A Golden Chain, Section 1
REVELAT. 18. 4.
And I heard another voice from heauen say, Goe out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sinnes, and receiue not of her plagues.
IN the former chapter S. Iohn sets downe a description of the whore of Babylon, & that at large as he saw her in a vision described vntounto him. In the sixteenth verse of the same chapter, he foretels her destruction: and in the three first verses of this 18. chapter, hee goeth on to propound the said destruction yet more directly and plainely: withall alleadging arguments to prooue the same, in all the verses following. Nowe in this fourth verse is set downe a caueat seruing to forewarne all the people of God, that they may escape the iudgement which shal befall the whore: and the words containe two parts: a commandement, and a reason. The commandement, Come out of her my people, that is, from Babylon. The reason, taken from the euent, least ye be partakers, &c. Touching the cō mandement, first I will search the right meaning of it, and then set downe the vse thereof and doctrine flowing thence. In historie therefore are three Babylons mentioned: one is, Babylon of Assyria standing on the riuer Euphrates, where was the confusion of Languages, and where the Iewes were in captiuitie: which Babylon is in Scripture reproched for Idolatrie and other iniquities. The second Babylon is in Egypt standing on the riuer Nylus, and it is now called Cayr; of that mention is made, 1. Pet. 5.13. (as some thinke) though indeede it is as likely and more commonly thought, thas there is meant Babylon of Assyria. The third Babylon is mysticall, whereof Babylon of Assyria was a type and figure; and that is Rome, which is without question here to be vnderstood. And the whore of Babylon, as by all circumstances may be gagathered, is the state or regiment of a people that are the inhabitāts of Rome and appertaine thereto. This may bee prooued by the interpretation of the holy ghost: for in the last verse of the 17. chapter the woman that is the whore of Babylon is said to be a citie which raigneth ouer the kings of the earth: nowe in the daies when S. Iohn penned this booke of Reuelation, there was no cittie in the world that ruled ouer the kings of the earth but Rome; it then being the seate where the Emperour put in execution his Imperiall authoritie. Againe in the seuenth verse shee is said to sit on a beast hauing seauen heads & ten horns: which 7. heads be seuen hills, v. 9. whereon the woman sitteth, & also they be seuen kings. Therefore by the whore of Babylon is meant a cittie standing on seuen hills. Now it is well known, not onelyonly to learned men in the Church of god, but euen to the heathen themselues, that Rome alone is the cittie built on seuen distinct hils, called Caelius, Auentinus, Exquilinus, Tarpeius, or Capitolinus, Viminalis, Palatinus, Quirinal…. Papists to helpe themselues, doe alleadge that old Rome stood on seuen hells, but nowe is remooued further to Campus Martius. I answer, that howsoeuer the greatest part of the cittie in regard of habitation be not nowe on seauen hills, yet in regard of regiment and practise of religion it is: for euen to this day vponupon these hills are feated certaine Churches and Monasteries and other like places where the Papal authoritie is put in execution: and thus Rome beeing put for a state and regiment; euen at this day, it stands vponupon seuen hills. And though it be come to passe that the harlot in regard of her latter daies euen changed her seat, yet in respect of her yonger times in which shee was bred & borne, she sate vponupon the seuen hils. Others, because they feare the wounding of their owne heads, labour to frame these words to an other meaning, and say, that by the whore is meant the companie of all wicked men in the world wheresoeuer, the deuill being the head thereof. But this exposition is flat against the text: for in the second verse of the 17. chapter, shee is opposed to the kings of the earth with whome shee is said to commit fornication: and in the last verse shee is called a citie standing on seuen hills and raigning ouer the kings of the earth (as I hauehave said,) and therfore must needs be a state of men in some particular place. And the Papists themselues perceiuing that this shift will not serue their turne, make two Romes, heathenish Rome, and that wherof the Pope is head: now (say they) the whore spoken of, is heathenish Rome, which was ruled by cruell tyrants, as Nero, Domitian, and the rest: and that Rome whereof now the Pope is head, is not here meant. Behold a vaine and foolish distinction: for Ecclesiastical Rome in respect of state, princely dominion, and crueltie in persecuting the Saints of God, is all one with the heathenish Empire: the See of the Bishop beeing turned into the Emperours court, as all histories doe manifest. But let the distinction be as they suppose, yet by their leaues, here by the whore must be vnderstood not onelyonly heathenish Rome, but euen the Papall or Ecclesiasticall Rome: for v.3. of this chapter the holy Ghost saith plainly, that she hath mad… all nations drunke with the wine of the wrath of her fornication: yea it is added, that shee hath committed fornication with the kings of the earth, whereby is signified that shee hath endeauoured to intangle all the nations of the earth in her spirituall idolatrie, and to bring the kings of the earth to her religion. Which thing cannot be vnderstood of the heathenish Rome, for that left all the kings of the earth to their owne religion and idolatrie: neither did they labour to bring forraine kings to worship their gods. Againe chap. 17. v. 16. it is saide, that the ten hornes, which be ten kings, shall hate the whore, and make her desolate and naked, which must not be vnderstood of heathenish Rome, but of popish Rome: for whereas in former times all the kings of the earth did submit themselues to the whore, now they hauehave begun to withdraw themselues, and make her desolate; as the king of Bohemia, Denmarke, Germanie, England, Scotland, and other parts: therefore this distinction is also friuolous. They further alleadge that the whore of Babylon is drunke with the blood of the Saints and Martyrs, chap. 17.6. shedde not in Rome, but in Ierusalem, where the Lord was crucified: and the two prophets beeing slaine lie there in the streets, Reuelat. 11.8.Epist. 17. Eusto. & Paulae ad Marcel. But this place is not meant of Hierusalem, as Hierome hath fully taught, but it may well be vnderstood of Rome: Christ was crucified there, either because the authoritie, whereby he was crucified was from the Romane Empire, or els because Christ in his members was and is there daily crucified, though locally in his owne person he was crucified at Ierusalem. And thus, notwithstanding all which hath beene saide, we must here by the whore vnderstand the state and Empire of Rome, not so much vnderunder the heathen Emperours as vnderunder the head thereof the Pope: which exposition, besides the authoritie of the text, hath the fauour and defence of auncient and learned men. Bernard saith,Ser. in Cant. 33. Epist. 125. They are the ministers of Christ, but they serue Antichrist. Againe, The beast spoken of in the Apocalyps to which a mouth is giuen to speake blasphemies, and to make warre with the Saints of God, is now gotten into Peters chaire, as a lyon prepared to his pray. It will be said, that Bernard speakes these latter words of one that came to the Popedome by intrusion or vsurpation. It is true indeede: but wherefore was he an vsurper? He rendreth a reason thereof in the same place: because the Antipope called Innocentius was chosen by the kings of Almaine, France, England, Scotland, Spaine, Hierusalem, with consent of the whole Cleargie and people in these nations, and the other was not. And thus Bernard hath giuen his verdict, that not onelyonly this vsurper, but all the Popes for this many yeares are the beast in the Apocalyps: because now they are onelyonly chosen by the colledge of Cardinalls. To this agreeth the decree of Pope Nicolas the second,C. in nomine dist. 23. ann. 1059. that the Pope shall afterward be created by the suffrages of the Cardinall Bishops of Rome, with the consent of the rest of the cleargie and people, and the Emperour himselfe: and all Popes are excommunicate and accursed as Antichrists, referente I… ello 2. Thess. 2.that enter otherwise, as all now doe. Ioachimus Abbas saith, Antichrist was long since borne in Rome, & shall be yet aduanced higher in the Apostolicke See. Petrarch saith, Once Rome, now Babylon. And Ireneus booke 5. chap. last, said before all these, that Antichrist should be Lateinus, a Romane.
Againe, this commandement must not so much be vnderstood of a bodily departure in respect of cohabitation and presence, as of a spirituall separation in respect of faith and religion. And the meaning of the holy Ghost is, that men must depart from the Romish Church in regard of iudgement and doctrine, in regard of their faith and the worship of God.
Thus then we see that the words containe a commandement from God, inioyning his Church and people to make a separation frō Babylon. Whence I obserue, That all those who will be saued, must depart and separate themselues frō the faith and religion of this present Church of Rome. And whereas they are charged with schisme that separate on this manner; the truth is, they are not schismaticks that doe so, because they hauehave the commandement of God for their warrant: and that partie is the schismaticke in whome the cause of this separation lieth: and that is the Church of Rome, namely the cup of abomination in the whores hand, which is, their hereticall and schismaticall religion.
Now touching the dutie of separation I meane to speake at large, not standing so much to prooue the same, because it is euident by the text, as to shew the manner and measure of making this separation: and therein I will handle two things. First how farforth we may ioyne with them in the matter of religion: secondly how farforth and wherein we must dissent and depart from them. And for this cause I meane to make choice of certaine points of religion, and to speake of them in as good order as I can, shewing in each of them our consent and difference: and the rather, because some harpe much vponupon this string, that a Vnion may be made of our two religions, and that we differ not in substance but in points of circumstance.
The first point wherewith I meane to beginne shall be the point of Freewill; though it be not the principall.
I. Our consent.
Freewill both by them and vsus, is taken for a mixt power in the minde and will of man: whereby discerning what is good and what is euill, he doth accordingly choose or refuse the same.
I. Conclus. Man must be considered in a foure-fold estate, as he was created, as he was corrupted, as he is renewed, as he shalbe glorified. In the first estate, we ascribe to mans will libertie of nature in which he could will or …ill either good or euill: in the third, libertie of grace: in the last libertie of glorie. All the doubt is of the second estate: and yet therein also we agree, as the conclusions following will declare.
II. Conclus. The matters where about freewill is occupied are principally the actions of men, which be of three sorts; naturall, humane, spirituall. Naturall actions are such as are cōmon to men with beasts, as to eate, drink, sleepe, heare, see, smell, tast, and to mooue from place to place: in all which we ioyne with the Papists, and hold that man hath freewil, and euen since the fall of Adam by naturall power of the mind doth freely performe any of these actions or the like.
III. Conclus. Humane actions are such as are common to all men good & bad, as to speake and vse reason, the practise of all mechanicall and liberal arts, and the outward performance of Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall duties, as to come to the Church, to speake and preach the word, to reach out the hand to receiue the Sacrament, and to lend the eare to listen outwardly to that which is taught. And hither we may referre the outward actions of ciuill vertues; as namely Iustice, temperance, gentlenes, liberalitie. And in these also we ioyne with the Church of Rome, and say (as experience teacheth) that men hauehave a naturall freedome of will, to put them or not to put them in execution. Paul saith, Rom. 2.14. The Gentiles that hauehave not the law doe the things of the law by nature, that is, by natural strength: and he saith of himselfe, that before his conuersion touching the righteousnes of the law, he was vnblameable, Phil. 3. 6. And for this externall obedience, naturall men receiue reward in temporall things. Matth. 6.5. Ezech. 29.19. And yet here some caueats must be remembred: I. that in humane actions, mans will is weake and feeble, and his vnderstanding dimme and darke; and thereupon he often failes in them. And in all such actions with Augustine I vnderstand the will of man to be onelyonly wounded or halfe dead. II. That the will of man is vnderunder the will of God, and therfore to be ordered by it: as Ieremie saith, chap. 10.23. O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himselfe, neither is in man to walke or direct his steppes.
IV. Conclus. The third kind of actions are spirituall more neerely concerning the heart or conscience, and these be two-fold: they either concerne the kingdome of darknes, or els the kingdome of God. Those that concerne the kingdome of darknes are sinnes properly: and in these we likewise ioyne with the Papists and teach, that in sinnes or euill actions man hath freedome of wil. Some peraduenture will say, that we sinne necessarily, because he that sinneth cannot but sinne: and that freewill & necessitie cannot stand together. Indeed the necessitie of compulsion or coaction, and freewill cannot agree: but there is another kind of necessitie which may stand with freedome of will: for some things may be done necessarily and also freely. A man that is in close prison, must needes there abide and can not possibly get forth and walke where he will; yet can he mooue himselfe freely and walke within the prison: so likewise, though mans will be chained naturally by the bonds of sinne, and therefore cannot but sinne: and thereupon sinneth necessarily, yet doth it also sinne freely.
V. Conclus. The second kind of spirituall actions or things, concerne the kingdome of God: as repentance, faith, the conuersion of a sinner, new obedience, and such like: in which we likewise in part ioyne with the Church of Rome and say, that in the first conuersion of a sinner, mans freewill concurres with Gods grace, as a fellow or coworker in some sort. For in the conuersion of a sinner three things are required: the word, Gods spirit, and mans will: for mans will is not passiue in all & eueryevery respect, but hath an actiō in the first cō uersion and change of the soule. When any man is conuerted, this worke of God is not done by compulsion, but he is conuerted willingly: and at the very time when he is conuerted, by Gods grace he wills his conuersion. To this ende saide Augustine, Serm. 15. de verb. Apost. He which made thee without thee, will not saue thee without thee. Againe,de grat. & l. arbitr. 1. That is certen, that our will is required in this, that we may doe any good thing well: but we hauehave it not from our owne power but God workes to wil in vsus. For looke at what time God giues grace, at the same time heaPosse velle, & actu velle recipere.giueth a will to desire and will the same grace: as for example, when God workes faith, at the same time he workes also vponupon the will causing it to desire faith and willingly to receiue the gift of beleeuing. God makes of the vnwilling will a willing will: because no man can receiue grace vtterly against his will, considering will constrained is no will. But here we must remember, that howsoeuer in respect of time the working of grace by Gods spirit, and the willing of it in man goe togither: yet in regard of order, grace is first wrought, and mans will must first of all be acted and mooued by grace, and then it also acteth, willeth, and mooueth it selfe. And this is the last point of consent betweene vsus and the Romane Church touching freewill: neither may we proceede further with them.
II. The dissent or difference.
The point of difference standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans will in spirituall matters, which concerne the kingdome of God. The Papists say, mans will concurreth and worketh with Gods grace in the first conuersion of a sinner by it selfe, and by it owne naturall power; and is onelyonly helped by the holy Ghost. We say, that mans will worketh with grace in the first conuersion, yet not of it selfe, but by grace. Or thus; They say will hath a naturall cooperation: we denie it, and say it hath cooperation onelyonly by grace, beeing in it selfe not actiue but passiue; willing well onelyonly as it is mooued by grace, wherby it must first be acted and mooued, before it can act or will. And that we may the better conceiue the difference, I will vse this comparison: The church of Rome sets forth the estate of a sinner by the condition of a prisoner, and so doe we: marke then the difference. It supposeth the said prisoner to lie bound hand and foote with chaines and fetters, and withall to be sicke and weake, yet not wholly dead but liuing in part: it supposeth also that being in this case, he stirreth not himselfe for any helpe, and yet hath ability and power to stirre. Hereupon if the keeper come and take away his bolts and fetters, and hold him by the hand, & helpe him vp, he can and will of himselfe stand & walke and goe out of prison: euen so (say they) is a sinner bound hand and foot with the chaine of his sinnes: and yet he is not dead but sicke, like to the wounded man in the way betweene Ierico and Ierusalem. And therefore doth he not will and a…fect that which is good: but if the holy Ghost come and doe but vntie his bands, and reach him his hand of grace, then can he stand of himself and will his owne saluation, or any thing els that is good. We in like manner graunt, that a prisoner fitly resembleth a naturall man, but yet such a prisoner must he be, as is not onelyonly sicke and weake, but euen starke dead: which can not stirre though the keeper vntie his bolts and chaines, not heare though he sound a trumpet in his eare: and if the said keeper would hauehave him to mooue and stirre, he must giuegive him not onelyonly his hand to helpe him, but euen soule and life also: and such a one is eueryevery man by nature; not onelyonly chained & fettered in his sinnes but stark dead therein: as one that lieth rotting in the graue, not hauing any abilitie or power to mooue or stirre: and therefore he cannot so much as desire or do anything that is truly good of himself, but God must first come and put a new soule into him, euen the spirit of grace to quicken and reuiue him: and then beeing thus reuiued, the will beginneth to will good things at the very same time, when God by his spirit first infuseth grace. And this is the true difference betweene vsus and the Church of Rome in this point of freewill.
III. Our reasons.
Now for the confirmation of the doctrine we holde, namely, that a man willeth not his owne conuersion of himselfe by nature either in whole or in part, but by grace wholly and alone: these reasons may be vsed. The first is taken from the nature and measure of mans corruption, which may be distinguished into two parts. The first is the want of that originall righteousnesse, which was in man by creation: the second, is a pronenes and inclination to that which is euill, and to nothing that is truly good. This appeareth, Gen. 8.21. the frame of mans heart (saith the Lord) is euill frō his childhood: that is, the disposition of the vnderstanding, wil, affections, with all that the heart of man deuiseth, formeth, or imagineth, is wholly euill. And Paul saith, Rom. 8.7. The wisdome of the flesh is enmitie against God. Which wordes are very significant: for the word [foreign] translated wisdome, signifieth that the best thoughts the best desires, affections, and indeauour that be in any naturall man, euen those that come most neare to true holines, are not onelyonly contrarie to God, but euen enmitie it selfe. And hence I gather, that the very heart it selfe, that is, the will and minde, from whence these desires and thoughts doe come, are also enmitie vntounto God. For such as the action is, such is the facultie whence it proceedeth: such as the fruit is, such is the tree: such as the branches are such are the rootes. By both these places it is euident, that in man there is not onelyonly a want, absence, or depriuation of originall righteousnes, but a pronenesse also by nature vntounto that which is euill: which pronenesse includes in it an inclination not to some fewe, but to all and eueryevery sinne: the very sinne against the holy Ghost not excepted. Hence therefore, I reasons thus:
If eueryevery man by nature doth both want originall iustice, and be also prone vntounto all euill, then wanteth he naturall freewill to will that which is truly good:
But eueryevery man by nature wants originall iustice, and is also prone vntounto all euill:
Ergo: EueryEvery man naturally wants freewill, to will that which is good.
Reason II. 1. Cor. 2. 14. The naturall man perceiueth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishnes vntounto him, neither can know them, because they are spiritually discerned. In these wordes Saint Paul sets downe these points: I. that a naturall man doth not so much as thinke of the things reuealed in the Gospell. II. that a man hearing, and in mind conceiuing them; can not giuegive consent vntounto them, and by naturall iudgement approoue of them: but contrariwise thinketh them to be foolishnes. III. that no man can giuegive assent to the things of God, vnlesse he be enlightened by the spirit of God. And hence I reason thus:
If a man by nature doth not know and perceiue the things of God, and when he shall know them, can not by nature giuegive assent vntounto them: then hath he no power to will them:
But the first is euidently true: Ergo:
For first the minde must approoue and giuegive assent, before the will can choose or wil: and when the mind hath not power to conceiue or giuegive assent, there the will hath no power to will.
Reason III. Thirdly the holy Ghost auoucheth, Eph. ….1. Coloss. 2. 13. that all men by nature are dead in sinnes and trespasses: not as the Papists say, weake, sicke, or halfe dead. Hence I gather, that man wanteth naturall power not to will simply, but freely and frankly to will that which is truly good. A dead man in his graue can not stirre the least finger, because he wants the very power of life, sense, & motion: no more can he that is dead in sinne, will the least good: nay if he could either wil or do any good, he could not be dead in sinne. And as a dead man in the graue, cannot rise but by the power of god; no more can he that is dead in sinne rise, but by the power of Gods grace alone, without any power of his owne.
Reason IV. Fourthly, in the conuersion and saluation of a sinner, the scripture ascribeth all to God, and nothing to mans freewill. Ioh. 3.3. Except a man be borne againe, he cannot see the kingdome of God. Eph. 2. 10. We are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus to good workes. And c. 4. v. 24. the new man is created to the image of God. Now to be borne againe, is a worke of no lesse importance then our first creation: and therefore wholly to be ascribed to God as our creation is. Indeede Paul, Philip. 2. 12, 13 biddeth the Philippians worke out their saluation with feare and trembling: not meaning to ascribe vntounto them a power of doing good by themselues. And therefore in the next verse he addeth, It is God that worketh both the will and the deede: directly excluding all naturall free-will in things spirituall: and yet withall he acknowledgeth, that mans will hath a worke in doing that which is good, not by nature but by grace. Because when God giues man power to will good things, then he can will them: and when he giueth him a power to doe good, then he can doe good, and he doth it. For though there be not in mans conuersion a naturall cooperation of his will with Gods spirit, yet is there a supernaturall cooperation by grace, enabling man when he is to be conuerted, to will his conuersion: according to which S. Paul saith, 1. Cor. 15.10. I hauehave laboured in the faith: but least any man should imagine, that this was done by any naturall power, therefore he addeth, yet not I, that is, not by any thing in me, but Gods grace in me, inabling my will to doe the good I doe.
Reason V. The iudgement of the auncient Church. aAugust. de corrept. & grat. c. 12.August. The will of the regenerate is kindled onelyonly by the holy Ghost: that they may therefore be able because they will thus: and they will thus, because God works in them to will. bEpist. 105.And, We hauehave lost our freewill to louelove God, by the greatnes of our sinne. Serm. 2. on the words of the Apostle: Man when he was created, receiued great strength in his freewill… but by sinning he lost it.cFulg. lib. Praed.Fulgentius, God giueth grace freely to the vnworthie whereby the wicked man beeing iustified is enlightened with the gift of good will, and with a facultie of doing good: that by merciemercy prruenting him, he may beginne to will well, and by merciemercy comming after, he may doe the good he will. Bernard saith, dBernard. l. de libro arbitrio.It is wholly the grace of God that we are created, healed, saued. Coū cil. Arausic. 2. cap. 6. To beleeue and to will is giuen from aboue by infusion, and inspiration of the holy Ghost. More testimonies and reasons might be alleadged to prooue this conclusion, but these shall suffice: now let vsus see what reasons are alleadged to the contrarie.
III. Obiections of Papists.
Obiect. I. First they alleadge that man by nature may doe that which is good, and therefore will that which is good: for none can doe that which he neither willeth nor thinketh to doe, but first we must will and then doe. Now (say they) men can doe good by nature, as giuegive almes, speake the truth, doe iustice, and practise other duties of ciuill vertue: and therefore will that which is good. I answer, that a naturall man may doe good workes for the substance of the outward worke: but not in regard of the goodnes of the manner: these are two diuers things. A man without supernatural grace may giuegive almes, doe iustice, speake the truth, &c. which be good things considered in themselues; as God hath commanded them; but he cannot do them well. To thinke good things & to doe good things are naturall workes: but to thinke good things in a good maner, and to do them well, so as God may accept the action done, are workes of grace. And therefore the good thing done by a naturall man is a sinne, in respect of the doer; because it failes both for his right beginning, which is a pure heart, good conscience, and faith vnfained; as also for his ende which is the glorie of God.
Obiect. II. God hath commanded all men to beleeue and repent: therefore they hauehave naturall freewill: by vertue whereof (beeing helped by the spirit of God) they can beleeue and repent. Ans. The reason is not good: for by such commandements God sheweth not what men are able to doe; but what they should doe, and what they cannot doe. Againe, the reason is not well framed, it ought rather to be thus: Because God giues men commandement to repent and beleeue, therefore they hauehave power to repent and beleeue, either by nature or by grace, and then we hold with them. For when God in the Gospell commandeth men to repent and to beleeue, at the same time by his grace hee inableth them both to will or desire to beleeue and repent, as also actually to repent and beleeue.
Obiect. III. If man hauehave no freewill to sinne or not to sinne, then no man is to be punished for his sinnes: because he sinneth by a necessitie not to be auoided. Ans. The reason is not good: for though man cannot but sinne, yet is the fault in himselfe, and therefore he is to be punished; as a bankrupt is not therfore freed from his debts, because he is not able to pay them: but the bills against him stand in force, because the debt comes through his own default.