A Confutation of a Popish and Slanderous Libel, Treatise · Papist opinion 70 – Answer 71
The Papiste.
And that which is most of all to be meruailed at, wheras the religion of this reformed Church hath lefte vsus nothing to serue God withall, but this onelyonly and alone faith whiche they doe affirme to suffice, they doe by the free choise and will of man denied, clene take awaie this onelyonly faith also, like as al other gifts, & graces, & benefits vprising vntounto man, by the death and blood sheding of Iesus Christe. For so muche as the free will of manne is the seate of grace, and the mansion house of faieth, whereby faieth is produced and brought foorth by the grace of God, as chiefe agent and worker thereof, and in the will of man, as in an apte receptackle and place to receiue the same, when no man canne beleue but he that will. And therfore for man to beleue both these two thinges are necessarilie required. First is the acte of Gods grace, stirryng and mouynge the will of man therunto, second is the consente of mannes will to applie, and receiue the same, without the whiche consente of mannes will, Goddes grace knocketh all in vaine. As it appeareth by the citezeins of Hierusalem, vntounto whom our sauior Christ saieth in the Gospell. Hierusalem, Hierusalem, whiche dooest slaie the Prophetes, and stonest them to death, that are sent vntounto thee, how often tymes would I hauehave gathered thy children, like as a Henne gathereth her chickens, vnderneath her wynges, and thou wouldest not. I would saith christ, but thou O Ierusalē wouldest not. VVherby it appeareth, that god by his grace doth not worke his belefe in the soule of man, as in a stocke, or in a stone, with out any consente of mans parte, to be geuen thervnto, whē there is no man, that can by any other meane, receiue faithe, then by the consente of his owne will, and therefore in the worke of faithe, Gods grace, and mans will muste consente, and ioigne together bothe. The Apostle saincte Paule, in witnesse thereof saieth, by the grace of God, I am that I am, and his grace in me was not in vaine, but I hauehave laboured more aboundantly then thei all, and not I saieth saincte Paule, but the grace of God with me, and not without me as workyng before in me, and without my consente, but mecum, with me. For Augustine saieth, that almightie God, whiche in the beginnyng, did create manne, without any consent, askyng of manne therevnto, he will not nowe iustifie manne constreinedly, and whether he will or not, but with his owne consente, will, and desir… therevnto. For the kyngdome of heauen, saieth our sauiour Christ suffereth violence and the onelyonly violente menne, whiche here will trauaile, laboure, and fight therefore, shalbe partakers of that kyngdome. VVhē the ioyes of heauen are not so vile, nor so meane thynges, like as the Apostle saincte Paule saieth, but thei are worthe the labouryng for: seyng therefore it can not bee denied, without deniall of the expresse testimonies of the scriptures, but that the consente of mannes will, must necessarily come with Goddes grace to receiue faithe, therefore, in the deniyng of the consent of mannes will, thei deny faithe, and thus in fine, the religion of this newe reformed churche is brought (all circumstaunces beyng duely examined) from onelyonly faithe, and faithe alone, to hauehave no faithe at all.
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 auoide al your cauilling of free will, where by you goe about to amase the vnderstandyng, 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 ambiguous, and of diuers significations, it is expediente, to sette foorthe the sonderie meanynges thereof. Free will is sometymes taken as it is contrary to coacted or constrained will. Sometymes as it is contrary 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, wherof we determine after this maner. That manne before his falle, had free will, in eueryevery respecte: he might hauehave chosen freely without any lette, or compulsion, that whiche was good in deede, and acceptable to God: For there was in his nature, nothyng 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 altogether 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 onelyonly euill continually. Our sauiour Christ also Matth. xv. teacheth, that out of the corrupte harte of manne, proceadeth all wickednesse. And saincte Paule. ij. Corin. iij. affirmeth, that we are not apte foreign 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 meanyng, for although his wille is bonde, and slaue vntounto synne, before it bee made free, by the grace of God, yet is it not compelled, nor enforced by any externall coaction or Stoicall necessitie vntounto 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 perceiue, whether you defende free will simplie 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 Aristotle and not out of Gods woorde, but when you be pressed with the aucthoritie of scripture, 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 together, whatsoeuer is good in them that are regenerate. For it is neither of hym that willeth, nor of hym that runneth, but of GOD onelyonly, that sheweth the merciemercy. Therefore it is no harde mater, to auoide 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 vntounto synne. As when you wrangle of the receiuing of faithe, that no manne beleueth but he that will, I aunswere, no manne is compelled to beleue, but he that beleueth, 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 onelyonly offer merciemercy to our wille, but also geueth vsus a wille to receiue it. As saincte Paule testifieth, God woorketh in vsus, bothe to will, and to performe whatsoeuer is good, and pertainyng to our saluation. Phili. ij. And where God giueth not a will, there menne can not beleue, though grace, and merciemercy bee offered vntounto theim. As saincte Ihon testifieth 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 Prophecie of Esaie, had geuen theim ouer, into a reprobate mynde. But if eueryevery 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 eueryevery manne maie beleue that wille, and that eueryevery 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 onelyonly whom God hath appoincted to saluation, he maketh willyng to beleue, that thei maie bee saued.
And whereas you quarell, that Christe would hauehave gathered, and Hierusalem would not, it maketh nothyng to proue, that the Iewes had power of their wille, to receiue Christe, whiche sainct Ihon vtterly denieth, saiyng, thei could not beleue. 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 other 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 commaundemente, 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, contrary 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 onelyonly, that were elect of God, and yet to make the other inexcusable, when he offered merciemercy vntounto theim, and they by no meanes would receiue it. The reste that you adde, of the consent of mannes will, to bee necessarie vntounto iustification, 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 whether eueryevery mā that is not predestinat of god to saluation, hath it in his power to consent vntounto 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, & consequētly to ouerthrow the power, wisdome, glorie and aucthoritie of God ouer his creatures. For if eueryevery able and scilful workeman, determineth of the ende and vse of his workemanship, before he beginneth it: with what reason can we take that frō ye creator of all thinges, who as Salomon witnesseth, made all thinges for his owne glory, euen the wicked man for the daie of his wrath. Your conclusion is verie clerkely, that we hauehave driuē all thinges to faith alone, & whē all is duely examined, wee hauehave 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 sufficiently confute the Philosophers vaine speculation. We will therefore holde our peace in this case, and let the matter it self speake for vsus. 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 persecution? Let the life & death therfore of theim that hauehave suffered martirdome for our religion, declare whether for maintenaunce of faithe and truste in God, or for confidence in the worlde, we hauehave taken this contention in hande. But seing you are disposed to dally with vsus in deniyng our faithe, you shal geue me leaue to disproue in good earnest, your iustification. For if you hauehave 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 preposterus 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 purgatorie, therfore you confesse he is not iustified. And so your owne catholike doinges denie your learned saiynges of iustification by Baptisme. Lette vsus see if iustification by penaunce be any thing surer. When a manne hath shryuen himself, & receiued absolution, I trowe you will saie hee is iustified by penaunce. But so soone as he is gone from the Prieste, if he fall into deadlie sinne, he is become lapsus again. And it is the doctrine of al the Sententiaries, yt eueryevery 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 reuengement, 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. Wherfore, 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 conscience or none at al, must that man hauehave, 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 vntounto 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 merciemercy of GOD in Christe Roma. vij. Wherefore seeyng both the firste iustifications faile, the thirde muste needes fall, and therefore excepte you canne finde another iustification you are like to hauehave none at all at lest wise of any value to make you rightous by your owne learnyng.
The Papiste.
My poore witte, learnyng, and conscience being fully perswaded, that al the premises, be of suche truthe, and veritie, as I hauehave expressed. I thought it good to make declaratiō ther of chiefly for discharge of cōscience, and partly to meete with this common obiectiō, that we hauehave nothyng to saie, but stande wholie vponupon a wilfull frowardnesse, obstinacie, and vainglory, hauing neither scripture, doctour, argument nor reason to alledge, for the defence of the matter, that wee stande in. And for some triall to be made of my fidelitie, and truth, in the allegatiōs of the premisses, I doe offer my self to turne the bookes of the scriptures, doctours, and holy fathers, whē wher, and before whom I shall bee called. And by the bokes beeyng indifferently redde, iudge betwixte vsus. Doubtlesse this is the whole desire, and intente I had in the writing hereof, & not any other desire, I had of liberty, enlargemente, or heare to liue. For what desire should a christian man hauehave, to liue in that Realme, that sleaeth them that would their wealth, and is angrie with them that would helpe their euilles, what desire should a christen man hauehave, to liue in that realme, that setteth naught by, and destroyeth, those that dooe watche, and praie to doe good, and setteth by those, that do watch, and trauaile for to doe euill? VVho would desire to liue in suche a Realme, where the Elders, and aunciente menne thereof, the wise, godly, and verteous, doe liue discontented, and wheras the youth, witlesse, gracelesse, and vitious, doe liue best contented, and pleased? who would desire to liue in that Realme, where suche vices are of subiectes openly cō mitted, whiche in all other Christian realmes thei feare to doe in secrete? and where all that thei desire, thei procure, and all that thei procure, thei doe attaine, and all that is euill, thei thinke, and all that thei thinke, thei saie, and all that thei saie, thei maie dooe, and that that thei may dooe, thei dare do, and putte in operation. And therfore, I can hauehave by no righte reason, any desire of enlargemente of libertie, or yet hope any while to liue.
The aunswere.
A man may doubte for al your protestatiō whether your wit, learnyng and conscience bee so persuaded of all the premisses, as youpretēde: of which some be so absurde, that no man of any witte or learnyng canne be perswaded in theim. And whereas you thinke you hauehave aunswered the common obiection that you hauehave nothing to saie, I suppose by the iudgemente of wise menne you hauehave rather confirmed the same, that either you hauehave nothyng to saie, or that which you saie is nothing to the purpose. Youre fidelitie in the allegations shoulde better hauehave appeared, if you had noted the places at the firste, which either must bee imputed to fraude or to lacke of bokes that it was omitted, but by notyng of some places it shoulde seeme you wanted no bookes, and your streight keping I suppose is not suche, but you might hauehave had bokes if you list. You cōclude your Apology with an odious diffamatiō of the whole state of our princes gouernemente, which if it hauehave failed in anie poincte, it was in ouer muche clemencie shewed towardes suche as you are. It cannot be denied, but menne of good profession are oftentymes wicked in liuyng, and many of no profession be a slander to those of true religion. But howe soeuer menne be malicious and vngodly bente, the state alloweth theym not, but punisheth theim, that by order of lawe are conuicted to be suche. Wherfore to make suche an outcrie, as though nothing but murther oppresssion, filthines and all kinde of vngodlines, yea nothing els but a confusion of al wickednes were openly mainteined: it sauoureth neither of truthe, nor of the spirite of God, nor of the affection of a good subiect. If Nero Domitian or Heliogabalus raged in the world, with what other Rhethorike would you hauehave painted out their regiment then this that you hauehave abused againste this present gouerment? the praise whereof if the present age enuie, the posteritie will merueile at it, when neither in memorie nor in monumentes beyng compared without afffection, the like shall euer be founde before it. God geue all true Subiectes grace to bee thankefull for it, and so to behaue themselues therein, that through his merciemercy it maie be many yeres more, most happelie continued.
FINIS.
End of the text · William Fulke, A Confutation of a Popish and Slanderous Libel (1571)