Rome ruin'd by VVhite Hall, or, The papall crown demolisht

CHAP. XI. The eleaventh Chapter treateth of their tenent of Free-will.

SECT. 1.

THe Pelagians were of opinion, that they (could with∣out the grace of God) doe some good worke or act, by which they put a thick wall betwixt them and the fire of Gods Spirit, lest they should be heated thereby, and warmed with love. To which opinion the Roman Catholicks consent, whose assertion is—

Obi. That a man naturally without faith, or without the speci∣all assistance of God, can performe some Morall good workes if no temptation let.

Ans. Both these assertions is sufficiently confuted, in that one sentence of our Saviour, Joh. 15. 5. Without me you can doe no∣thing, yet to cleare the point more fully, I will lay down all their arguments by which they vindicate their assertions, and answer ••o each particular; and to this purpose.

SECT. 2.

THey urge the words of the Prophet Isaiah, Chap. 1. 19. If ye will consent and they, ye shall eate the good things of the Land. As also, Exod. 15. 26. If thou wilt give care un∣to his Commandements. As also, Exod. 19. 5. If ye ••ill heare my voyce, and keep my covenant: From these, and such like places they argue thus.

Obj. If it be in our power to performe these conditions, then have we free will, if not, to what end are they propounded; these places therefore prove Free-will, or else they are propounded in vaine. They argue thus also: Will a Father command a Childe doe a thing which he knowes is unpossible to be done by him?

Ans. In the same respect a man may be said of himself to keep all the Commandements, as that he hath Free-will; but that we

have such power the Apostle doth utterly deny, Gal. 3. 10. where he concludeth, that every one that is under the workes of the Law, is under the curse, because they cannot keep it; for by the deeds of the Law no flesh can be justified, Rom. 3. 20.

2. These places in their sence being urged, do as well conclude, that a man of himself without grace, can keep all Gods Comman∣dements; for if a man cannot performe them wholly of himself, the same question remaineth, why they are propounded to them that cannot keep them, and yet albeit it is not in mans power to keep the Commandements, yet are they not therefore in vaine,* 1.1 for they serve as spurs to invite and stirre us up to obedience, and to strive unto perfection, and to labour to goe forward. But the chief reason the Apostle sheweth, Gal. 3. 29. viz. That it was a School-master to bring us unto Christ, the Law therefore was gi∣ven to that proud people of the Jewes, that they seeing them∣selves to faile in their owne strength wherein they trusted, they should seeke for an helper, and deliverer to doe it for them, viz. Christ Jesus; for otherwise to what end came our Saviour to performe the Law for us, but that we in regard or the weaknesse of our flesh could not performe; so that these precepts was propoun∣ded for these two ends:

1. That mans nature should thereby be stirred up to labour for perfection.

2. That finding himself to come short of the ability, he might see his owne weaknesse, and fly for succour unto Christ, without whom we can doe nothing, Joh. 15. 5.

SECT. 3. In what condition Adam was first stated.

Object. ADams freedome still remaineth (to us) who had powr to eate, and not to eate; and so we have power to sinne, and not to sinne.

Ans. Adam was stated in that condition, as was the Angels be∣fore their fall, who was created in potestate standi vel caenandi, in possibility to stand or fall; power of continuance he had from God, but possibility of falling he had from himself; for it is a

maxime in Divinity, Immutabilliter bonum esse Dei, proxemum est; to be immutable good is proper only to God; and therefore the Devill is said, Non perstitit in veritate, not to abide in the truth; and so also it is said of man, Perditio tua, ex te, O Israel, thy destruction is of thy self, O Israel.

I desire to know of these vaine boasters, wherein Adam made it appeare that he had Free-will, for I conceive it may rather be argued that he had none; for no man can be said to have Free-will, but he that is able of himself to resist a temptation, but Adam did not make it appeare that he had such a power as to resist a temptati∣on, ergo it did not appeare that Adam had Free-will. If he had power to resist, where did he shew, or expresse that power; seeing he could not resist the very first temptation, his will being then in its first purity, and full strength, yea never assayled before by any temptation; yea, having not only a freedome to eate, and not to eate, but also an expresse command from God not to taste of that fruit, and that under paine of death, and yet what a slender rea∣son* 1.2 doth he render for his excuse; The woman (saith he) whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me and I did eate. Loe, what great resistance, what great arguments was used on his part to dis∣swade the woman from that wicked act, in tempting of him a∣gainst the peremptory command of God. Where is he once said to expresse the punishment due to himself, or her, for so offen∣ding; the consideration of which thing might have been a suffici∣ent motive to have perswaded him for committing of that sinne. If Free-will must be ascribed to one of them, it is more properly to be attributed to the Woman; for when the Serpent tempted her, she as it were made a resistance, by pleading Gods expresse com∣mand to the contrary; which thing Adam is not said to have done, either to the Serpent, or the Woman; but say that he had not assented unto her, but had powerfully withstood all the assaults of the Devill, and the Woman, giving them the foyle by the sword of the Spirit; yet could it not have been said to be* 1.3 done of Free-will, but rather by the power given him of God, who had said, Thou shalt not eate thereof, &c. or else rather to Ave, then good will, because God had bound him, and that un∣der paine of death not to doe it; but being so charged, and yet not obeying Gods command before the inticements and alure∣ments

of a Woman, is the least, yea no token at all of Free∣will in him.

SECT. 3. What small cause we have to boast of Free-will from Adam.

THus these Pharisaicall boasters may see by these glimps of A∣dams tryall, what cause we have to boast of Free-will as suc∣cessive or hereditary from Adam to us, which indeed is nothing, for as the Apostle saith, of our selves we can doe nothing, no not so much as to think a good thought, or to speake a good word; as we may see by the example of Jacobs sonnes unto Joseph, Gen. 17. 4. where it is said, they could not speake peaceably unto him; and our Saviour saith of the Pharisees, How can ye that be evill speake good things; so that Jacobs sonnes abounding with malice could not speake peaceably unto Joseph, and the Pharisees being a genera∣tion of Vipers, could not speake well of Christ; As an evill tree then cannot bring forth good fruit, Mat. 7. 18. and as a Moore can∣not change his hew, or a Leopard his spots, no more can he that is accustomed to doe evill doe that which is good.

Again, sinne hath not a desire to the Soule, but the Soule rather* 1.4 to it, and so at the uttermost it can but follow, that man by his naturall power can only resist a temptation; which thing was not apparent at all in Adam, for it is not said that he made any re∣sistance at all, but presently at the first sight received it, The Woman gave me (saith he) and I did eate. A very powerfull resistance for us to imitate or boast of.

So farre are we then from having Free-will, as that both the preparation of the heart, and the answer of the tongue, is both said to be from the Lord, Prov. 16. 1. The Wise man also saith, Mans go∣ings are of the Lord, how can he then direct his owne steps, Jer. 10. 23. Again, Who is he that saith, and it commeth to passe when the Lord commandeth it not? Lamen. 3. 37. as also by these words of our Saviour to his Apostles, Take no thought what ye shall speake, for it shall be given you, &c. for it is not you that speak but the Spirit of the Father that speaketh in you, Matth. 10. 19. It is also said, Exod. 31. 2. that the Lord called by name Bezaleell

the sonne of Uzzi, the sonne of Hur, &c. and filled him with the spi∣rit of Wisdome, and understanding, and knowledge, and in all man∣ner of workmanship, &c. from which we are taught, that the ho∣nour of every good thing ought to be given to God; and if hu∣mane Arts proceed from Gods Spirit, how much more hath man no activity at all in divine things, but as it is wrought by grace; this therefore which hath been spoken with them words of our Savi∣our, Joh. 15. 5. Without me you can doe nothing; is sufficient to overthrow all opinions of Free-will in divine things.

SECT. 4. Why a Law was given to Adam.

Object. VVHy did the Lord give that precept to Adam?

Ans. For the better triall of Adams obedience, it was fit that he should be prohibited to doe that, which in it self was not evill, that Adam abstaining from that which was good, might shew his humanity to his Creator.

Obj. The Apostle saith, that the Law is not given to the righte∣ous man, but unto the disobedient; and Adam in his innocency was just and righteous, and therefore he needed not a law.

Ans. The Law in two respects is not to be given to a just man, as 1. In respect of the negative precept, as to abstaine from Mur∣der, Theft, Adultery, &c. but in regard of the affirmative pre∣cept, to returne them in obedience, and doing of good workes; and so the just man had need of a Law, and so had Adam. 2. A just man need not feare the punishment of the Law, as Paul speaketh in another place concerning the Magistrate (which i•• the speak∣ing, or living Law) who is not to be feared for doing good workes, but evill, Rom. 13. 4. and in this respect so long as Adam lived in his integrity, the punishment in the Law concerned him not.

Obi. Why did the Lord give that precept to Adam which he knew he could not keep?

Ans. I have answered formerly; but further, God gave him a Law which was possible to be kept, and Adam had power to keep it if he would; it was not then Gods fault that gave him Free∣will, but his owne that abused that gift.

Obi. Why did not God give him grace to abstaine from transgres∣sing that precept?

Ans. God could have given him such grace, and to the Angels also, that they should not have fallen, but it was fit that God* 1.5 should leave the Creature to their Free-will, and not hinder the course of Nature which he had made; and albeit that God did fore-see mans transgression, yet that was no reason to with-hold the precept, for then God should neither have made Angels nor men, because he fore-saw that some of both should be reprobates; as also God by the same reason should not have given his written Word, because many Hereticks doe pervert it to their owne de∣struction. As therefore God fore-saw mans transgression, so like∣wise he knew how to turne it to good, as in shewing mercy to sinners, and in sending Christ to restore what man had lost; so that notwithstanding Gods fore-sight of Adams transgression, he was not to forbeare to charge Adam with this Commandement, in regard of the great good which he did fore-see should ensue by it.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Commna∣dements not in vain though we cannot keep them.
• * 1.2

  Adams slender reason for his excuse.
• * 1.3

  Adams not ea∣ting could not have argued free-will in ••i••.
• * 1.4

  The Soul hath rathers desire to sin, then sin to the Soul.
• * 1.5

  Why God did not restraine Adam from sinning.