iustification and yet in the Title of my second Booke I name my first Booke a Triall of Faith concerning iustification by faith but this doth not argue me of lying and contradiction which I thus declare 1. because I do not entitle my first Booke a Triall of the Doctrine of iustification but a Triall of Faith 2. Forasmuch as faith is taken in Scripture in one sense wherein we conceitâ— it not to iustifie and in another wherein we conceiue it doth iustifie To the end I might fully declare that my intent was in my Booke to speake of the latter not of the former I added in the title of the second Booke these words viz. concerning the Doctrine of iustification in Faith So that the sentence wherein hee supposeth the contradiction to bee hath this sense the Triall of faith viz. of that faith which concernes iustification by faith And that the latter words viz. concerning the Doctrine of iustification by faith do argue that by Faith I meant iustifying faith this Argument will shew That Faith which concernes the Doctrine of iustification by faith is iustifying Faith for no faith doth concerne that Doctrine but iustifying faith But the Faith whereof I wrote doth concerne the Doctrine of iustification by faith so saith the title of the second booke Therefore the faith whereof I speake is a iustifying Faith If hee would argue me of lying and contradiction herein it must be by such an Argument as this That booke which concernes the Doctrine of iustification by faith is a Treatise of iustification But my first booke concernes the Doctrine of iustification by faith so faith my second Booke in the Title Therefore my first Booke is a Treatise of iustification To this I answere iustification may be considered either as it is explicated and treated of by all the causes thereof and all the arguments incident thereunto or as it is considered onely in one cause concurring thereunto In the first sense I grant the proposition to be true viz. he that writes a booke of iustification and explicates it in that large manner doth write a booke of iustification but in this sense his assumption is false for in the sentence he alleaged against me I limit the Doctrine of my booke to speake concerning iustification by faith that is of iustification so farre as it is by faith and of faith so farre as it concernes iustification which is to speake of iustification as it depends vppon one cause and of faith as it is one cause of iustification And so I hope I haue cleared it to the iudgement of all indifferent and iudicious men that I haue not deserued to be accused of periury lying and contradiction I should now proceede to say something touching the last imputation obiected against me in those papers which is acquiuocation but this will neede no answere for who knowes not that I am not a Iesuite nor the sonne of a Iesuite whose practise and Art it is I haue solemly protested against it in my Defence pag. 35. and I hope my carriage in my Ministery and conuersation these twenty yeares in the City and Parish where I dwell will suffiently purge me from the suspicion of it In a word In morall Philosophy hee is sayd to speake truth who speakes as he thinkes though he thinkes not as the thing is and in Logicke hee is accompted to speake truth that speakes as the thing is though he thinkes not as he speakes But in Diuinity there is required a dâ—uble conformity and agreement with truth of the thing and the truth of the thoght and this I haue obserued in the Defence of my Doctrine touching iustifying faith For writing the truth of the matter I referred my selfe to the iudgement of the learned by whom my Defence and Apology were approued and for the writing the truth of my meaning I appeale to the righteous Iudge of the whole world It may be that the Lord will looke on my affliction 2 Sam 6. â—â— and that the Lord will requite good for his cursing this day
the Kingdome of Heauen and giuen them an example to follow The Apology This answere I will take away by prouing that the Repentance of the uPblicans and Harlots was to their Faith as a meanes to an end and this I will make good two wayes first by the context of the place and a reason drawne out of it secondly by the iudgement of the learned First the context or the precedent and subsequent matter of that place prooues my interpretation because the condition of the Publicans touching entring into Gods Kingdome is amplified Ver. 28. and 29. by a parable of a sonne who when he was bidden by his father to goe into the Vineyard and worke the Text faith He said he would not but afterward he repented and went ver 29. Now because by that sonne is meant the Publicans and of that sonne it is saide not onely and barely he went though hee said hee would not but that hee repented and went therefore this shewes not onely and barely he went but that therefore he went because he repented first of his not going formerly and of his saying he would not goe and therefore consequently will it follow that thâ— holy Ghost thereby meant not onely aâ— barely that the Publicans repented aâ— beleeued but that therefore they beleeueâ— because they repented first of their otheâ— sinnes for as the repenting of the sonne fâ— his not going and of his saying hee woulâ— not goe was a cause why hee went aâ— was a meanes vnto it for sorrow for past fault and purpose to leaue it musâ— needes be a meanes to the amending of it so the repenting of the Publicans anâ— Harlots for their sinnes in time past was 〈◊〉 cause and meanes of their beleeuing iâ— Christ afterward and therefore was to iâ— as a meanes to an end and consequently was in nature before it The rather is this true because wheâ— the holy Ghost comes to speake of the Scribes and Pharisees described by the other sonne which said he would and went not ver 30. he saith they repented not afterward that they might beleeue what lesse can hence be gathered but that therefore they did not beleeue in Christ viz because they did not first repent of their former wicked liues nor were prickt in heart for them nor purposed to leaue them Secondly I prooue my interpretation by the iudgement of the learned namely that the repentance of the Publicans was to their faith as a meanes to an end For in expresse words Mr. Beza sayth Bezae annot on Math. 21.32 that the repentance there spoken of was a way to the faith there mentioned I dispute not now what repentance Beza meanes Iter igitur ad fidem est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I haue prooued it to be true repentance in my Treatise and the reasons are not answered and besides now the point is granted by them Secondly Morton of repentance the argument of it toward the end Mr. Morton a learned Diuine of our Country doth so expound the words Matthew 21.32 you did not repent to beleeue or that yee might haue beleeued and thereupon concludes that repentance is distinguished from sanctification as being but a preparation thereunto For if the Pharisies did not repent to beleeue or that they might beleeue then on the contrary the Publicans did repent to beleeue or that they might beleeue and consequently their repentance was to their faith as a meanes to an end And verily if the words had gone thus in the verse they beleeued to repent or that they might repent I beleeue they would haue concluded quickly that their faith was to their repentance as a meanes to an end and consequently as a cause of an effect and therefore in nature before which is more then that they continued their beleefe or that they both repenâ— and beleeued Wherefore my exposition hauing wâ—rant from the grammer of the text agreâ—ment with the scope of the place and coâ—sent with the opinion of the learned aâ— their 's being but a bare affirmatioÌ„ therefoâ— I hope it wil hence easily follow that 〈◊〉 Doctrine grounded thereon concerniâ— the precedency of repentance to faith 〈◊〉 nature is warrantable consequently 〈◊〉 first Argument to proue it good for ougâ— hath yet beene shewed to the contrary The Triall Repentance is begunne before faith 〈◊〉 Christ The second argument because God giues men repentanâ— to the end they may beleeue in Christ 1. Tim. 2.25 The Exception To this second Argument they answer that it prooues not the question becausâ— the text of Scripture on which it is founded is not rightly expounded For say they by acknowledging the truth in Timothy 1. not meant beleeuing in Christ as I haue expounded it but professing the truth not onely in word but in life and conuersation accompanied with an inward change The Apology In defence of my interpretation I haue giuen foure reasons to three of which they answere let vs examine the validity of their answeres in order The Triall First by acknowledging the truth in Timothy is meant beleeuing in Christ because by it wee come out of the snares of the Diuell that is of the Diuells children are made the children of God The Exception This they say is not a good reason because wee come out of the snares of the Diuell by repentance as well as by faith The Apology Vpon this I reply that this instance ouerthrowes not my reason because recouering out of the snare of the Diuell is a translation from being the Diuels child to be Gods childe Now we are not made Gods children by repentance but prepared to be Gods children but it is directly sayd so of a Ioa. 1.12 Gal. 3.26 faith It is plainely sayd of faith in Christ that b 1 Ioan. 5.4 5. it is the victory whereby wee ouercome the world c 2. Pe 2 20. To the acknowledging of our Lord and sauiour Iesus Christ is attributed the escaping of the pollutions of the world namely for time to come d 2 Pe. 1.3 Through the knowledge of Christ is giuen all things which appertaine to life and godlines namely to doe good workes and to performe new obedience in a setled sincere course which are no where sayd of repentance The Triall Secondly by acknowledging of the truth in Tymothy is meant faith in Christ because in other places Coloss 2.2 1 Tim. 2.4 Eph. 4.13 this faith is expressed by this Phrase The Exception To this reason they answere that though in other Scriptures a sauing faith be expressed by that phrase of acknowledging the truth yet heere in Tymothy it cannot Why because this exposition cannot stand with the analogy of faith and why forsooth because repentance cannot stand without faith in Christ or be without it The Apology By this answere a blinde man may see that they take it for granted that if by acknowledging the truth be meant beleeuing in Christ it cannot be auoyded but repentance must go before faith in
he may lawfully do it but doubting hereof But this Argâ—ment was not touched as being too hot for them So that it appearing by these reason that the meaning of those words whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne is not this that whatsoeuer a man doth before he beleeue in Christ he sinnes but whatsoeuer a man doth doubting he doth ill or fearing hee doth not well or not being well resolued in his minde it may lawfull be done either in it selfe or by him and yet will venture to do it he sinnes saith the Apostle because this acton is not of faith that is not of that faith of which he speakes Secondly I answere that they which vrge this place in this sense to proue whatsouer is without faith in Christ is sinne doe not well reseruing reuerence to their learning otherwayes for the Doctrine of 〈◊〉 text must be according to the sense of the words rightly expounded If then this place being rightly expounded speake not of beleefe in Christ then must no Doctrine concerning this beleefe be raised out of that text Rom. 14.23 except we wil make the Scripture say any thing any where which is presumption Thirdly I answere they which vrge this place against the Papists they do it â—o disprooue their will worship deuised by man without warrant of the word and such poynts as theis and in this case the text may be alledged against them because all such worshippe is without faith that is a man can haue no beleefe or perswasion to his conscience that he may lawfully vse it but in our question there is no talke of matters of this kinde and therefore their alleaging of it is no disparagement to my interpretation or defence to their Argument The Exception But they offer now to prooue their exposition by reasons to the end their Antecedent may be made good thereby to which I will answere seuerally The Apostle Rom. 14.23 speakes of faith in Christ To the first reason because he speakes of that faith which is faith of meates or of liberty from meates and this is a sauing faith because they that beleeue in Christ haâ—â— this liberty by faith The Apology I answere first it is supposed that tâ—â— faith spoken of in the place quoted is 〈◊〉 faith of liberty from meates but it is 〈◊〉 this onely but faith of bondage conceâ—ning meates for they are bound by thâ— text to abstaine from eating of theâ— they haue not that faith there meaâ— though they had a sauing faith as wâ— as they haue liberty to eate them tâ—â— haue the faith there spoken of when thâ— haue a sauing faith also else by their ruâ—â— man that eates of any meate sinnes not â—â—uing faith in Christ which is absurd sâ—condly though he had spoken onely faith of liberty from meates c. yet dâ— he not say there that they haue this libeâ— by faith in Christ which is the maâ— question as shall appeare by these tâ—â— reasons First they haue this liberty to eateâ— the meates there spoken of that haue a bâ—leefe and perswasion to their conscienâ—â— from some good grounds that they 〈◊〉 lawfully eate of them for this is the faâ— there spoken of as hath beene shewed 〈◊〉 three reasons euen now and this is not faith in Christ 2 by faith in Christ all the elect haue liberty a like from sinne hell and the diuell c that are bound by them but the Apostle speakes of a liberty from a bondage with which all men are not bound for all men were not bound with the bondage of obseruing of dayes and meates but the Iewes onely and Proselites and therefore not all Christians but the Iewish Christians haue liberty by the faith spoken from the things to which they are bound and consequently the faith there spoken of must be not a sauing faith which pertaines to all Christians Iewes and Gentiles but a faith which pertaines to Christians which were bound to the law of abstinence viz. a beleefe or perswasion of liberty to eate the meate there spoken of though otherwise forbidden Besides if it would follow that because only beleeuers in Christ haue liberty from meates therefore the faith there spoken of Rom. 14.23 is faith of liberty from meates then by a like consequence might it follow but absurdly that because onely beleeuers in Christ are saued and sanctified therefore faith in Christ is sanctification and saluation The Exception Secondly the Apostle Rom. 14.23 speakes of faith in Christ To the second reason because hee speakes of that faith whereby we are perswaded we haue warrant and precept for liberty out of the word of God for thâ—â— is a sauing faith The Apology I answere the reason is not good because this faith whereby we are perswaded we haue 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 perswasion of a truth or an assured assent in my opinion and iudgement of the truth of this Doctrine and this can be but an Historicall faith it is not a sauing faith The Exception But they will obiect though the Apostle Rom. 14.23 do not directly intend to speake of faith in Christ yet by a consequence the Doctrine may be true from that place for if whatsoeuer be without a perswasion to our conscience and this beleefe be a sinne then much more whatsoeuer is without faith in Christ which is a more excellent Faith and more necessarie then this The Apology I deny the consequence except the want and absence of the one faith made an action to be sinne as well as the want and absence of the other This cannot be First because then I know not how it can be auoyded but that the presence of faith in Christ should make an Action not to be sinne which is absurd in as much as faith in Christ doth not cause an action to bee no sinne but not to be imputed for sinne vnto vs for our condemnation Secondly because that which makes an action to be no sinne is the likenesse and neernesse it hath with the Rule of Gods will prescribed for the doing thereof which in morall actions commanded or forbidden is the Law of God and in indifferent actions which are neither commaunded nor forbidden is this Faith whereof the Apostle speakes Rom. 14. viz. a perswasion or beliefe wee may doe or may not doe them neither of which is faith in Christ Indeed faith in Christ is more necessary and excellent vnto saluation then this perswasion but this perswasion is more proper and necessary then faith in Christ to warrant vnto our consciences the actions that wee haue to doe that bee indifferent But it may bee though the Doctrine be neither directly nor by necessarie consequence to bee prooued from the text to the Romanes yet by other Reasons taken from other places it may be Let vs heare and try them The Exception Whatsoeuer is not of
Faith is sinne because whatsoeuer is not of Christ is sinne for to be without faith and to be without Christ are all one The Apology I answere as touching acceptation vnto saluation it is all one in the euent to be without Christ the meritorious cause of saluation â—arke 16.16 as to bee without faith the instrumentall For a man cannot bee saued without either Mar. 16.16 But to all intents and purposes it is not all one to be without Christ and faith for it is not all one to the making of our actions to bee sinne in the nature of sin It is neither being without Christ nor faith that doth this for these only do cause that our actions bee not imputed for sinne vnto vs and not that they bee no sinns The sweruing from the law and Rule of God is that onely which makes an action sinfull The Exception Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne 1. Ioan. because whatsoeuer is done without spirituall life is sinne The Apology I answere How farre and in what sense faith in Christ is the spirituall life of Christians shall bee shewed God willing in the fourth obiection For the present it is enough for the answere of this obiection to say that it prooues idem per idem which is as much as to say it prooues nothing in the question for with them faith in Christ is the spirituall life of Christians as shall appeare in the fourth obiection and the spirituall life of Christians is faith as appeares by this obiection If with them faith be the spirituall life of Christians and if the spirituall life of Christians be faith then that Argument that prooues euery action sinfull that is done without spirituall life namely because it is done without faith and againe that Argument that prooues euery action sinfull that is done without faith namely because it is done without spiritual life I both their say arguments prooue nothing for vpon the matter in this question they begge the question The Tryall To conclude in answere to this Argument and for a reason of denying the consequence I sayd that though Repentance bee begun before faith yet it is not sinne for all that because a beliefe of the Gospel goes before faith in Christ yet is it not sinne The Exception This instance they offer to take away and giue three Reasons why an Historicall faith going before a sauing faith is sinne to which I will answere An Historicall faith without faith in Christ is sinne because it is no where alone required The Apology I answere First to the Antecedant that if 〈◊〉 by these wordes required alone be meant that a beliefe of the Gospel is so required alone in one place that there is no more else where required of men to their saluation then I confesse that a belief of the Gospel is no where required alone but if thereby be meant as it must be if it bee to purpose that there is no place of Scripture in which the duty of beleeuing the Gospell is onely taught and that in euery place where beleeuing the Gospell is onely taught beleeuing in Christ is taught also then I deny it for the Scripture doth not teach euery duty in euery place except wee shall obserue no rules of Art in expounding Scripture Secondly to the consequence I answer that though beleeuing the Gospell were no where alone required yet will it not be sinne for all that because it is a duty in the word commanded to be performed of all the Elect to make them capable of saluation and no such thing can be sinne God doth require of men that which is taught them and as it is taught and sometimes it may fall out a Preacher by occasion of his text or in a Catechisme lecture may onely teach men to beleeue the Gospell vpon Gods owne authority shall we say the Minister sinnes in teaching it alone or the people in learning it alone at that time not hauing then a sauing Faith Surely God is not a hard man that takes vp where he layes not downe Luk. 17.21 nor requires that which hee doeth not teach or offer to worke The Exception An Historicall Faith without Faith in Christ is sinne because God requires more Faith then this The Apology To the consequence I answere that though God require more Faith then the beliefe of the Gospell of them that shall be saued yet is not this sinne when it is alone without a sauing Faith for God requires more then godly sorrow of a Repentant sinner viz an vnfained purpose to leaue his sinnes and in time to practise new obedience Is therefore godly sorrow for sinne sinne indeed in a man because as yet hee hath not a godly purpose to leaue his sinnes wrought in him surely such Diuinitie can neuer doe good in the Church of Christ The Exception An historicall faith without faith in Christ is sinne because it may bee in Reprobates The Apology It cannot bee denied but a beliefe of the Gospell may bee in Reprobates yet will it therefore follow to bee sinne Math. was â—he gift of miracles sinne in the Reprobates because it was in them surely no. It is not the hauing of the gifts of the Spirit that makes them to bee sinne to reprobates or in them but the not vsing of them well to the honour of God and the good of the Church and it is their contenting of themselues onely with those when they should labour for other and more that causeth them to be sins in reprobates for as they be had so they come from God and as they come from God so they are good and as they are good they cannot be sinne though as they are in them not vsed at all or not well vsed or not enough vsed or abused they may prooue sinne in them yet simply because they are in them or as they are in them they are not and so much in answere to their Defence of their first obiection against my Doctrine of the precedency of Repentance vnto Faith in Christ The Triall Repentance is not begun before Faith in Christ The second Obiection because then it should proceede out of an heart vnpurified for the heart is purified by Faith Act. 15.9 To this I answered that it proues not the question because the proofe of it out of the Acts is not to purpose first because it doeth not at all speake of purifying by sanctification of which the question is but by iustification of which it is not secondly though it had spoken of purifying by sanctification yet doth it not prooue that Faith so purifieth the heart that till Faith in Christ come there is not so much as the least measure of this purifying begunne for so is the Antecedent to bee vnderstood The Exception To make their Argument good they bring reasons first they prooue that the Text in the Acts is to be vnderstood of purifying by sanctification from the filth of sinne as well as by