To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
First their answere to my Antecedent, had beene to purpose if they had prooued by some good reason, that in nature and order of working the habit of faith, had gone before the habit of repentance, or that the act of faith which is beleeuing in CHRIST, had gone before the act of repenting, that is, of sorrow∣ing for past sinnes, and purposing to
leaue them: but seeing they doe neither of these, the Antecedent is good.
They say indeede, that these acts of faith, viz. vniting and ingrafting into Christ, receiuing and apprehending Christ, go before repentance: but neither is this to purpose, except they prooued they were all one with the act of belee∣uing in Christ, for of that act is the questi∣on: nor doe they prooue what they say, for they doe barely affirme it: nor do I thinke it possible to be proued, because in nature I thinke it impossible for any vnrepentant sinner, to be vnited to Christ, ingrafted vn∣to him, and made a member of his misti∣call body.
Indeede vpon another occasion, they say repentance goes before these acts of faith, viz. perswasion and assurance of sal∣uation and praying for pardon: and yet else where (in effect) they deny it, where they say to beleeue in Christ, is to be perswa∣ded and assured of saluation by Christ, and that no man can pray for this pardon of his sinnes before he haue faith in Christ,* 1.1 the first of which points hath beene con∣futed by me in my Treatise, and the second is contradicted by other Diuines, where they say praying for pardon of sinnes, goes before the application of faith, and the
perswasion of Gods loue in Christ.
If they had giuen any reason, of their deni••ll of the consequence of this Argu∣ment that had beene sound, it would haue answered my Argument, but seeing they haue not (good cause why? they cannot) therefore is the Argument as yet good, because as yet it is vnanswered. And in∣deede I know not how they should an∣swere it, as long as the habit of repentance and faith in Christ, are the same vertues, both at and after mens first conuersion, for nature and vse, and so are the acts of re∣penting and beleeuing in Christ.
If any man can giue me a good reason why the spirit of God should not incite men, to repent and beleeue in Christ, i•• the same manner and order at the first con∣uersion, as he doth after it, when through weaknesse they fall and offend God, the•• would I say, the consequence of my Ar∣gument were weake, and consequently m•• argument: but because (I thinke) they can∣not: for if they could, they would, therefore as yet, is my fourth Argument good.
* 1.2But (they say) this Argument implie•• a successiue working of saith by God, an•• of pardoning sinnes, as if a Christia•• ceased to beleeue, when he falleth into an•• grosse sinne after his first conuersion, an••
that therefore faith must bee wrought a new in them, and be pardoned a new.
I answere to the first, that though I do not meane that the habit of faith is lost,* 1.3 by the committing of any enormous sin, and therefore there is no feare of neede to haue it planted in them againe: yet doe I thinke that a sinner falling into enormous sinne, doth not exercise his faith, nor vse the act of it, and he may in some sort be sayd for a time to loose the vse and exer∣cise of this beleeuing in Christ: and that therefore after such a fall the Spirit of God must incite him vp againe, to the vse thereof, before he can trust in Christ: and that the spirit doth not thus incite a sinner to trust, vntill he haue stir'd him to repent of those great sins which he hath cōmitted.
And as touching the second member of their exception, concerning successiue par∣doning of sinnes, I can see no reason, why we should euery day aske pardon of our sinnes, if God did not pardon them euery day, I see not why this may not be called successiue pardoning,* 1.4 for if the godly sin euery day, must repent, and beleeue in Christ euery day, and craue pardon of the sinnes of euery day, then will God forgiue euery day (speaking after the Scripture phrase) and then there is a daily and succes∣siue pardoning.
Mr. Eltons Ca¦techisme 4. principle. Mr. Perk. state of a Christian, Sect. 14. Mr. Rogers Mr. Baynes as is ci∣ted before.
••••••ect.
Solut.
Math. 6.11, 12.