A confutation of a popishe, and sclaunderous libelle in forme of an apologie: geuen out into the courte, and spread abrode in diuerse other places of the realme. VVritten by VVilliam Fulke, Bacheler in Diuinitie, and felowe of S. Ihons Colledge in Cambridge.

The aunswere.

It is a greate marueile to see you, and suche as you are, that boaste of your free will, to bee so obstinately blinde, that you will not see the truthe, but that wee dooe acknowledge the iuste iudgement of God in those that striue against him. But to a∣uoide al your cauilling of free will, where by you goe about to amase the vnderstan∣dyng, of suche as bee simple, I will firste shewe, what we teache of free will, and then aunswere your peuishe Sophistrie. And because the name of free will, is am∣biguous, and of diuers significations, it is

expediente, to sette foorthe the sonderie meanynges thereof. Free will is somety∣mes taken as it is contrary to coacted or constrained will. Sometymes as it is con¦trary to a seruile, or bonde wille. And sometymes as it is, the election of that, whiche seemeth good, and is contrary to refusyng. But in the ambiguitie, of the twoo former significations, all the doubte of this controuersie dooeth consiste, wher∣of we determine after this maner. That manne before his falle, had free will, in e∣uery respecte: he might haue chosen freely without any lette, or compulsion, that whiche was good in deede, and acceptable to God: For there was in his nature, no∣thyng to prouoke hym to euill. But man after his falle, bothe in hymself, and in all his posteritie, hath vtterly loste that free will, whiche I make the seconde meaning of the woorde, and hath his will, now al∣together seruile, and bounde, so that he can will nothyng of hym self, that is good, and acceptable before God. And therefore the scripture saieth. Genesis the. vj. and viij. That all the immaginations of the thoughtes of mennes hartes, are onely

euill continually. Our sauiour Christ also Matth. xv. teacheth, that out of the cor∣rupte harte of manne, proceadeth all wic∣kednesse. And saincte Paule. ij. Corin. iij. affirmeth, that we are not apte 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of our selues, as of our selues, to thinke any thyng, that perteineth to the glorie of God. With an infinite noumber of places beside, to the same effect, through out the Scripture, declaryng that before we be regenerate, and borne a newe, wée can will nothyng but that whiche is well. Neuerthelesse, wee dooe not deny, that a manne hath free will in the firste mea∣nyng, for although his wille is bonde, and slaue vnto synne, before it bee made free, by the grace of God, yet is it not compel∣led, nor enforced by any externall coaction or Stoicall necessitie vnto euill, but volū∣tarily embraceth that, whiche is euill, and delighteth therein, and voluntarily doeth refuse goodnesse, and pleaseth it self in ille doyng. As for the thirde kinde of free will, whiche is an appetite, or election of that, whiche seemeth good, continueth in man after his fall (but yet subiecte to Gods prouidence) whereby he guideth all his

externall actions, but this is vnproperly called free wille, and therefore maie bee well omitted in this disputation. The whole matter of doubte resteth therefore in this, whether a manne hath his will so free, and vncorrupted, that he can discerne any thyng in true godlinesse, and applie hym selfe to receiue it. And here in this your discourse, a manne can hardely per∣ceiue, whether you defende free will sim∣plie with the Pelagians, or partly with the Papistes. But this is the maner of you all, to shewe your self, where you dare for shame, plaine Pelagians in deede, for all your diuinitie of free wil, is out of Aristo∣tle and not out of Gods woorde, but when you be pressed with the aucthoritie of scri∣pture, to flie to some sorie shift of defence. But it is all one in a maner, to confute the Pelagians, and you, when it is proued out of the woorde of God, that the grace and goodnesse of God, woorketh all toge∣ther, whatsoeuer is good in them that are regenerate. For it is neither of hym that willeth, nor of hym that runneth, but of GOD onely, that sheweth the mercie. Therefore it is no harde mater, to a∣uoide

moste of your cauillations, with that one distinction of free will, whiche is either free from coaction, and compulsion, or free from corruption, and bondage vn∣to synne. As when you wrangle of the re∣ceiuing of faithe, that no manne beleueth but he that will, I aunswere, no manne is compelled to beleue, but he that bele∣ueth, dooeth beleue willingly, and of his owne accorde, but that he hath a wille to beleue, is not of hymself, but of God. For GOD dooeth not onely offer mercie to our wille, but also geueth vs a wille to receiue it. As saincte Paule testifieth, God woorketh in vs, bothe to will, and to performe whatsoeuer is good, and pertai∣nyng to our saluation. Phili. ij. And where God giueth not a will, there menne can not beleue, though grace, and mercie bee offered vnto theim. As saincte Ihon testi∣fieth in the. xij. Chapiter of his Gospell, that the Iewes after so longe preachyng, and so many miracles woorkyng emong thē, did not beleue in him, and thei did not beleue, because thei could not beleue in hym, for that God, accordyng to the Pro∣phecie of Esaie, had geuen theim ouer, in∣to

a reprobate mynde. But if euery man had free will, as you defende it, it mighte not bee truely saied of any menne, thei could not beleue, because God had blinded their iyes, and hardened their harte. For you holde, that euery manne maie beleue that wille, and that euery manne hath this wille, in his owne power. And the firste parte of the sentence in some respect maie be graunted, that eche manne maie beleue that wille, but the seconde parte is altogether false, that eche manne hath this wille in his power. But those onely whom God hath appoincted to saluation, he maketh willyng to beleue, that thei maie bee saued.

And whereas you quarell, that Christe would haue gathered, and Hierusalem would not, it maketh nothyng to proue, that the Iewes had power of their wille, to receiue Christe, whiche sainct Ihon vt∣terly denieth, saiyng, thei could not be∣leue. And concerning the will of God, and Christe, you should not bee ignoraunte of that distinction, whiche youre Sentiaries dooeth acknowledge. That there is one will of Goddes determination, and an o∣ther

of his precepte, or commaundement, whiche thei call voluntatem signi. As when GOD commaunded Abraham, to kill his soonne, he declared one wille by his com∣maundemente, and yet the ende declared that he willed not the deathe of Isaac. These diuerse willes, are not repugnant in God, neither dooeth he intende, contra∣ry thynges by theim, but suche as maie well stande together. For he determined to saue Isaac, for his promise sake, and yet to trie the obedience of Abraham, by the commaundemente. So when Christe preached to Hierusalem, he determined to call those onely, that were elect of God, and yet to make the other inexcusable, when he offered mercie vnto theim, and they by no meanes would receiue it. The reste that you adde, of the consent of man∣nes will, to bee necessarie vnto iustifica∣tion, is so impertinent, that I muse what you meaned to speake one woorde of it. For who euer saied that God woorketh in the faithe of a manne as in a Stocke or Stone, or who euer denied the consent of a mannes will to be required in beleuing? This is no parte of the questiō. But whe∣ther

euery mā that is not predestinat of god to saluation, hath it in his power to consent vnto faith, that he maie bee iustified, and so be saued, which is cleane to ouerthrowe the election and predestination of God, which is the chief foundatiō of our faith, & consequēt∣ly to ouerthrow the power, wisdome, glorie and aucthoritie of God ouer his creatures. For if euery able and scilful workeman, de∣termineth of the ende and vse of his worke∣manship, before he beginneth it: with what reason can we take that frō y^e creator of all thinges, who as Salomon witnesseth, made all thinges for his owne glory, euen the wic∣ked man for the daie of his wrath. Your con∣clusion is verie clerkely, that we haue driuē all thinges to faith alone, & whē all is duely examined, wee haue no fathe at all. When Zeno had disputed longe that there was no mouynge, Diogenes walked vp and doune his scole, and beeyng demaunded, what he was doing, he aunswered I am confuting of Zeno his argumentes. In whiche behauour he shewed a dooble example of wisedome, first because he vouchesaued not to aūswere the subtilties of Zeno in so vaine a matter, & secondly for that his sensible action, did suffi∣ciently confute the Philosophers vaine spe∣culation.

We will therefore holde our peace in this case, and let the matter it self speake for vs. If it were not that wee had faithe to Godward, why should we troble our selues in this controuersie of religion? If we sough riches, honour, pleasures, or whatsoeuer the outwarde man can wishe for, where should we sooner finde it, then in Popery? If wee sought any thing in this life by our professiō, why should we not leaue it in time of perse∣cution? Let the life & death therfore of theim that haue suffered martirdome for our reli∣gion, declare whether for maintenaunce of faithe and truste in God, or for confidence in the worlde, we haue taken this contention in hande. But seing you are disposed to dally with vs in deniyng our faithe, you shal geue me leaue to disproue in good earnest, your iu∣stification. For if you haue none other but these thrée, which al learnyng (you saie) doth agree of, I suppose it not vnpossible by your owne learning, to cōuince that iustification in papistry, is either very vaine, or els none at all. And because your distinction is so pre∣posterus of it self, it shal not be against order to begin with the last kinde firste, whiche is (you saie) when of a iust mā is made a more iust mā. If no man be iust, how can there be

degrees in iustification? If the scripture teache (as I wene you wil not deny) that all men are sinners, and that no sinner is iust, then no man can bee made of a iuste manne more iuste. But because I promised to deale with you rather by youre owne learnyng, thē by scriptures, if I can disproue your two first kindes of iustification, the third muste needes vanishe awaie of it selfe. Iustificatiō by baptisme is your first kind, by penaunce, your second kinde. If a childe be iustified by Baptisme, & die in that state of iustification, he cometh not into purgatorie. And therfore néedeth neither Dirge nor Masse to be saide for hym: but by saiyng Dirge and Masse for such one, you acknowledge him to be in pur∣gatorie, therfore you confesse he is not iusti∣fied. And so your owne catholike doinges de∣nie your learned saiynges of iustification by Baptisme. Lette vs see if iustification by pe∣naunce be any thing surer. When a manne hath shryuen himself, & receiued absolution, I trowe you will saie hee is iustified by pe∣naunce. But so soone as he is gone from the Prieste, if he fall into deadlie sinne, he is be∣come lapsus again. And it is the doctrine of al the Sententiaries, y^t euery euil desier, with consente is deadlie sinne, as if the partie,

that is shriuen, when he cometh out of the church, seeth a faire woman, & lusteth after her, he hath cōmitted adulterie in his harte with her, if he méete his enemie, & desire re∣uengement, he is a murtherer. If he behold any house, land, or other goods, & cattelles, that is not his, and couet it, he breaketh the x. commaundement, & so of the rest. Wher∣fore, so so••e as euer hee thinketh an euill thought, after his absolution, all the fatte is in the fire, he hath loste his iustification. So that he must be shriuen ten thousand tymes in a yere, or els he must not tary, but a short while in his iustification. A miserable consci∣ence or none at al, must that man haue, that trusteth to suche a iustification. But you wil saie, he needeth not to fall by concupiscence so often. But I saie, hee is a false hypocrite, that dare so saie, of hym selfe. Sainct Paule was not inferiour to any man, in the grace of regeneration, and yet he confesseth, that there was an other Lawe in his members, whiche was resistaunte to the lawe of his minde, & so far preuailed, that it brought him continually, captiue vnto the lawe of synne, in so much that it did wryng out of him, this pathetical exclamation: miserable man that I am, who shal deliuer me from this bodie of

synne? And findeth no other comforte, but the mercie of GOD in Christe Roma. vij. Wherefore seeyng both the firste iustifica∣tions faile, the thirde muste needes fall, and therefore excepte you canne finde another iustification you are like to haue none at all at lest wise of any value to make you right∣ous by your owne learnyng.