[An apology for the treatise, called A triall of faith. Concerning the precedency of repentance for sinne, before faith in Christ for pardon]

The Apology.

To this Argument I answered, that i•• prooues not the question, because th•• Text out of the Epistle to the Hebrewe•• prooues not the Argument; for both qu••¦stion and Argument are to be vnd••rstoo•• of pleasing of God, any or euery way, b•• the proofe out of the Epistle to the H••¦brewes, is of pleasing God one way onely viz: vnto saluation.

To remooue my answere, and main¦taine their owne argument, they shoul•• haue done two things.

First they should haue taken away m•• distinction, in one of the members there•• concerning acceptablenesse, and shewe•• that no repentance can be any way acce••¦table without faith in Christ: But beli•• it was too hard a tas••e; for some repe¦tance is not at all acceptable vnto sa••ua••¦on, as Ahabs and the Ninivites; and y•• the same Repentance without Faith 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christ, is some way acceptable vnto Go•• namely, to the auerting of a tempor•• Iudgement, as in the same ex••mples.

Secondly, they should haue prooued, that the Text alleadged out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes to prooue their argu∣ment, is to be vnderstood of a sauing faith only, for of that only is the question, which is not done.

I grant the Apostle in that chapter speakes of a sauing faith, vers. 5. but it seemes that in the verse alleaged, he speaks but of an assent to the truth of the two propositions following in the next verse, viz: that God is, or there is a God: second∣ly, that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him, for he that doubts of either of these cannot please God at all: for how should he please God that beleeues not there is a God: But neither of these haue they done, and therefore for all this the argument is vnsound.