[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.

I answere first it cannot be denied but the text Rom. 14. vlt. hath beene expoun∣ded by many Diuines of faith in Christ, but neither do the ancients so interpret it: (A learned Diuine of Germany, vpon the same place confesseth as much in his com∣mentary.) Nor do all the latter Interpre∣ters. For Caluin in his commentary vpon that place, and in his institutions, expounds it as I doe, and Zanchius. Nor if they did all interpret it, one after another, may their exposition be admitted, against or besides the interpretation, which the Holy Ghost in the precedent and subsequent verses of the text giues of that place it selfe, which is the same with that I haue alleadged.

That this interpretation of Rom. 14. vlt is not to be vnderstood of Faith in Christ, but of another faith as I haue alleadged, is euident, by considering that v. 2. of the same

chapter, Paul speakes of beleeuing, that I may eate this or that meate, vers. 5. of es∣teeming one day aboue another or all dayes alike, and of full perswasion in our mindes about the obseruation of them, verse 14. of knowledge and perswasion concerning th•••• cleanenesse or vncleanesse of meates, that i•• the lawfulnes or the vnlawfulnesse of the•• to be eaten, verse 22. of hauing faith with our selues, which is opposed to doubting or feare, and lastly, verse 23 the (verse out of which the words are quoted) of al∣lowing or condemning our selues in the things wee do, Neither of all which haue any affinity with the nature of a sauing faith, which is the casting of our selues o•• Christ; and the relying on his merits for saluation, or the beleeuing in his name for it, of which there is not one word in the whole Chapter.

Besides, the Apostle, Rom. 14.23. doth not deliuer a rule for all our morall acti∣ons, that are either commanded, or for∣bidden, the rule whereof is his written law: but for those actions that be in na∣ture such, as those of which he speakes in that place, viz. indifferent actions, in them∣selues neither simply commanded, nor forbidden, neithe•• good or euill, which may prooue in the euent either good or e∣uill,

according as his opinion, iudgement, ••nd conscience is, of the lawfulnesse or vn∣••••wfulnesse of them. Now in these acti∣••ns, for the giuing of vs a warrant to do ••r not to doe them, there is no neede of ••aith in Christ: the perswasion or beleefe ••••at wee haue in our conscience, by the ••••ght of nature, true reason, or the word, is ••••le enough to warrant vs in the doing of ••hem, or leauing of them vndone, and this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that faith whereof Paul speakes, ver. 23 Rom. 14.

Adde vnto these two reasons, this for a third: the Apostle doth not in the place cited, set downe a Rule how any or all our actions may be accepted of God vnto sal∣uation, in which case he must haue treated of faith in Christ, without which it is im∣possible to please God, Heb. 11.6. but. how we may know whether in our owne conscience, our actions are warrantable for vs to doe them, or to leaue them vn∣done. Now in this case there is no neede of faith in Christ, the perswasion or be∣leefe, that wee haue vppon the former grounds of nature, reason or the word do warrant vs in the doing, or not doing of them, because these tell vs, (and we beleeue it for truth) that they be not vnlawfull and forbidden actions.

In my Treatise I haue giuen one reaso•• more, why in that place of the Romans by faith should not be meant faith in Christ, but a beleefe of warrant to our conscien∣ces, for the things we do, namely, becaus•• though a true beleeuer in Christ, ha•••• faith in him: yet he sinnes in the actions 〈◊〉〈◊〉 doth, if hee haue not another faith the•• this, viz. a warrant to his conscience for the thing hee doth vppon some good grounds, for he cannot chuse but sinne, tha•• rushly rusheth vpon the doing of som••¦thing not being perswaded, he may lawful¦ly do it, but doubting hereof. But this Arg••¦ment, was not touched as being too hot for them. So that it appearing by these reason, that the meaning of those words, whatso∣euer 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) be∣cause 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 what∣souer 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, 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 ••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 be∣leefe, 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 interpreta∣tion or defence to their Argument.

Notes

• Patres fidem, scientiam liber∣tatis exponunt quae conscientiā precedit, & vel bonam vel ma∣lam eam facit. Calvin Iustit. l 3. c. 13. ss. 17. Zanchiusde ope∣ribus Dei lib. 4. chap. 1. pag. 420: Paraeas ad Rom. c. 14. ver. vlt.
• Heb. 11.6.
• Rom. 14.23