bids us believe in Christ, 1 john 3.23. and not believing in Christ, is disobedience john 3.36.) and in this sense it is true, faith is our righteousness, Rom. 1.11. when it is wrought in us, as well, as faith is ours, when it is wrought in us. And when I say, faith is our righteousness, I do not mean it is the righteousness, by which we stand truly and formally righteous before GOD, and in which we shall be presented pure, and without spot of sin before Him, but in this sense, that it is all the righteousness and all the obedience, which GOD works in us and requires of us, as an instrument apprehending, to make us capable of Christ's righteousness. According to the Doctrine of our Church, Paul declareth here, (Rom. 3.25. Ser. of salvation part 1 toward the end. ) nothing on the behalf of man but only a true and lively faith. Not that the act of faith is our formal righteousness, and justifies us meritoriously for, or by any worthiness inherent in itself, or infused thereunto by Christ's merits, but that it is called righteousness in a borrowed sense, because it is only the instrument appointed by God, whereby we are to apprehend, and lay hold upon Christ's merits which are our righteousness, and the only meritorious cause of our justification. In the second accusation he doth argue me only of lying and contradiction, which he endeavours to do by this, because in my second book, I say, my first Book was not a Treatise of justification, and yet in the Title of my second Book I name my first Book a Trial of Faith concerning justification by faith, but this doth not argue me of lying and contradiction which I thus declare. 1. because I do not entitle my first Book a Trial of the Doctrine of justification: but a Trial of Faith. 2. Forasmuch as faith is taken in Scripture in one sense, wherein we conceit● it not to justify, and in another wherein we conceive it doth justify. To the end I might fully declare, that my intent was in my Book to speak of the latter, not of the former, I added in the title of the second Book these words, viz. concerning the Doctrine of justification in Faith: So that the sentence, wherein he supposeth the contradiction to be hath this sense, the Trial of faith, viz. of that faith which concerns justification by faith. And that the latter words, viz. concerning the Doctrine of justification by faith, do argue, that by Faith I meant justifying faith, this Argument will show. That Faith which concerns the Doctrine of justification by faith, is justifying Faith, for no faith doth concern that Doctrine but justifying faith. But the Faith whereof I wrote, doth concern the Doctrine of justification by faith, so saith the title of the second book. Therefore the faith whereof I speak is a justifying Faith. If he would argue me of lying and contradiction herein, it must be by such an Argument as this. That book which concerns the Doctrine of justification by faith is a Treatise of justification. But my first book concerns the Doctrine of justification by faith, so faith my second Book in the Title. Therefore my first Book is a Treatise of justification. To this I answer, justification may be considered, either as it is explicated and treated of, by all the causes thereof, and all the arguments incident thereunto, or as it is considered only in one cause concurring thereunto. In the first sense, I grant the proposition to be true, viz. he that writes a book of justification and explicates it in that large manner, doth write a book of justification, but in this sense his assumption is false, for in the sentence he alleged against me. I limit the Doctrine of my book to speak concerning justification by faith, that is, of justification, so fare as it is by faith, and of faith so fare as it concerns justification, which is to speak of justification as it depends upon one cause, and of faith as it is one cause of justification. And so (I hope) I have cleared it, to the judgement of all indifferent and judicious men, that I have not deserved to be accused of perjury, lying, and contradiction. I should now proceed to say something touching the last imputation objected against me in those papers; which is acquivocation, but this will need no answer, for who knows not, that I am not a jesuite, nor the son of a jesuite, whose practice and Art it is. I have solemnly protested against it in my Defence, pag. 35. and I hope my carriage in my Ministry, and conversation these twenty years in the City and Parish where I dwell, will suffiently purge me from the suspicion of it. In a word. In moral Philosophy he is said to speak truth, who speaks as he thinks, though he thinks not as the thing is, and in Logic he is accounted to speak truth, that speaks as the thing is, though he thinks not as he speaks. But in Divinity there is required a double conformity and agreement, with truth of the thing and the truth of the thought, and this I have observed in the Defence of my Doctrine touching justifying faith. For writing the truth of the matter, I referred myself to the judgement of the learned, by whom my Defence and Apology were approved, and for the writing the truth of my meaning, I appeal to the righteous judge of the whole world. It may be that the Lord will look on my affliction, 2 Sam 6. ●● and that the Lord will requite good for his cursing this day.