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.
THe Romish faith concerning such preparatorie workes to iustification, the Catholicke faith of Christs Church doth renounce and disclaime, as hereticall and antichristian, for these reasons. First, because the holy Scriptures teach no such thing, but the cleane contrarie. The Scriptures teach
no merit of Congruitie: they teach not, that free will being stirred vp, and helped by I wot not what first grace, a man is thereby disposed to receiue iustification; but the flat con∣trary: Ioh. 1. 12. As many as receiue Christ, and such are they as beleeue in him, are made the Sonnes of God. But doth not this grace come by some disposition in mans nature, as by his free will assisted, and so cooperating with the grace of God, for the attaining of iustification? No such thing. For verse 13 Christ teacheth that those Sonnes of God are borne not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Where note a direct opposition betweene Gods grace, and mans will in the worke of Regeneration, or Iustification; mans will being by a negatiue, vtterly excluded from any copartnership with God: Not of the will of man, but of God. So Titus 3. 5. Not by workes of righteousnesse which we haue done, but according to his mercie he saued vs, &c. Where all humane workes going before Iustification, all merits of congruitie, are excluded from disposing a man to receiue iustification: for not by the workes of righteousnesse which wee haue done, but accor∣ding to his mercie, bee saueth vs. And Rom. 4. 5. To him that wor∣keth not, but beleeueth on him that iustifieth the vngodly, his Faith is counted for righteousnesse. Note, God iustifieth the vngodly, therefore not the righteous, not the meritorious by Congrui∣tie; vnlesse vngodlinesse and sinne can merit iustification at Gods hand: as St. Augustine said of Adams sinne, Foelix culpa, quae talem meruit Redemptorem, It was a happie sinne, that merited such a Redeemer. Whereas, besides some places of Scripture, which they peruert to their purpose, they obiect the exam∣ples of the Eunuch, Acts 8. and of Cornelius, Acts 10. by which they would proue their workes of Congruitie, as Vega alledgeth them. Vega may remember what he said in another place before, where hee produceth St. Augustines authoritie, to proue that these two were true beleeuers, before the Apo∣stles came and preached vnto them: which, also Vega him∣selfe subscribeth vnto, confessing that these two had grace and faith before; sauing onely the difference is in the accep∣tion of grace and faith: wherein the Pontifician egregiously
equiuocateth, the true nature whereof wee shall hereafter discouer. But say, that neither the Eunuch nor Cornelius, be∣fore they were instructed by the Apostles, had the grace of iustification: doth it therefore follow, that those workes of theirs did by Congruity merit iustification at Gods hands? or that they were thereby prepared to iustification? Why did not then Esau's teares merit the blessing ex congruo? or why did not Ahab's repentance merit by Congruity, not onely a repriuall of punishment, but an absolute pardon of his sinne? for they did quantum in se fuit, as much as in them lay: Or else, according to Romes doctrine, God must be vniust, or at least wanting in his natiue goodnesse.
For further cleering of this point, come we to the ancient Fathers, to whom also this doctrine of merit of Congruity and of Condignity was altogether vnknowne. This Vega himselfe is forced to confesse, where making this obiection; Why did the Fathers (saith hee) no where vse this distinction of merit of Congruity and Condignity? to which he answereth; If all things, which neuer were in vse among the Fathers, are to be condemned, we shall be forced to condemne many things which all Catholickes now receiue. And the Philosopher should haue said in vaine, Scientiaes fieri per additamenta, that Sciences are brought to passe by addition. But he addeth, Neither are we to grant, that this distinction of merit of Congruity and Con∣dignity was altogether vnknowne to the Fathers. They acknowledged the things, although they vsed not the termes (saith Vega) seeing they diuersly vsed the word of Merit, as either strictly or largely; whereof we shall speake more largely hereafter. In the meane time, let vs see what workes of preparation the ancient Fa∣thers taught or inioyned, as necessarie to dispose a man to iustification by way of merit, taken in the largest sense, as Vega at least would haue it.
But before we come to set downe the ancient doctrine of the Church concerning this point, I must premonish the Rea∣der, seriously to note this one thing in the Fathers, That when they speake of grace and faith, whereby a man is iusti∣fied, they meane nothing else but sauing grace, and iustifying
faith, not now preparing a man vnto, but actually placing and possessing him in the state of iustification and saluation. They meane nothing lesse, than any such first grace, prepara∣tory, and euen common to wicked men, which neuer come to partake of the second grace, as the Romanists doe teach. The Fathers admit of no such meane betweene sauing grace and faith, and betweene sauing faith and iustification; betweene any first & second grace, as differing in kinde, but vnderstand one sauing effectuall grace. Indeede St. Augustine speaketh of a first and second grace; but by the first he meaneth that of iustification, by the second that of sanctification: differing no more, but as the roote and the branch, the tree and the fruit: Or St. Augustine acknowledgeth no other first grace, but that which is giuen to the elect in this life, saying, Coronat in nobis Deus dona misericordiae suae; sed si in ea gratia, quam pri∣mam accepimus, perseueranter ambulemus. God crowneth the gifts of his mercie in vs; but if in that first grace, which we haue receiued, we walke with perseuerance. Ambrose saith, He that dare preach that the grace of God is giuen according to mens merits, preacheth against the Catholike faith. Therefore this doctrine of merit of congruity was no Catholicke doctrine in Saint Ambrose his dayes, nor doth he meane any other grace, but that of iustifi∣cation. All the preparation this holy man alloweth, is, where he saith, Duce Deo, venitur ad Deum; by God leading vs, we come vnto God. And St. Chrysostome: So soone as a man beleeues, hee is iustified. And St. Augustine: Praedestinatio est praeparatio gratiae; Predestination is the preparation to grace, to wit, of iustification. And further, he explaines himselfe thus: Inter gratiam & prae∣destinationem, &c. Betweene grace and predestination this is the onely difference, that predestination is the preparation of grace, and grace is the gift or donation of predestination: Or as a little after, Grace is the effect of predestination. But will the Pontifician say, Mans free-will is not for all this excluded from being an in∣gredient, at least in preparation? Augustine in the same place snuts free-will quite out of doores, yea from setting one foot vpon the threshold, or entry, to iustification. Ideo ex fide v•• secundum gratiam firma sit promissio omni semini: non de nostrae
voluntatis potestate, sed de sua praedestinatione promisit. Promisit enim, quod ipse facturus erat, non quod homines; quia et si faciant ho∣mines bona quae pertinent ad colendum Deum, ipse facit, vt illi faci∣ant, quae praecipit: non illi faciunt, vt ipse faciat quod promisit. Alio∣quin vt Dei promissa compleantur, non in Dei, sed in hominum est po∣testate, & quod à Domino promissum est, ab ipsis redditur Abrahae. Non autem sic credidit Abraham, sed credidit danc gloriam Deo, quo∣niam quae promisit, potens etiam & facere; non ait, praedicere; non ait praescire: nam & aliena facta potest praedicere, at{que} praescire; sed ait, potens etiam & facere: ac per hoc, facta non aliena, sed sua. That is: It is therefore of faith, that according to grace the promise might be sure to all the seede: he promised not out of any respect to the power of our will, but of his predestination. For he promised, not that which men, but which himselfe was about to doe; because though men doe those good things, which belong to Gods worship, hee causeth them to doe those things, which hee hath commanded: they doe not caus•• him to doe that which hee promised. Else that the promises of God should bee performed, it is not in the power of God, but of men; and that which the Lord hath promised, is by them performed to Abraham. But Abraham did not so beleeue God, but hee beleeued giuing glory to God, because what he had promised, he was able also to doe; he saith not, to fore-tell; he saith not, to fore-know: for hee is able to fore-tell, and fore-know other mens workes; but hee saith, hee is able to doe: meaning hereby, not others workes, but his owne. So this holy man. For otherwise, saith he, a little after: Per hoc, vt promissa sua Deus possit implere, non etiam in Dei, sed in hominis potestate: hereby it should come to passe, that it rested not in Gods power to bee able to fulfill his promises, but in mans power. St. Au∣gustine therefore admits of no mixture of mans free-will concurring with Gods grace, in preparing him to receiue the promise of God touching iustification, as being built vp∣on the eternall decre•• of Gods predestation, as an effect springing from the cause. And (Epist. 107. Vital.) The will is prepared of the Lord, saith he. How? Quia praeuenit hominis voluntatem bonam, nec cam cuiusquam inuenit in corde, sed facit: For God preuents the good will of man, nor doth hee finde thie good will in anie mans heart, but makes it se.
And the same Father in his exposition of the Epistle to the Galathians vpon these words, Induerunt Christum, They haue put on Christ: saith thus, Filii fiunt participatione sapientiae, id praeparante atque praestante Mediatoris fide; quam fidei gratiam nunc indumentum vocat▪ Vt Christum induti sint, qui in eum credi∣derunt: They are made sonnes by the participation of wisedome, which is prepared and performed by faith in the Mediator; which grace of faith, he now calleth a putting on. So that they haue Christ put on them, which haue beleeued in him. Faith then so prepares, as it also performes the worke of iustification: whereas Po∣pish faith may, as they say, prepare, and yet faile to performe. And writing to Simplicianus, he comes directly to the point: Quaeritur, vtrum vel fides mereatur hominis iustificationem, an verò nec fidei merita praecedant misericordiam Dei, sed & sides ipsa inter dona gratiae numeretur: Misericors Deus vocat, nullis hoc vel fidei meritis largiens, quia merita fidei sequuntur vocationem potius, quam praecedunt, It is demanded, whether faith doe merit mans iustification, or else neither the merits of faith do go before the mercie of God, but euen faith it selfe is reckoned among the gifts of grace: The mercifull God calleth, bestowing this grace, no not vpon any merits of faith, because the merits of faith rather follow voca∣tion, than goe before it. And againe in another place, Ante fidem non debentur homini nisi mala pro malis; retribuit autem Deus in∣debitam gratiam, bona pro malis: Before faith nothing is due to a man but euill for euill; but God doth reward a man with vndeserued grace, to wit, good for euill. Where hee speakes of sauing faith iustifying, not of common faith preparing. And in his one hundred and fifth Epistle to Sixtus his fellow Priest, Restat vt gratuitum Dei donum esse fateamur, si gratiam veram, idest, sine meritis, cogitamus: Wee are to confesse that to bee a free gift of God, if we consider the true grace, that is, without merits. Now the true grace, is that whereby a man is iustified and saued: but this grace is a free gift without merits: therefore no merits goe before the grace of iustification. And Bernard sweetely, Non est, quò gratia intret, vbi iam meritum occupauit. Et, deest gratia, quicquid meritis deputas: Grace hath not where to enter, where merit hath already taken up the roome. And, you detract
from grace, whatso••uer you attribute to merits. And againe, Ergo iam plena confessio gratiae ipsius gratiae plenitudinem signat in anima confitentis: Now then a plenary acknowledgement of grace, is a signe of the fulnesse of grace it selfe in the soule of him that thus confesseth it. And thus consequently out of the Fathers wee conclude, as the Catholicke doctrine of the Church in those primitiue times, That there is in man no worke of preparati∣on, whereby to merit by congruitie the grace of iustification, which is the freegift of God, without our merits. And St. Augustine plainely discouers vnto vs the puddle whence this doctrine of merit of congruitie first issued: namely from Pelagius, Qui cos remunerandos dicit, qui bene vtuntur libero ar∣bitrio, & ideo mereri Domini grattam, debitum cius reddi fatetur: who saith, they are to bee rewarded, which vse well their free will, and thereby merit the grace of God, which he confesseth to be renared as due to their free will. This accordeth with Romish Schoole diuinitie, teaching, That homini operanti secundum suam virtu∣tem, videtur congruum, vt Deus recompenset secundum excellen∣tiam suae virtutis: To a man working according to his naturall power and vertue, it seemeth meet, that God render a recompence according to the excellencie of his vertue. Therefore the Catho∣licke Church of Christ, where of the Church of England is a member, reiecteth this Pontifician preparation to iustifica∣tion, as a doctrine repugnant to the holy Scriptures, and to the Writings of the Catholicke Doctors and Fathers in the Pri∣mitiue Church. This doctrine of Rome tending also (howso∣euer they would dissemblingly disclaime it in words) to a flat derogation from the glorie of Gods grace, while it would make man an equall sharer with God in the atchieuement of so great a worke: for though they seeme to ascribe the glory to God because (say they) he stirreth vp the will, whereby it beginneth to prepare and dispose it selfe to grace; yet this is nothing else but a mocking of God. As deuout Bernard spea∣king of this diuine stirring vp of free will, saith, Nefas est Deo quod minus, nobis quod excellentius sit, attribuere, It is ini∣quitie to attribute to God that which is lesse, and to our selues that which is the more excellent. Now to stirre vp, what is it else, but
as it were to awaken one from sleepe? The will is asleepe, and God must awaken it, before it can do any thing that is good: and being thus awakened, it sets itselfe a working. As Sampson awakened by Dalilah, shewed his great strength; the glorie of which action, is it to be ascribed to Dalilah for awakening and stirring him vp, or to Sampson, who being asleep, wanted nothing but stirring vp, to giue him occasion to exercise his strength? Mans will therefore beeing but stirred vp of God, and Sampson-like doing workes of wonder, euen aboue hu∣mane strength, and naturall force, as to prepare and dispose it selfe for that great worke of iustification, how shall it not bee honoured much aboue God, by how much mans worke herein is greater than Gods worke? The Church of Rome is very nice and strait laced, in setting out the manner of Gods mouing of mans will in the first grace, as they call it: as fea∣ring lest more glorie might bee giuen to God, than to man; for they ascribe no more to God, but a certaine stirring vp, and helping of the will, whereby it should freely dispose it selfe to iustification. Whereas Bernard speakes home, and like a downe-right honest man in this point, Facit Deus vo∣luntarios, quatenus dum de mala, mutat voluntatem in bonam: God makes men willing, while of euill he changeth the will into good. So it is one thing to stirre vp, and helpe; another, to change the nature of a thing from euill to good. St. Ambrose: Volun∣tas nihil habet in suis viribus, nisi periculi facilitatem: The will hath no power at all, but a propension to perill. And St. Chrysostome, Omnes homines antequam peccemus, liberum quidem habemus ar∣bitrium, si volumus sequi voluntatem Diaboli, an non. Quod si semel peccantes obligauerimus nos operibus eius, iam nostra virtute euadere non possumus. Sed ficut Nauis, fracto gubernaculo, illuc ducitur, vbi tempestas voluerit: sic & homo diuinae gratiae auxilio perdito per peccatum, agit, quod non vult ipse, sed quod Diabolus vult; & nisi Deus valida manu misericordi•• soluerit eum, vsque ad mortem in peccatorum suorum vinculis perman••bit: All men (saith he) before sinne, haue free will, to follow the Diuels will, or not. When once by sinne wee haue capituated our selues to his workes, wee cannot now by our owne power free our selues. But as a Ship, the
Rudder being broken, is carried whither the tempest will: so man ha∣uing by sinne lost the helpe of diuine grace, doth not that which him∣selfe willeth, but which the Diuell willeth; and vnlesse God with a strong hand of mercie loose him, hee shall abide in the bonds of his sinnes euen vnto death. So then this strong hand is more than a bare stirring vp. St. Augustine here seemeth to allude to that in the Gospell: where our Sauiour resembleth the state of sinfull man to a house, kept and possessed by a strong man, when the will is wholly captiuated by Sathan, and cannot be freed, but by the power of Christ, a stronger than that strong man. But the Councell of Trent wants the ingenuitie to acknow∣ledge the mightie power of God in freeing mans captiue-wil from the tyrannie of the strong Diuell. Also St. Chrysostome in the prosecution of that his former Treatise, compareth mans will before sinne, to wit, in the state of innocencie, to a free-people or state, in whose power and election it is to chuse what King they wil; but hauing once elected such a one for their King, it is not now in their power, vpon any dislike to depose him againe, although he tyrannize ouer them neuer so much: none can free them from this grieuous bondage, but only God. So, it being once in the power of mans will, in the free state of innocencie, to choose a King, God or the Diuell; hauing once by the consent of sinne made choyce of the Prince of darkenesse, who tyrant-like ruleth in the chil∣dren of disobedience, taking them captiue at his will; it ap∣pertaines only to the mightie power, and infinite goodnesse of God to set free these miserable Captiues out of that Ty∣rants more than Egyptian bondage. A worke no lesse, if not infinitely more, miraculous, than the deliuerance of those Israelites through the middest of that Red Sea: Howsoeuer the Trent Fathers mince the matter, and obscure the power of Gods mighty worke in mans conuersion, parting the glo∣rie of it betweene mans nature, and Gods grace, as wee haue heard: Like the Whoore that would haue the child diuided, between her selfe, and the true Mother. But that the glorie of Gods powerfull grace in mans conuersion may not lye thus smoothered vnder the dampe of earthy and deepe hypocrisie,
let vs see a little what this free-will of man is in the state of corruption. Vega highly commends that saying of Richardus, as we noted before; Doctè Richardus (inquit) Cum audis liberum arbitrium esse captiuum, nihil aliud intellige, quam infirmum, & na∣tiua virtutis potestate priuatum: Learnedly said Richardus, saith he: When thou hearest that free-will is a captiue, vnderstand it no other∣wise, than that it is weak, & depriued of the vertue of its natiue power. I wote well these Pontifician spirits would gladly bring mans free-will into credit, by filing and smoothing that rougher language, which the Fathers haue left vpon it. And I dare be bold herein to gratifie the Trent-Councell: Let free-will in mans corrupt heart be, not captiue, but only weake, not dead, but depriued onely of its primitiue and natiue vertue; nay let it be aduanced to as high a pitch of perfection, as possible a sinnefull man can reach vnto; I enuie it not. But at the best, when all is done, is it euer the neerer to grace or iustificati∣on? If nature haue any faculty at all this way, surely it is to be found in those men that most excell in the gifts of nature, as in the Philosophers, the learned, the disputers of the world. Wherefore then doe not these receiue the Gospell with all readinesse and freedome of will? Nay, are they not rather the further off from Christ, by how much nature seemes more excellent and perfect in them? Saint Paul makes a challenge (1. Cor. 1. 20.) Where is the wise? Where is the Scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made the wisedome of this world foolishnesse? and vers. 21. he concludeth flatly, that seeing the world by wisedome knew not God in the wisedome of God, it plea∣sed God by the foolishnesse of preaching to saue them that beleeue. And vers. 26. Not many wise men after the flesh are called, &c. And our Sauiour (Mat. 11. 25.) I thanke thee O Father, Lord of heauen and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise, and men of vnderstanding, and hast reuealed them vnto babes. And therefore hence we may conclude, That the more our nature presumeth of its owne perfection, any way in disposing it selfe to grace, the more blinde it is, and further off from grace; though the Councell of Trent accurseth those that shall con∣demne natures disposing of it selfe to grace, Can. 7. Nay, bring
me an Angell in his pure naturals, innocent as Adam in his first creation, his will most free, vntainted, vncaptiued; yet what relation is there betweene him and the word incarnate? This is a high and hidden mysterie, which neither Adam in his purest naturals, no nor Angell, but by speciall reuelation (Ephes. 3. 10.) could by their naturall knowledge attaine vnto. As the Lord said to Peter, Flesh and bloud hath not reuealed this vnto thee. What free-will then can there be in vs by na∣ture towards that thing, which our naturall vnderstanding is altogether ignorant of? The naturall man receiueth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishnesse vnto him, neither can hee know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Now that which the vnderstanding apprehends not, the will desires not: Ignoti nulla cupido. Thomas Aquinas saith well and truly: Hoc est ex institutione diuinae prouidentiae, vt nihil agat vltra suam virtutem. Vita autem aeterna est quoddam bonum excedens propor∣tionem naturae creatae, quia etiam excedit cognitionem & desiderium eius. secundum illud. 1. Cor. 2. 9. Oculus non vidit, &c. This is of the appointment of Gods prouidence, that nothing should worke be∣yond its proper vertue. But eternall life is a certaine good, exceeding the proportion of created nature, because it also exceedeth the know∣ledge and desire of it. according to that, 1. Cor. 2. 9. Eye hath not seene, nor eare heard, neither haue entred into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that loue him; for God hath reuealed them vnto vs by his spirit, &c. And so Thomas concludeth, that not euen Adam in his perfection could merit eternall life, without a supernaturall grace. And the same Aqui∣nas; Ea quae sunt fidei, excedunt rationem humanam: those things which are of faith, exceede humane reason. And a little after: Homo assentiendo his, quae sunt fidei, eleuatur supra naturam suam, &c. A man by assenting to those things which are of faith, is eleua∣ted aboue his nature: & therefore it is necessary that faith be infused into him by a supernaturall gift of God. Yea, say the Pontificians, We ascribe the first motion of free-will to the worke of a preuenting grace. But by their owne confession, this work of grace is no o∣ther, but to moue & stirre vp, & as it were, to awaken the will. Indeede, if the Trent-Fathers would not hypocritically halt
in this point, but speake ingenuously and plainly, and say, That God by his spirit, through the preaching of the word, doth illuminate the blinde vnderstanding of the naturall man (as he did the heart of Lydia) to see the mysterie of Christ, and so the will is inflamed to desire, and long after saluation: then wee, and all Catholicke beleeuers, would in this point giue them the right hand of fellowship. This is indeede the right and true preparation vnto the grace of iustification, if not ra∣ther the true grace it selfe already begun in our hearts. For this is life eternall, that they know thee, to bee the onely true God, and whom thou hast sent, Christ Iesus. And as the Prophet Esay speaketh. By his knowledge, shall my righteous seruant iustifie ma∣••ie; for he shall beare their iniquities: which implyeth, that holy knowledge and illumination is the first worke of grace and iustification, knowledge there being taken for sauing faith; faith being that to the soule, which the eye is to the bodie: as the Lord applyeth it, Iohn 3. 14. 15. Or if these Romane-Ca∣tholicke Doctors would but vse the same language, that the ancient Fathers of the Church haue vsed concerning free-will, they should herein shew themselues honest men. Saint Augustine confesseth plainly, that man by abusing his free-will, hath lost both himselfe and it. And by this reckoning, more is required than a bare mouing, helping, or stirring vp of the will, as if it were onely lame, when it is quite lost. That there∣fore in the Prophet must here take place: I will take from them their stonie heart, and giue them a heart of flesh. The heart in mans conuersion must be new made and moulded againe.
But they will obiect, that free-will by mans fall is not alto∣gether lost, according to that of St. Augustine: Peccate Ad•• liberum arbitrium de hominum natura perisse non dicimus; Wee doe not say, saith hee, that by the sinne of Adam mans nature is depri∣ued of free-will, or that free-will is perished. But note what St. Augustine there addeth; Sed ad peccandum valere in homini∣bus, subditis Diabolo: ad bene autem pie{que} viuendum non valere; nisi ipsa voluntas hominis Dei gratia fuerit liberata, & ad omne bonum actionis, sermonis, cogitationis adiuta: But wee say (saith he) that free-will in men subiect to Satan, preuaileth to the com∣mitting
of sinne: but to good and godly liuing it is of no force, vn∣lesse mans will be freed by Gods grace, and assisted vnto euery good worke, and word, and thought. And in his book de gratia & libero arbitrio, ca. 17. he saith: He worketh first that we may will, who when we do wil doth perfect vs by cooperating: that therfore we may wil, he works without vs; but whe we are willing, & seruile, that we may per∣form, he cooperates with vs. And c. 16. vpon Phil. 2. Deus est qui ope∣ratur in vobis, &c. Certum est nos facere, cum facimus, sed ille facit vt faciamus, praebendo vires efficacissimas voluntati. And Epist. 107 to Vitalis Carthaginen. vpon that of the Apostle, Phil. 2. God worketh in vs, euen to will: he saith; Vera Dei gratia praevenit hominis voluntatem bonam, nec eam cuiusquaminuenit in corde, sed facit: The true grace of God preuenteth mans good will, neither findes he it in any mans heart, but makes it good. Whereupon, in his second booke against Iulian the Pelagian, hee calleth it, Seruum arbitrium; saying: Hic vultis hominem perfici, at{que} vti∣uam Dei dono, & non libero, vel potius seruo propriae voluntatis ar∣bitrio; You would haue a man perfected, and I would it were by the gift of God, and not by the free, or rather seruile arbitrement of his owne will. Thus according to St. Augustine, mans liberum ar∣bitrium is by Adams fall, turned into seruum arbitrium, seruing onely to sinne; and to turne it to good, it must not onely bee moued, stirred, or helped, but freed by Gods grace: which is a worke of power, in disarming the strong man. And what this grace is, hath beene shewed afore, to wit, Gods sauing grace; The true grace of God, saith Augustine, not a common grace. Deuout Bernard vnderstands by free-will, a meere will in man without respect to the obiect, good or euill, Velle inest nobis ex libero arbitrio, non etiam posse quod volumus. Non dico, velle bonum, aut velle malum: sed tantum velle; To will is in vs proceeding from free-will, but not to performe what we will. I say not, to will good, or to will euill, but onely to will. And againe; Cor∣ruit homo de posse non peccare, in non posse non peccare, amissa ex toto complaciti libertate: Man fell from a possibility not to sinne, to an impossibility of not sinning, hauing altogether lost the liberty of delight▪ Per propriam quippe voluntatem ser•••••• peccati factus, meritò perdidit libertatem confilij: for by his owne proper will being
made the seruant of sinne, hee hath deseruedly lost the liberty of his election or counsell. Now how shall all this be repaired againe? The same Bernard resolueth it: Velle homini vt esset, creans gra∣tia fecit; vt proficiat, saluans gratia facit: vt deficiat, ipsum se deijcit: That man should haue a will, is from creating grace; that this will should profit, is from sauing grace: that it should decay, i•• of its owne voluntary defection. It is therefore a worke, not of common grace, as they vnderstand by the first grace, where∣by they say the will is moued: but of effectuall sauing grace, to restore the will of man, and fit it for Christ. Habet igitur homo necessariam Dei virtutem, & Dei sapientiam Christum, qui ex eo quod sapientia est, verum ei sapere re-infundat, in restauratio∣nem liberi consilij: & ex eo quod virtus est, plenum posse restituat in reparationem liberi complaciti; Man therefore hath the necessarie vertue of God, and wisedome of God, which is Christ, who as hee is wisedome, doth re-infuse wisedome to know the truth, to the restau∣ration of the freedome of election; and as he is vertue, doth restore a full power to the reparation of the freedome of delight and happinesse: which (saith he) is begun here in grace, and consummate hereafter in glory. And again concerning free-will, he saith; Nemo putet ideo dictum liberum arbitrium, quod aequa inter bonum aut malum potestate aus facultate versetur, cum cadere per se quidem potuerit, non autem resurgere, nisi per Domini spiritum. Ergo si à Domini spiritu, iam non à libero arbitrio. Let no man thinke, that free-will is therefore so called, as hauing an equall and indifferent power or faculty betweene good and euill, seeing it could fall by it selfe, but not ••ise againe but by the spirit of the Lord. And if it bee by the spirit of the Lord, it is not now of free-will. And St. Augustine tells vs plainly what that grace is, whereby the will is freed; to wit: Gratia Dei per Iesum Christum Domin••m nostrum, in qua nos su••, non nostra iustitia instos facit, &c. That grace, whereby the will is freed, is the grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord, wherein hee ma∣keth vs iust by his owne, not by our righteousnesse, &c.
But, saith the carnall minde, If man haue not free-will to accept grace offered, what cause hath God to complaine, or to condemne man for that, which is not in his power to per∣forme? I might answer with the Apostle; O vaine man, who
art thou that repliest against God? But I answer againe, Though man haue no will of himselfe to receiue grace offered; yet he hath a will to reiect grace offered, for which he is iustly con∣demned. So that mans corrupt will is sufficient to conuict him, though no way able to conuert him, after that manner which Pontificians teach. And thus God needeth not mans carnall wit, to pleade for the equity of his iustice; sith God doth not simply condemne men for that, which by nature they are inuincibly vnable to performe, as by the vertue of free-will to receiue grace offered; but for that, which is in their power and will to doe: namely, when they not only not willingly receiue, but wilfully and contemptuously reiect and put from them, the grace of God offered them in the Gospel. And iustly doe all such obiecters come within the compasse of Iobs censure, Iob 13. 7. Will yee speake wickedly for God, and talke deceitfully for him? &c. As Saint Hierome; Concede Deo potentiam sui, nequaquam te indiget defensore: Let God be Master of himselfe, he needes not thee to pleade for him.
Now by the former testimonies, as by a cloud of witnesses, the Church of Rome is sufficiently conuicted of grosse absur∣ditie, and of grieuous impiety in her doctrine of preparation to iustification: wherein her Gordian knot of manifold er∣rours (while the Romish Harlot would haue the liuing childe diuided betweene her and the true Mother, Gods grace) is cut asunder, and dissolued by the sharpe sword of Sa∣lomons wisedome. First, because the worke of preparati∣on, is rather the worke of iustification it selfe, and that so soone as the vnderstanding is inlightened, and the will inflamed to apprehend Christ by faith. Second∣ly, because that grace of God, whereby the will of man is prepared to iustification (as they say) is no common grace, receiued as well by the reprobate, as the elect: but the sauing and iustifying grace of God, which whosoeuer recei∣ueth, is more truly said to bee already actually iustified, than disposed and prepared thereunto. Thirdly, because the work of Gods grace in mouing the vnderstanding, and the will to embrace Christ, is no weake and common worke, but a worke
of power, in loosing the workes of the Diuell, that strong man. Fourthly, because mans will doth not cooperate with Gods grace, as a co-agent and fellow-worker, in the first act of mans conuersion; but Gods grace is the Agent, and mans will is the Patient; that effectually calleth, and wee effectu∣ously come; that strongly drawes vs, and we, by the vertue thereof, sweetly, not compulsarily, freely, not frowardly, and not now passiuely, but actiuely, do runne after Christ: as St. Augustine saith, The will to beleeue, God worketh in man, and in all his mercie preuenteth vs. And againe, If we be drawn to Christ, then we beleeue vnwillingly. But none can beleeue, vnlesse he be wii∣ling: for he is drawne to Christ, to whom it is giuen to beleeue in Christ. He is the mightie Agent in conuerting vs: and wee thereby become meeke Patients in being conuerted. Turne thou me, saith chastised Ephraim, and I shall bee turned: Thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented, and after that I was instructed, I smote vpon my thigh, &c. And it is a thing not vnworthy the obseruation, that euen in their vulgar Latine Translation (which they preferre before all others, yea before the originals themselues) wheresoeuer any is exhorted to conuersion to God, the Verbe is alwaies put in the passiue signification, as Conuertere, or Conuertimini, Be thou Conuerted, or be ye Conuerted: and neuer in the actiue, Con∣uerte te, or Conuertite vos, Conuert thou, or Conuert you your selues: which might sufficiently conuince all Pontificians, that the worke of our conuersion, is not a matter of coope∣ration, shared betweene mans will and Gods grace, but pas∣siue in vs, and actiue in God. Hee conuerteth by his grace, and wee are thereby willingly conuerted. Contrary to the Trent Doctrine, saying, That a man is disposed by grace to conuert himselfe. Fiftly, because the whole glorie of our conuersion to Christ, is to bee ascribed to Gods grace alone, not as the Trent Fathers professe in a few Hypocriticall words, while they deny it in the maine dint of their doctrine: but in sinceritie and truth, without equiuocation of any me∣rit of congruitie in vs, preparing and disposing vs to be capa∣ble of iustification. Finally, because they ranke faith among
those other workes of preparation, as if it had no other hand in the worke of iustification, but onely as a disposing cause. So as a man may haue faith before he come to be iustified, yea and such a faith also, as a man may haue it, and yet neuer at∣taine to iustification. Contrary to St. Augustine, Iustificatio ex fide incipit, Iustification beginnes at faith: as hereafter more fully. For these causes the Catholicke faith abhorreth the Romane-Catholicke-doctrine, touching their preparation to iustification.
But say some (who may claime kindred either with Pela∣gians or Pontificians) although the merit of congruitie bee not admitted as an inducement to iustification, yet there are some workes required of vs, as matter of preparation to faith in Christ, which though it bee not meritorious, yet it is acceptable to God. For example, Repentance is a worke necessarily proceeding, and so preparing a man to faith in Christ: which Repentance being in vs, before faith in Christ, it is notwithstanding acceptable to God.
Indeede I deny not but the Pontifician forge can affoord vs such scoria enough. But what Repentance is this? A true Repentance, say they. It had neede, if it bee acceptable to God. Wherein consists it? It is (say they) a sorrow for sinne past, and a purpose of amendment for the time to come. But is this sufficient to true Repentance? Yes (say they) Ahab, and the Nineuites repented: and was not their Repentance true, sith God accepted it, and thereupon reuoked, or at least reiourned the sentence denounced? Indeede Ahabs Repen∣tance was a true hypocriticall Repentance: so the Nineuites Repentance was a true carnall Repentance, as the faith of diuels is said to be a true faith, which the Pontificians challenge for their onely true faith. Is this true faith therefore acceptable to God? But was the Repentance of Ahab and of the Nine∣uites acceptable to God, because God for the present forbore to punish them? It followes not, because God forbare them, that therefore their Repentance was acceptable to him. For how can the action bee acceptable, when the person is not? But their persons were not acceptable to God. For Ahab was
a damned Idolater, and a most wretched wicked person, who had sold himselfe to the diuell: and the Nineuites were hea∣thenish infidels, out of Christ. But till wee be in Christ, our persons are not accepted of God: for in him only God is well pleased. And before faith in Christ, wee are not in Christ; therefore before faith in Christ, no action of ours is accepta∣ble to God, yea no way acceptable: not onely as these would haue it, not acceptable to saluation (as such obiecters them∣selues confesse) but not acceptable towards it, as these affirm. For while we are out of Christ, all our actions are abomina∣ble before God, much lesse acceptable to him. And so much the more abominable they bee, and so much the lesse ac∣ceptable, by how much the more wee esteeme them ac∣ceptable, or endeauour to please God by them. As God him∣selfe saith, Matth. 3, 17. This is my beloued Sonne, in whom I am well pleased. With whom is God well pleased in his Beloued? The Apostle applyeth it, Ephes. 1. 6: To the praise of the glorie of his grace, wherein hee hath made vs accepted in the Beloued. Therefore no acceptation with God, but of those that are actually in the Beloued, to wit, in his sonne Iesus Christ. Nor doe wee feare ••rents Canon here, thundring out her Ana∣thema to any that shall say, that all workes done before grace are sinnes; or, that the more a man endeauoureth to please God, before faith in Christ, the more deepely he endangereth himselfe to Gods high displeasure: for we affirme this again and againe, That all workes done before faith in Christ, the more wee thinke therein to please God, the more damnable they be, because herein we set vp an Idoll of our handy-work, in stead of Christ, whereby to please God.
Much lesse (as some haue dared to vent, that before sauing faith in Christ, there may be, and afore begun in a mans heart (by the meanes of preparatory graces, as repentance, and the like) the worke of sanctification, of regeneration, of clean∣sing of the heart, &c. Than which doctrine, what can bee more derogatory to Christ? And what more contrary to the Scriptures; wch say, If any man be in Christ, he is a new crea∣ture? therefore out of Christ, no new creature; no not inchoa∣tiue
in the least degree. For if regeneration, or sanctifica∣tion, or newnesse of life, or cleansing of the heart, may be be∣gun without Christ, what hinders, that it may not bee also perfected without Christ? Nay, if regeneration bee but begun, then there is a childe of God at least newly concei∣ued, if not newly borne and brought forth. Such conception, is a false conception of winde; not of Gods spirit, but of mans spirit: so that if such proue all abortiues and dead borne, it is no maruaile. But the sons of God we cannot be, till we be in Christ; which is, till we beleeue in Christ: as Gal. 3. 26. Ye are all the children of God by faith in Iesus Christ; therefore be∣fore this faith in Iesus Christ, we are not the children of God, no not so much as the Embrio in the first conception. But the new creature must bee in Christ Iesus, as the Apostle saith, Gal. 6. 15. So when Christ himselfe speakes of regeneration to Nicodemus, Ioh. 3. instructing him therein how it is begun in a man, hee tels him in the continuation of his speech, that this appertaines to those that beleeue in the son of man, vers. 15. and vers. 16. For a man to be regenerate, or made the son of God by adoption, he must be in the son of God by beleeuing in him. Where Christ also opposing faith to vnbeliefe, saith; those are condemned already, that beleeue not, hauing no part in the regeneration: therefore before faith in Christ, no rege∣neration at all, no cleansing, no sanctification, but all condem∣nation. Againe, Christ is made vnto vs sanctification, 1. Cor. 1. 30. vnto vs, in him. Of him are ye in Christ Iesus: there∣fore while out of Christ, no sanctification. So the adoption of children is by Iesus Christ, Ioh. 1. 5. therefore no sons, no re∣generation, but in Iesus Christ. Likewise, Ioh. 15. 2. Euery branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away. So vers. 4. As the branch cannot beare fruit of it selfe, except it abide in the vine: no more can ye, except ye abide in mee: ••or without me yee can doe nothing. Therefore while a man is out of Christ, vntill by faith he be ingrafted into Christ, the true Vine, from whom hee receiueth the liuely sappe of a new life, hee can doe nothing; nothing that is good, nothing that is acceptable to God; no worke of
new obedience or sanctification.
But some may say, Regeneration is wrought by the Spirit of God in vs; and so may be before faith in Christ: and con∣sequently, before we come to be actually in Christ. To which I answer: True it is, that the Holy Ghost is the immediate efficient cause of our regeneration. But how doth he worke regeneration in vs? namely, by working in vs faith in Christ, which faith is the very immediate instrument, whereby the Holy Ghost doth regenerate, sanctifie, and cleanse vs: sith the Holy Ghost by this faith ingrafteth and vniteth vs into Christ, in whom we are regenerate, and made the sonnes of God. Now that faith is the instrument of our regeneration and sanctification, it is euident, Acts 15. 9. & 26. 18. So that the very first and prime act of Gods sanctifying spirit in vs, is to worke faith in vs; by which faith in Christ, as by a noble in∣strument, the Holy Ghost vniting vsto Christ, as members to the head, doth regenerate vs, and so makes vs the adopted sons of God. And before faith in Christ, we cannot say, wee haue Gods sanctifying spirit in vs; I say, in regard of priori∣tie of time: For this sanctifying spirit, in the same moment that he sanctifies vs, he workes faith in Christ in vs, by which he regenerates and sanctifies vs.
But they re-ioyne by a distinction; and say, that this repen∣tance which prepares the way to faith, and layes the founda∣tion of regeneration, is not acceptable to saluation: but only to fit & prepare vs thereunto, and to make vs the more capa∣ble of it. In this distinction they do much please themselues; but they confound themselues in their distinction: For they affirme againe, that this precedent repentance of theirs, is re∣generation, and sanctification, and newnesse of life inchoa∣tiue, begun at least in part. A bold assertion. Is it regenera∣tion begun and in part? and being acceptable, is it not accep∣table to saluation? Is not regeneration a worke of our salua∣tion? And though regeneration should be begun in this re∣pentance, in neuer so small a degree, a worke it is of our sal∣uation, if it bee true regeneration. Logicians know, that Magis & minus non variant speciem. A man in the first con∣ception
is a man, though imperfect, and inchoatiue.
But they reply again, That they do not say, this preuious re∣pentance is acceptable to saluation of it self; but as it hath rela∣tion to faith cōming after, whereby it becomes acceptable. A pretty shift. And yet they say again, That repentance goeth be∣fore faith, not in the precedency of time, but in nature only, & in the order of causes. Now if this repētance go before faith in the order of causes, then repentance must cause saith; & so this absurdity wil follow, That the effect must giue a form & being, at least a well being, vnto the cause; if so be faith, the effect & consequent of repētance, as they say, make the same acceptable.
But how doe they proue, that this their repentance goes before faith in Christ in nature, and in the order of causes? They proue it out of Matth. 21. 32. where Christ taxing the infidelity of the Pharisees, wherein they came behinde the very Publicans, faith; Iohn came to you in the way of righ∣teousnesse, and ye beleeued him not: but the Publicans and the Harlots beleeued him; and ye when ye had seen it; repented not afterward, that ye might beleeue him. Hence they con∣clude, That repentance must goe before faith, as the cause of it; alledging Christs words thus: Ye repented not, that ye might beleeue; But leauing out him; That ye might beleeue Him, to wit, Iohn Baptist, as it is in the text; which implieth what kinde of faith Christ there meaneth, to wit, an assent to the truth of Iohns doctrine: The place thereby comes to bee preuerted. For, Credere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ei, is the faith of assent: but Cre∣dere in cum, that is, in Christum, is the iustifying faith. So that by that place alledged, if repentance goeth before faith in the order of causes, then certainly that repentance is the cause of no other faith, but the faith of assent, there spoken of; which is not all one faith with the iustifying faith. But they which af∣firme thus, yet confess, that repentance doth not go before the faith of assent, which they terme also the Euangelical faith; but that its an effect & consequent therof. And here by the way I might take iust occasion, to shew the absurdity of those, that distinguish betweene Euangelicall faith, and the faith of Christ; as if Euangelicall faith were onely a generall assent to
the truth of the Gospell; whereas a generall assent, and Euan∣gelicall faith, are as different as this and the faith of Christ are all one: for Euangelicall faith looketh vpon the Gospell, not onely as a true history, but as the mysterie of God in Christ; it embraceth it as the Gospell, preaching Christ the Sauiour, yea preaching Christ to euery beleeuer of this Gospell in particular. As Luk. 2. 10. 11. The Angels said to the Shepheards, ••eare not, for behold, I bring You good tidings of great ioy, that shall be to all people; For vnto You is born this day in the City of Dauid a Sa∣uiour, which is Christ the Lord. Note, here is the Gospel preached; to who? I bring You good tidings. And what is the tidings? To you is borne this day a Sauiour, which is Christ the Lord. Here we haue an exact summe of the Gospell, which is Christ the Sauiour borne to vs. Now to beleeue this Gospell, is an E∣uangelicall faith: but such, as cannot diuide betweene the Gospell & Christ, and such also, as must needes apprehend and applie Christ, by beleeuing in him. For, To You is borne this day a Sauiour, which is Christ the Lord. To You: this is a necessary relatiue, part of the Gospell; for Euangelium, or good tidings, imply not onely the party sending, but also the party or parties to whom it is sent.
So that the faith of the Gospell, must so beleeue the truth of the Gospell, as that it leaue out no part of it. But one part of it is, that this Gospell is sent to You; that is, to all belee∣uers. For as much as the Gospell containeth the couenant of grace betweene God and vs: God and man being the parties interessed in this Couenant, mutually in Christ the Mediator. Therefore the Euangelicall faith, is not a bare generall assent to the truth of the Gospell, but a particular affiance in Christ, the summe of the Gospell: and so it apprehendeth and appli∣eth this good tidings, which is to beleeue the Gospell in∣deed. For that generall faith which they call an assent, when it goes no further, it makes no difference betweene the Go∣spell and the Law, and other parts of the word of God: but beleeueth them all indifferently, as a true history, when it is called an historicall faith. But when faith comes to put a difference, pitching vpon the speciall obiect, the Gospell;
and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this faith becomes an Euangelical faith: then it is so the faith of the Gospell, as it is also necessarily the speciall faith of Christ, whom it apprehendeth & layeth hold vpon: vnlesse a man can so diuide between Christ & the Gospel, as the Gospel may be Gospel without Christ; or so diuide the Gospell from it self, as that we may beleeue it to be good tidings, & not to vs in particular: Whereas the beliefe of the Gospell consists, in the apprehending, and certain applying of the good tidings therof vnto vs; To You is born this day a Sauiour: to You is this word of salua∣tion sent. This is the Gospell; and this is to beleeue the Gospell, by applying it to vs, to whom it is sent. If we do not beleeue it sent to vs, we do not beleeue the Gospell; for it is so far a Go∣spell or good tidings to vs, as we beleeue it to be sent to vs in particular. Nor is this faith of the Gospell, a certain or rather vncertaine swimming in the brain, that perhaps, or probably, or possibly, God may be merciful vnto vs in Christ: A doctrine bred of the spawne of Trent. This is a wandring imagination, hatched in mans braine, hauing no ground of truth, or agree∣ment with the faith of the Gospell. Thus we see, if Euangeli∣call faith be none other but the faith of Christ, and in Christ, as we haue sufficiently proued: then it followeth that the di∣stinction betweene Euangelicall faith, and faith in Christ, being vnsound and groundlesse, the whole doctrine of the precedency of repentance before faith in Christ, as a necessary and acceptable preparatiue thereunto, doth euen mole sua, of it selfe fall to the ground. For the authors of such a do∣ctrine must needes confesse, if they will be guided by reason, that there is no repentance but faith must goe before it, for to cause it; as either Legall faith must go before it to cause Legall repentance, or Euangelical faith must go before to cause Euan∣gelicall repentance▪ Now if there be no Euangelicall faith to goe before, and cause Euangelicall repentance, but the faith of Christ; then in vaine is any repentance deuised, to goe before and cause faith in Christ. This Eagle-eyed faith of Christ hath no sooner glanced vpon the Sun of Righteousnesse, but instantly by the force thereof, a dreery cloud being raised, causeth a gracious, but sad shower of repentance, to descend
from those windowes and floud-gates of the now heauenly Soule, to refresh the poore sinner, now hungring and thirsting after the liuing waters. They say also, that the faith, to wit, Euangelicall faith, which is the cause of their Repentance, going before, and causing the faith of Christ, is a generall assent, or a generall faith of the truth of the Gospell. But how can this generall assent beget in mee a particular Repen∣tance, vnlesse with this assent I haue also a particular affiance in the promise of the Gospell of Christ, applying it to my self? The Gospell saith, To you is borne a Sauiour, Christ the Lord. I beleeue this to be true. But how shall this beliefe moue me to Repentance, vnlesse I beleeue that this Sauiour is borne to me in particular? Ahab had not so easily repented, if Gods iudgements being layd neuer so close to him, hee had not be∣leeued the truth of them in particular towards himselfe. So the Nineuites. For particular Repentance in euery man must arise from a particular apprehension and application of the Word of God towards himselfe. As for their reasons forcing Repentance to goe before Faith in Christ, they are very poor and beggarly; as that otherwise, it leades me to presumption. A very friuolous and false surmise. For sauing Faith doth no sooner lay hold on Christ with the one hand, but withall it layeth the other hand vpon the sinner, the subiect wherein it is arraigning him at Gods Tribunall, iudging, condemning him for that sinner, whom Christ came to saue. Faith doth no sooner looke on Christ with the right eye, but it presently reflects on the sinner with the left eye. The reason is, because it is impossible I should beleeue Christ, to be my Sauiour, but withall I must beleeue and acknowledge my selfe to bee the sinner; which I cannot truely do, but it will necessarily breed in mee that Repentance to saluation, not to bee repented of. For, a Sauiour and a wretched sinner are relatiues, which not euen the thought of man can diuide, or sunder one from ano∣ther. And so here their reason, why such Repentance must needes goe before faith, is found faultie; which is (say they) because if Repentance went not before faith in Christ, then faith in Christ would proue to be presumption. Therefore we
haue shewed, that in true faith in Chrst there is alwaies true Repentance, as the prime and immediate fruite of Faith. So that rather the nouell doctrine of such men is a high pride and presumption, carrying others also to the top of the same pinacle, by perswading them, that they haue true Repentance before faith in Christ, by which they are (at least) in part re∣generate, sanctified and cleansed,
Obiect. But is there no preparation vnto the receiuing of grace and iustification? Is not (at the least) the hearing of the Word a worke of preparation to grace?
Answ. True it is, that faith, sauing and iustifying faith, commeth by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10. 17. So that the hearing of the Word of God is the ordinarie meanes to beget sauing Faith and Grace in vs.
Obiect. But hearing of the Word is in our owne power, and hearing of the Word is a preparation vnto Grace; there∣fore it is in our owne power to prepare our selues vnto grace.
Answ. To heare is in our owne power: but hearing of the Word is not simply a preparatiue vnto grace, but rather an externall meanes thereunto. For vnlesse God do giue aspeci∣all blessing to the outward meanes of hearing the Word, in opening our hearts, as he did the heart of Lydia, wee heare the word but as a sound, or as a strange historie, or parable, and as a deepe mysterie hidden from vs. The Iewes did heare Christs Oracles, and see his Miracles, yet for all that were they no better than deafe and blinde men. God must open the heart to vnderstand, and to apprehend by Faith the mysterie of Christ preached, else Paul may plant, and Apollos water in vaine.
Obiect. To what purpose then is it for any to come to heare the Word of God, if thereby he be not the better fitted and disposed to receiue grace?
Answ. Although God be the only author and actor of wor∣king grace in vs, yet for as much as he doth this by the Mini∣sterie of his Word, which he hath appointed as the ordinarie meanes to beget faith and all other sauing graces in vs, there∣fore it is our part and duty to attend vpon, and vse the means,
waiting for Gods blessing vpon it. So that all the worke of preparation to grace on our part is without vs, not within vs, namely, the hearing of the Word preached, and Gods speciall blessing vpon it.
Obiect. But it is in our free will and choyce to heare the Word of God, or not to heare it: and therefore something is to be ascribed to free-will, in setting vs (at least) in the way to iustification.
Answ. It is no otherwise in our free will and choyce be∣fore our conuersion, to heare Gods Word, than to heare any humane historie propounded vnto vs. For before our vnder∣standing bee by faith illuminated to apprehend and apply Christ vnto our selues, and to know him to be our Sauiour in particular, we haue no will to heare the Word as the Word of God, which is able to saue our soules, but rather as the word of man.
Obiect. But doth not a man vnderstand the Word prea∣ched, vnlesse first his vnderstanding be illuminated by Faith?
Answ. A naturall man may by hearing come to haue a ge∣nerall vnderstanding of the Word of God, as a true historie; but before he bee indued with sauing faith from God, his vn∣derstanding is not illuminated to know God in Christ to bee his Father, and Christ to bee his Redeemer; which is the summe of the Gospell and the seale which wee set vpon the truth of God therein. Iohn 3 33.
Obiect. But Iohn Baptist was sent to prepare the way of the Lord.
Answ. The Ministerie of Iohn was to teach men to be∣leeue in Christ, pointing at him that was to come. So that by his Ministerie, men beleeuing and beeing baptized into Christ, they might thereby be said to bee prepared to a more plentifull measure of receiuing Christ, and his Spirit, as after∣wards they did, hauing the first seeds of Faith already sowne in their hearts.
Obiect. But another obiects: before true conuersion a man must renounce the first couenant, become humble, con∣fesse his vnworthinesse, his hardnesse of heart, his naturall
disabilitie towards his owne saluation; hee must feare God, loue God, and the like, or else a man is incapable of, and in∣disposed to receiue the grace of conuersion.
Answ. Indeed a fellow-minister of the Gospell was very earnest on a time in defending of this. He desired me to re∣solue him in it by writing, as being a matter of maine con∣sequence, and a maine ground wherewith many other opini∣ons, on foote in these daies, would stand or fall. Now I could haue wished to haue heard his reasons of that his obiection, but time at least permitted not. Therefore my answer shall be short, as also in respect of all that before said. First then, for a man to renounce the first couenant, to become humble, &c. I say, no man can doe it, till he be in Christ. My reason is, be∣cause till a man be in Christ, he is dead, blinde, proud, hard∣hearted, without the feare of God, without the loue of God. Euery man is actually either the child of wrath, in the state of sinne, and death; or the childe of God, in the state of grace and life. There is no terme betweene these two. There is no terme or medium betweene a man liuing and dead, but the very instant of his soules departing from the bodie, which is in the twinckling of an eye. No more terme or medium is there betweene a man dead in sinne, and liuing by grace, but the very instant of his conuersion. For euery man (I say) is eyther a dead man in the state of sinne, or a liuing man in the state of grace: a third terme cannot come betweene. Now while a man is in the state of sinne, he is dead. If dead, he vn∣derstands nothing that sauours of grace, nor hath hee any disposition or affection in him thereunto. While he is vnder the dominion of sinne, hee is nothing but meere enmitie and rebellion against God and his Grace; as the Apostle saith, Rom. 8. The wisedome of the flesh, or, To be carnally minded, is enmity against God. This is the state of a man vnregene∣rate, vnconuerted. Beeing thus, hee is proud, senslesse of his hardnesse of heart, senslesse of any naturall disabilitie to∣wards his owne saluation, without loue, without feare of God, as Rom. 3. He is not subiect to the Law of God, neither indeede can bee, Rom. 8. Hee is so farre from renouncing the
first couenant of works, that before his conuersion, the more morall vertues (which Saint Augustine cals but splendida pec∣cata) either the frame of his naturall and corporall constitu∣tion, or of his more liberall education hath adorned him with; the more is hee apt to relye vpon the first couenant, trusting to bee saued by his good workes. But I say againe, that when I see in a man these things, that he renounceth the first couenant, that he is humble, that he confesseth his vn∣worthinesse, that hee complaineth of the hardnesse of his heart, that he renounceth himselfe, and his owne abilities to∣wards his owne saluation, and the like: these are the signes and fruits of a true Conuert, say I. No, say you. The matter now standing betweene your No, and my Yea: who shall be the vmpire? Nay, let vs decide it betweene vs by the rule of Gods word. Either make the tree good, and the fruit good, or else the tree euill, and the fruit euill: saith Christ. An euill tree cannot bring forth good fruit, & contra. Now a man be∣fore his effectuall conuersion, before he be in Christ, is an euill tree; and therefore cannot bring forth any fruit of true grace or vertue. But if a man begin once to bring forth such fruits, shew me, if you can, any reason, why such a man is not already a true Conuert? For ought you know, hauing these signes and symptomes of true conuersion, he is a true Con∣uert. Nay, that he is without question a true Conuert, I proue by two reasons. First, because till a man be a true Conuert, he cannot be truely humble; he cannot truely renounce him∣selfe, his sins, confesse his vnworthinesse, feele the hardnesse of his heart, to complaine of it, and the like. Secondly, be∣cause all these things are common and proper to the rege∣nerate man. Both these together I proue thus. 1. No dead man can performe the workes of a liuing man; but these forementioned be the workes of a liuing man: therefore no dead man, therefore no man, before his conuersion, can per∣forme such workes.
But you will say, these things are not so the workes of a man conuerted, but that also, as morall workes, they may be performed of a morall or naturall man before his conuersion.
To which I answer, that all these things are not of a morall, but of a spirituall nature, & are the proper gifts of the spirit of grace, which no naturall man hath, till he become spirituall; which is by conuersion, when hee receiueth spirituall life. God giues grace to the humble, but first he giues grace to be humble. God giueth more grace, saith St. Iames: and what followeth? He giues grace to the humble; that is, more grace to him, whom first he hath made humble by grace. This hu∣mility comes only from Christ, to those that are in Christ. True humility, St. Augustines compares to the water of life and of grace, which floweth from the inward fountaine of the pure veine of truth. This is the water of confession of sinnes, this the water of humiliation of the heart, this the water of sauing life, of him that casts downe himselfe, that presumes nothing of himselfe, that proudly attributes no∣thing to his owne power. This water is in no Forreiners bookes; not in the Epicures, not in the Stoickes, not in the Manichees, not in the Platonicks. Wheresoeuer other pre∣cepts of manners and discipline are found, yet this humility is not found. The way of this humility flowes from no where else, it comes from Christ, &c. So Augustine. This Humility is the Herbe-grace, and growes no where but in the garden of grace, euen the heart of the true Conuert. It growes not in the whole field of nature, though neuer so well tilled with the doctrine of Philosophy. And for hardnesse of heart, it is in euery impenitent man: but when once it comes to be felt, and to be mourned for, this is the proper effect of a man re∣nued by grace, whose not onely vnderstanding is inlightened to see, but his will and affections touched with a godly sense and feeling of his spirituall miseries, which a dead man can∣not doe. Now till a man be in Christ by faith, he is a dead man. Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drink his bloud; that is, Except ye beleeue in the son of man, ye haue no life in you. Ioh. 6. 53. And, saith the Apostle; Now I liue, yet not I, but Christ liueth in mee; and in that I now liue, I liue by the faith of the sonne of God, &c. Gal. 2. 20. Now a dead man knowes not that he is dead: but when he is restored to
life, he then knowes that he was dead. So a man till hee be in Christ, that is, truely conuerted, he is dead, and knowes it not, much lesse can bewaile, or so much as see and feele his spirituall death; but being in Christ, and so made aliue, he knowes then that he was a dead man, and feeling some re∣liques of spirituall mortality in him, as corruption of sinne, hardnesse of heart, and the like; he is truely humbled for it, he heartily bewailes and confesseth it, and prayeth against it: which humility, which bewayling and confessing of his spiri∣tuall misery, is no lesse an infallible signe of a man restored from spirituall death to spirituall life by Christ, than the seuen times neezing of the widowes son, was a true token of his re∣stitution from death to life againe.
But as the clause comes in but obiter, so let it suffice, to haue touched it by the way. And this I haue said, I am sure will stand good, till any shall be able to proue, That a man doth spiritually liue, before he be in Christ, before he be a true Conuert.
Why Romes doctrine of preparation is hereticall & antichristian.
To receiue Christ, is to beleeue in him.
Vega de meritis ex congruo iu∣stis. q. 7.
Vega de ar∣g••••. pro nece••. bapt. cap. 15.
Vega lib. 8. cap. 11. de argum. contra iustif. merit. ex con∣gruo.
He should say, Romane-Catholickes. Pontificians make Philoso∣sophy a rule for Diuinitie.
A premoni∣tion.
Aug. de praed. & grat••om. 7.
Aug. tract. 3. in Ioh. 1.
Ambros. de vo∣lat. Gent. lib. 2. cap. 8. & ibid. lib. 1. cap. 9.
Chrysost. in Rom. hom. 5. & 17. Aug. de praedest. sanct. cap. 12.
Aug. in expos. Epist. ad Galat
Aug. ad Simpli∣cianum, l. 1. q. 2. tom. 4.
Aug in Psal. 118 Concio 7.
Aug. Epist. 105. ad Sixtum Com. praesbyt.
Bern. in Cant. ser. 17.
Ibid.
August.
Aqu 12. q. 114.
Note the pra∣ctice and com∣mon opinion of the Church of Rome in the point of merit of workes: wch is nothing else but the fruit of this their do∣ctrine, which snake like lur∣keth vnder the greene leaues of subtile hy∣pocrisie. Bern. de gratia & libero arbit.
Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 5. & 6. What free will is left in vs in the state of corruption▪ Bern.
Ambros. de vocat Gentium l. 1. cap. 2.
Chrysin Matth. ••1. hom. 37. ••om. 2.
1 Kings, 3. 26
Free-will in corrupt nature
Matth. 16. 17.
1. Cor. 2. 14.
Aqu. 12. qu. 114 cap. 2.
Aqu. Sum. q. 22. art. 6. cap. 1.
Acts 16. 14.
Iohn 17. 3.
Esa. ••3. 11.
Aug Enchir. ad Laurent. tom. 3. Libero arbitrio malè vtens ho∣••••, & se per∣didit, & ipsum. I••ech. 11. 19.
Obiection.
Aug. contra duas epist. Pe∣lag. ad Bonif. ••••••. 2.
Bern. de gratia & libero arbi∣trio.
What Free-will is.
Aug. de peccat. orig. contra Pe∣lag. & Celest. lib. 2. tom. 7.
Obiect.
Hier. ad Ctesi∣phon. epist. 13. part. 1. tract. 2.
Reasons ouer∣throwing Po∣pish prepara∣tion.
Ioh. 3. 8. Luke 11. 20. 21
Cant. 1. 4. Aug de spiritu & litera ad Marcellinum. tom. 3. Ipsum velle credere, Deus operatur in homine, & in omnibus mi∣sericordia eius praeuenit nos. And Tract. 26. in Ioh. 5. tom. 9. Si trahimur ad Christum, ergo inuiti credimus. At credere ne∣mo potest, nisi vol••ns. And, Ille quippe tra∣hitur ad Chri∣stum, cui datur, vt credat in Christum. Aug. contra duas Epist. Pelag. ad Bonif. l. 1. Ier. 31. 18. 19.
Obiect.
Ans.
Concil. Trid. sess. 6. can. 7.
Obiection.
Obiection.
Answ.
Obiect.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
Obiect.
Ans.
Iames 4. 6.
••. Kin. 4. 35.