Truth and Falsehood, Book · Chapter 22
Of the works of Infidels, or ſuch as are not regenerate. CHAP. 22.
THE PROTESTANTS
WE thē being thus infected with the filth of original ſin, and by our concupiſcence, which can not whileſt here we liue be rooted out of vsus, being intiſed to ſin, and hindred in al good: what can come from them,Ephe. 4.18 that hauehave their cogitations darkned, throgh the ignorance that is in thē, but that they walke after the luſts of the fleſh, Ephe. 2.1.3in fulfilling the will of the fleſh. And ſo are in deed no better than dead in ſinnes and treſpaſſes,5 by their owne nature the children of wrath. 4So that from ſuch no good can proceede, in thought, word, or deed, and in ſuch no good can be, vntil God of his abundant merciemercy,1. Pet. 1.3 hauehave begotten them again vntounto a liuelie hope of immortall ſeede, … 23by the worde of God, hauing by his holy ſpirite renued the light of their mind, and reformed the frowardneſſe of their heart. Vntill then (I ſay) what excellent vertues ſo euer they ſeeme to hauehave, yet is there nothing in thē acceptable to God, bicauſe they hauehave not that fountaine of regeneration, frō whence onelyonly can ſpring that which god accepteth for good. Neither hauehave they faith, without which nothing can pleaſe God.Heb. 11.6.
THE PAPISTS
BƲt the papiſts,Andrad. orthod. explic. li. 3. as they wil in no wiſe that concupiſcence is of it ſelfe ſinne, no not in the vnregenerate, but only in reſpect that it is deſtitute of originall righteouſneſſe: ſo doe they ſeeke by all meanes, to cloake and couer the corruption and ſinfulneſſe, of our wretched nature. Hereof commeth it that they ſhame not to teach, that the workes of infidels and godleſſe perſons,Andrad. ibidem ſuch as wee account Turkes, or Iewes, maie bee without ſpot of ſinne, and woorthie of notable prayſe. As though a filthie ſpring coulde ſende foorth pleaſant waters,Iam. 3.11 Math. 7.18 or an euill tree could beare good fruit,Iohn. 15.4. or a branch that is not of the vine tree, coulde hauehave a kindlie grape. All which the ſcriptures denie. Doe men gather grapes of thornes, Mat. 7.16or figs of thiſtles? Luke. 6.45.No doubtleſſe. For, An euill man out of the treaſure of his heart, bringeth forth euill. It is then moſt certaine, that where the ſpirite of regeneration is not to ſanctifie the heart, (as in the infidels it is not) wee can looke for no workes, but ſuch as proceede from that bitter roote of ſinne, which muſt needes bee euill and vnſauourie before God.
It may iuſtly be wondered at, why they, who take vponupon them the name of holy catholicke church, & ſuch as account themſelues the members thereof, doe ſo ſtifly and ſtubbornely, maintaine ſo bad a cauſe, and defend, yea commend the actions of ſuch godleſſe men. For not only the particular writers among them, excuſe from ſinne the actions of Infidels,Seſſ. 6. can. 57. but alſo the councell of Trent doth hold them all accurſed that dare ſay they are truly ſinne. But their feare is, leaſt if the nature of man be ſet forth in her owne colours, and duely conſidered of, the doctrine of merite by workes will ſeeme more abſurd. But if the workes of graceleſſe and godleſſe men, may be thought to be voide of ſinne: how much the rather maie we thinke, that the works of the faithfull may be ſo perfect, that they may merite at Gods handes? And in truth no man can denie, but that there is no compariſon, betweene the workes of the godlie and the vngodly. Therefore that they may prepare a way for their doctrine of merites, they would firſt make vsus beleeue, that euen in the wicked there may be good workes. And leaſt men ſhould condemne the corruption of this our nature, being not renued by the ſpirit of God, as it iuſtlie deſerueth, and ſo ſincerely confeſſe, that we hauehave in vsus no good, but that it commeth wholy from God: the councell of Trent doth not any thing miſlike thoſe opinions, that commend the works euen of infidels, yea attributing ſome merit vntounto them, as doe ſome of the ſcholemen, but onlie accurſeth them that accompt them to be ſinne.Sleiden. comment. li. 23. An. 1552. And a Franciſcan frier, reading vponupon the ſecond chapter of the epiſtle to the Romanes, did moſt blaſphemouſlie teach, in the hearing of manie of them that were at the councel, and in the time of the councell, that They who had no knowledge of Chriſt, and yet liued honeſtly were ſaued. Which his vnchriſtian doctrine, was ſo farre from being condemned by that Antichriſtian councell, that the diuines that were ſent from the proteſtantes to that councel, made their complaint to the emperours Ambaſſadours that he was heard with great liking. And indeed the councel did not accurſe that doctrine, or him that taught it. No, the councel did not determine, but as Andradius telleth vsus,Orthodoxarum explicat. li. 3. hath left it free for eueryevery man to thinke as they wil of the workes of them that are not regenerate: this only that councel will not permit vsus to thinke, that they are ſinne, becauſe they are not of faith. That therefore that the ſcripture teacheth vsus, wee maie not once thinke of, but all other abſurd opinions of men are very tollerable. Is not this ſtrange dealing, that the ſpirit of truth only muſt not ſpeake, and the lying ſpirits of fooliſh men, may ſaie what they will? But let vsus ſee what reaſons they alleadge to induce them to this perſuaſion. I wil ſaie nothing of that which maiſter Bellarmine, (nothing like a graue deuine, which ſhould with all diligence and praier ſearch out, and with all humility ſubmit himſelfe to the trueth, but rather like a fooliſh & wrangling ſophiſter, whoſe care were onelyonly to contend, to make good that which he ſaith) moſt impudently affirmeth, enquiring, what knowlege of moral vertues men may hauehave by the powers of nature, & Gods general help.De gram. & libero a… bit. li. 5. cap. 1. Of two opinions he preferreth one, and why? So much the more gladly (ſaith he) we doe embrace and defend it, howe much the more our aduerſaries miſlike it. I ſee now it is no great maruel, though theſe pretended catholickes, doe manifeſtly and wilfully gainſaie and withſtand manie thinges, moſt conſonant to the infallible word of God. For I perceiue, that if we like of it, it is cauſe good inough for them to miſlike of it. Only this will I ſaie, that becauſe this perſuaſion is fooliſh, and dangerous:Iam. 2.1. Saint Iames giueth a good caueat to all that are of ſuch an humour, My brethren hauehave not the faith of our glorious Lord Ieſus Chriſt, in reſpect of perſons. But, to like or miſlike, in reſpect of the man, is to hauehave it in reſpect of perſons. But hee hauing thus profeſſed that generall reaſon whereby he is ſetled in his perſuaſion commeth afterwardes in the ſame booke to other particular reaſons. His firſt reaſon is this.Cap. 9. God is ſaide manie times to rewarde the workes of the Infidels, but God will not reward that which is ſinne,The firſt argument to proue that all the infidels works are not ſinne. therefore not all the workes of Infidels are ſinne. If I ſhould examine the particular proofes that hee bringeth of his firſt propoſition, the weakeneſſe thereof will ſoone appeare. For he muſt proue that the workes of infidels are rewarded of God. For proofe whereof his firſt example is of the midwiues,Exod. 1.21.17. that came to the women of Iſrael in their trauel in Aegipt, of whom the Scripture giueth teſtimony that they feared God, hath in that verie place, and before alſo. Why then doth he reckon them amongſt infidels. Then alſo the rewarde which he ſaith was promiſed to them, the beſt learned in the Hebrew tongue, apply not to the Midwiues, but to the Iſraelites of the increaſe of their families.Ezech. 27.18, 19. The ſecond example is out of Ezechiel where God promiſeth to giuegive Nabuchad-nezar and his army as their wages, Aegipt for their ſeruice which they did againſt Tyre. Which ſeruice againſt Tyre, if maiſter Bellarm. can commend in Nabuchad-nezar as a good worke, wherein hee had only regarde vntounto his owne cruell and proud affection, he will hardlie finde anie euill. His third and laſt place out of Daniel, Daniel. 4.24.wherein Daniel giueth councel to Nabuchad-nezar to redeeme his ſinnes by being good to the poore, it is not very pertinent to the purpoſe, and I ſhal (God willing) hauehave more fit place afterwards to ſpeake of it. Although therefore it doth eaſily appeare that his maior is not proued by him, yet I will confeſſe, that God is ſaide to rewarde ſuch men, in reſpect that he giueth good ſucceſſe to them, and proſpereth them, to ſet forth by them his owne glorie: Alluding vntounto the wages that ſeruantes hauehave for their worke. Who although they bee not alwaies of the beſt, yet good reaſon they ſhould hauehave their wages for their worke. The minor is, that God will not rewarde ſinne. I grant in that reſpect that it is ſinne hee will not. But in euerie action, there are to be conſidered manie things.
Firſt, the deede, as in this that Nabuchad-nezar did fight againſt Tirus: Secondly, the manner how, and with what affection: with a cruel and proud minde, and not with ſuch compaſſion and pittie as wee ought to hauehave in correcting of others: Thirdly, the ende is to be regarded, as, whether he did eſpecially reſpect Gods glorie, or rather, as indeede he did, to ſubdue them vntounto his owne dominion.
Nowe therefore true it is that God rewardeth not ſinne. And yet hee manie times rewardeth and commendeth that action, which himſelfe turneth to his glorie, and the executing of his good will, which yet in him that doth it, in reſpect of his euil affection, and wrong ende that hee looked vntounto, in doing of it, is ſinne. But the ſinne it ſelfe, he is ſo farre from rewarding, that he vtterly condemneth it, and him that delighteth therein., Arg. 2 Maſter Bellarmines ſecond argument is, that Infidels doe or can doe good workes: therefore, not all their workes are ſinne. That they do or can doe good workes, marke howe hee proueth. If yee ſalute your brethren only, what ſingular thing doe you? Doth not alſo the Ethnickes likewiſe? Bee yee therefore perfect, &c. Maath. 5.47.Now Maiſter Bellarmine muſt reaſon thus. The heathen can ſalute one another, therefore they can doe a good worke. As ſtrong a reaſon, as if I ſhould ſay,Matt. 26.49. Iudas ſaluted his Maiſter: therefore he did a good worke. Againe, the Gentiles that hauehave not the lawe, Rom. 2.14.doe by nature the things of the lawe. Therefore they doe a good worke, and ſo not al they doe is ſinne. Theſe bald proofes, doe ſhew that maſter Bellarmine hath but a barren matter in hande. For by doing the lawe, he meaneth not that which the Apoſtle calleth fulfilling of the law,Rom. 23.8. for the Gentiles not regenerate cannot doe that. But that they doe that which the lawe commaundeth after ſome ſort, but not in ſuch manner as is commaunded. And therefore hee ſaith they doe the worke of the law. But that worke of the law, becauſe they doe it not, with ſuch a minde, and to ſuch an end as they ought, therefore it is ſinne in them. And that the apoſtle himſelfe in that place ſheweth. For his endeuour is to proue, them to be vnexcuſeable by reaſon of their ſinne, although they had not the law written deliuered to them, becauſe they had by nature the ſubſtance which he calleth the worke of the law, written in their harts: yea, and framed very often their external actions according to the ſame and yet performed not that holy obedience that they ſhould. Now who wil grant ſuch an argument? The Gentiles do the external law: therefore there is not ſinne in al their actions. For to make our actions voide of ſinne, it is not ſufficient that we keepe the external law, but they muſt bee good workes well done.Serm. 5. in cap. 2. ad Rom. Neither doth Chryſoſtome when he ſaith, the Gentiles without the lawe did all the thinges of the lawe, meane all the circumſtances of the law which maiſter Bellarmine falſlie gathereth, but onlie all thoſe thinges that externally the lawe hath commanded, as maie appeare by his owne wordes a little before, who ſaith, The greeke ſhall be ſet before thee, appearing to be a doer of thoſe things that are in the law. Marke, he ſaith not doing, but appearing or ſeeming to do. Becauſe he doth that concerning the law that appeareth to the eie, and is externall. But with a ſanctified affection, or to a holy end, he that is not ſanctified cannot doe it. Argument 3 As for the teſtimonies out of the fathers, whereby he doth proue, that the Gentiles & the vnregenerate, may hauehave excellent vertues, out of the fathers.it is nothing to this queſtion. For when we ſaie, that the Infidels hauehave not in them any thing that is good: our meaning is, that there is in them no worke ſo perfect, but that it hath ſinne in it. And that this is true, ſaint Hierome (who ſeemeth to ſpeake for him moſt effectually) doth manifeſtly proue.In eccl. ca. 7. Workes (ſaith he) becauſe they are done by the body, are neuer without fault. Which if it be true in al workes, then can it not be but true in the workes of them, which themſelues are moſt faulty, ſuch as are the Infidels. Argum. 4 Laſtly, from reſonmaſter Bellarmine hath in that place two reaſons. The firſt is this. If works done without faith or Gods ſpeciall helpe, be ſinne, they are ſinne, either becauſe they are not done to the right end, which is Gods glorie: or becauſe they proceed from a ſinfull man: or becauſe thoſe morall workes are not of proportion with the ſtrength of nature: or laſtly, becauſe theſe workes that are good are too hard, both in reſpect of the rebellion of the fleſh, and the tyranny of Sathan. But in none of theſe reſpects they are ſinne: therefore they are not ſinne. Which his argument briefly thus I anſwer. That his minor propoſition is vtterly falſe, and directly againſt that which the Apoſtle ſaint Paul writeth in the Epiſtle to the Romanes, of the Gentiles, ſhewing how God gaue them vp, becauſe when they knew God, they glorified him not as God. Rom. 1.21.Wherein the Apoſtle ſheweth how wickedly the Gentiles abuſe that their knowledge, whereby they ſhould be moued to glorifie God. And in that he denieth that they can be accounted ſinfull, becauſe they proceede from ſinfull man. What doth hee elſe, but giuegive the lie to our Sauiour Chriſt himſelfe, who hath plainely ſaide,Matth. 7.19. that an euil tree cannot bring forth good fruit And all the ſophiſtrie that maſter Bellarmine hath, can not ſalue this ſore. For it is impoſſible to gather grapes of thiſtles: for that he ſpeaketh of the proportion, betweene the worke and the ſtrength of nature, it would be too long heere to examine. Laſtly, whereas hee accounteth the tyranny of Sathan, and ſubiection to their owne luſtes, not to be ſufficient to make their worke ſinfull: let him ſee how hee can anſwer, not S. Paul onelyonly, who ſaith, that ſuch are ſeruants to ſin, but alſo our ſauiour Chriſt, who telleth the Iewes,Rom. 6.17. that vnleſſe the Sonne made them free, they could not be free. Then I pray you, what good works,Ioh. 8.36. wholy void of ſin can ſuch worke as ſerue ſo bad a M. as is ſin? His ſecond argument taken from reaſon, is of the abſurdity he imagineth to be in our doctrine. Himſelf reaſoning moſt abſurdly, thus.
If the Infidels in doing their good workes, do ſinne, it is better for them not to do thoſe workes, than to do them: but ſo to ſay is moſt abſurde. That to ſay it is better not to do thoſe externall good workes than to doe them, wee will with maſter Bellarmine willingly confeſſe. But how doeth hee prooue his maior, namely, that it is better to leaue them vndone, than to doe them? Becauſe in doing them (ſaieth he) they ſinne, in not doing them, they ſinne not.De amiſſ. grat. li. 1. ca. 2 I ſee Maſter Bellarmine hath forgotten that which in an other place hee telleth vsus, that a man ſinneth aſwell in not doing that hee ſhould, as in dooing that hee ſhoulde not. And therefore Maſter Bellarmine ſaieth falſly, that in not doing ſuch works as occaſion is offered, they ſhould not ſinne. I might therefore conclude with that golden ſentence alleadged out of ſaint Auguſtine by the maſter of ſentences,Lib. 2. diſt. 41 The whole life of Infidels is ſinne, and there is nothing good, without the chiefe good. Where is want of knowledge of the eternall trueth, euen in the beſt manners, is but counterfait vertue: but that I think it very neceſſary to ſhew how violently maſter Bellarmine ſeeketh to wreſt from the true ſence, that euident teſtimony of our Sauiour Chriſt,Luc. 6.43. & matth. 7.18 That an euill tree can not bring foorth good fruit: which, becauſe it is applied to ſundry purpoſes, as himſelfe confeſſeth, it is plaine, that it is a generall ſentence, both in the one place and the other, applied as occaſion ſerueth. And for the meaning of it, to the ende it ſhoulde not ſeeme to prooue that, for the which it is alleadged in this queſtion, Maſter Bellarmine hath three anſweres to that place.De gratia & lib a… b… t. lib. 5 cap. 10. Firſt, that as a good tree doeth not alwayes bring foorth good fruit, ſo an euill tree doth not alwayes bring foorth euill fruit: but commonly, or, for the moſt part, ſo it is. Which anſwere of his, doth flatly deny that which Chriſt affirmeth, Chriſt ſaith, An euill tree can not bring foorth good fruit: yes, ſaith Maſter Bellarmine (by your leaue) but it may ſometime. EueryEvery tree is knowen by the fruit (ſaith Chriſt:) not ſo, (ſaith maſter Bellarmine) for ſometimes the fruit may be good, although the tree be euill. Is not this a ſawcie mate, ſo impudently and openly to controll the Author of all trueth? His ſecond anſwer, if we will truſt his owne report, is a plaine ſolution of the argument. And it is this, that this euil tree is the euil wil of man.De actis cum fol. Manich. lib. 2. cap. 4. Which anſwer he would faine father vponupon ſaint Auguſtine, but in the place alledged there is no ſuch matter. I remember that S. Auguſtine in another place doth ſay,De gratia Chriſti ca. 18 that this euill tree, is a man of an euill will, but not the euill will it ſelfe. Well, thus maſter Bellarmine granteth this place to bee true, that an euill tree, that is, luſt, or a man that worketh according to luſt, cannot bring foorth good fruit. But firſt maſter Bellarmine hath falſified S. Auguſtine, as I hauehave ſaide: Secondly, he expoundeth this place otherwiſe than ſaint Ierome and Theoph. doe: for they vnderſtand it euen as we doe, that an euill man, whileſt he is euill, can not bring foorth good fruit, but being conuerted hee may. Yea the wordes themſelues are very plaine, that our Sauior Chriſt meant it not of the euil wil that is in man, but of the man himſelfe: in that he addeth,Luc. 6.45. A good man out of the good treaſure of his heart bringeth forth good, and an euill man out of the euill treaſure of his heart bringeth foorth euill. Yet then this place alleadged proueth ſubſtantially, that Infidelles or heathen men whileſt they continue ſo, can not do any workes that ſhall be perfectly good or voide of ſinne. His third and laſt anſwere to this place is this. The euill tree (ſaith he) is an euil man, and the good fruit is a meritorious worke. And after this meaning he thus anſwereth the place. An euill man cannot do a meritorious worke. Is not this a notable abuſing of Gods word, after his owne pleaſure to wreſt and wring it? what one word induceth him to dreame here of meritorious workes? Nay the words confute him mightily: for it is ſaid, An euil tree bringeth forth euill fruit. Euill,Matth. 7.17. I ſay, not onelyonly, not meritorious. And the tree is knowen by the fruit. The fruit then muſt be bad that muſt ſhew a bad tree. And therefore this anſwere of M. Bellar. is, as are the reſt too fooliſh.De gra. Chriſti cap. 18. 19 Cont. I… lianum Pelag. li. 4. cap. 3. But S. Auguſtine expoundeth it ſo, if you wil truſt M. Bellar. but examine the places by him alleadged, and there is no ſuch thing in them. So ſmal a matter it is for M. Bellar. to abuſe his readers at his pleaſure, by falſifying the fathers. And now the latter of theſe places which he falſly hath alleadged, for the confirmation of his vntrue aſſertion, I truely apply to the confuting of this their vngodly doctrine, vſing only the words of S. Auguſtine. If a heathen man who liueth not by faith, doeth cloath the naked, deliuer the diſtreſſed, cure the wounded, beſtow his riches vponupon honeſt friendſhip, will not by tormentes be brought to beare falſe witnes, I demād of thee (ſaith S. Auguſtine to Iulian the Pelagian) whether he do theſe good works wel or euil? For if they being good, yet he doth them euill, thou canſt not deny, but that he ſinneth that doth any thing euill. But becauſe thou wilt not ſay that he ſinneth in doing this, thou wilt doubtles ſay, that both he doth good things, and he doth them well. Now marke S. Auguſtines concluſion vponupon theſe wordes, If it bee ſo, an euill tree may bring forth good fruits, which thing the truth it ſelfe ſaith it cannot be, Thus much out of S. Auguſtine, not only to ſhew how falſely he is alleadged for proofe of M. Bellarm. ſenceles aſſertion, but alſo to let it be ſeene, how he iumpeth with vsus in this doctrine that the Godleſſe cannot doe the worke, that ſhall be without ſinne. Therefore to conclude this queſtion as Saint Auguſtine did to the Pelagians, ſo doe I ſaie to our aduerſaries.Aug ibidem. How can it bee that you ſhould not ſeeme, either to be mery or mad in theſe diſputations, who praiſe the fruite of barren trees? Whoſe fruites are either none, or if they be euill, they are not to be praiſed.