Answer to Book by Romish Priests, Doctrine 18 – Doctrine 20
XVIII. That no Man can do Works of Supererogation.
Anſwer.
HOW ſhould he? When no Man can Supererogate till he have firſt erogated. In plainer terms, no Man can have any thing to ſpare, to beſtow upon others (for this they mean by Supererogating) till he hath done all that is bound to do for himſelf. And therefore Biſhop Andrews *Reſp. ad Apolog. Bellarmini, p. 196.well calls theſe works of Supererogation, proud pretences of doing more than a man needs; when he hath not done all he ought. For theſe two things are neceſſary to make ſuch Works, as they mean by this word. Firſt, That a Man have done all that God's Law commands. Secondly, That he have done ſomething which it commandeth not. But who is there that hath done all which God's Law requires? That is, who is without all Sin? Therefore, who can by doing ſome voluntary things, to which he is not bound, do above his Duty, when he falls ſo much below it, in things expreſly commanded? There is another great flaw alſo in this Doctrine; for they ſuppoſe precepts to require a lower degree of Goodneſs, and counſels a more high or excellent. Which is falſe, for Gods Precepts require the heigth of Virtue; and Councils only ſhow the means whereby we may more eaſily, in ſome circumſtances, attain it. As forſaking all, keeping Virginity, are not perfections; but the Inſtruments of it, as they may be uſed.
The places which he brings to prove men may do ſuch works, are firſt, XIX. Matth. 21.XIX. Mat. 21. Where there is not a word of doing any thing which might be beſtowed upon others; but only of laying up treaſure to himſelf in Heaven, by doing a thing extraordinary. We do not ſay, all things are commanded, but ſome are counſelled; yet there are men of great Name in the Church (ſuch as St. Chryſoſtome, and St. Hilary) who call this a Commandment which Chriſt gave the young man. And ſo it is, if he would come and follow Chriſt, that is, be one of his conſtant attendants, as the Apoſtles were, who had left all, that they might give up themſelves wholly to his Service.
The next is no more to the purpoſe, 1 Cor. VII. 25.1 Cor. VII. 25. for no body thinks there is any command to live ſingle; but it was a prudent Counſel of the Apoſtle at that time, when the Church was in great diſtreſs; which made it adviſeable for People, if they could, to keep themſelves ſingle, whereby they would ſhift the better, and be freed from a great many Cares and Troubles of this Life. But he doth not ſay, that hereby they would lay up a Treaſure of Satisfactions, which would ſerve more than themſelves, and might be beſtowed upon others. This is the meaning of the Roman Church.
The third, XIX. Matth. 12.XIX. Mat. 12. hath no more in it, than the two former. It is a Counſel, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. But they who received it, did not thereby make Satisfaction for defects in obedience to God's precepts; muchleſs, did they do ſo much as to have to diſtribute unto others. Let who will look into the other Scriptures, which he barely notes, he will find them as empty as theſe; eſpecially the firſt of them, X. Luke 25.X. Luke 25. which contains only a queſtion propounded to our Saviour by a tempting Lawyer: Unleſs he means the Anſwer to it, which is a Command for loving God with all the Heart, and all the Soul, &c. And it is not left at our liberty, I hope, whether we will thus love him or no.
Not one of his Fathers ſay what he would have them. The firſt of them, St. Ambroſe, only ſays, He that obeys a Counſel (for inſtance, ſells all his Goods to follow Chriſt) may ſay more than he that obeys only a Precept. For he may expect a reward, as the Apoſtles did, when they ſaid, Behold, we have left all and followed thee; what therefore ſhall we have? Whereas they that do what they are commanded, muſt ſay, We are unprofitable ſervants, and have but done our Duty. Now, what doth this Diſcourſe prove? But that they ſhall have a greater reward themſelves? but there is not a ſyllable of their ſupererogating for others. Nor in Origen, nor Euſebius, much leſs St. Chryſoſtom…, whoſe buſineſs it is to prove, that God's Commands are not impoſſible. What is this to Counſels? Of which Gregory the Great indeed (not Greg. Nyſſen. who hath no ſuch Work) ſpeaks in his Morals; but is ſo far from maintaining works of Supererogation, that none can be more expreſs than he for the Proteſtant Doctrine; Of the imperfection of all mens righteouſneſs, and renouncing all confidence in our own Merits.
XIX. That by the fall of ADAM, we have all loſt our Free-will; and that it is not in our Power to chuſe Good, but only Evil.
Anſwer.
THIS is another inſufferable Slander in the firſt part of it; for if we had all loſt our freedom of will, we ſhould be no longer Men. We only ſay, we have not ſuch a freedom of Will as we formerly had, and ſo all ſay. And he that ſays, (which is the ſecond Part of this Propoſition) It is in our power to chuſe that which is Good, without the aſſiſtance of Grace, is a Pelagian, that is, an Heretick; as this Man is, by contradicting what we affirm, That it is not in our power (that is, our natural ſtrength) to chuſe Good, that is, Spiritual Good; of which, if he do not ſpeak, he only babbles. For the will of Man (ſaith Bellarmine *L. VI. de lib. arbitr. & gratia, c 4.himſelf) in things appertaining to Piety and Salvation, can do nothing without the aſſiſtance of God's Grace; yea, without his ſpecial aſſiſtance. This is the Doctrine of the Goſpel, and is our Doctrine in the Tenth Article of our Religion, unto which he hath nothing to oppoſe.
For not one of his places of Scripture prove, Man hath a Power of himſelf to will what is good, without God's Grace. His firſt Scripture,1 Cor. VII. 37. 1 Corinth. VII. 37. ſpeaks of a thing that is neither Good or Evil in it ſelf; but indifferent; for no man is bound to Marry, or not to Marry; but it may be as he pleaſes, either way. Yet it is manifeſt by the very Text, that the Apoſtle ſuppoſes ſome Men have not a power to contain; and ſo, in their caſe Marriage becomes neceſſary.
As to what he intermixes with this, (which is very foreign to it) My Son, give me thy heart; let me demand of him, whether any man can conſent to this, unleſs God draw his heart to him, when he asks a man to give it? And he that is drawn, ſaith St. Hierom *L. III. adv. Pelag., doth not run ſpontaneouſly of himſelf, but he is brought to it, when he either draws back, or is ſlow, or unwilling. But I will not abuſe the Reader's time in ſo much as mentioning the reſt; ſince we ſay nothing in this matter, but what the Goſpel, what the Ancient Fathers, particularly St. Auſtin, ſay, nay, what Bellarmine himſelf confeſſes to be true; whoſe words in the concluſion of this Controverſy, fully expreſs our ſenſe, and give an anſwer to all that this man fooliſhly as well as falſly charges us withal.
The Converſion of Man to God, L. VI. De Grat. & Lib. Arbit. c. 15. Decima ſent.as alſo every other good work, as it is a WORK (that is, an human act) is only from his free Will, yet not excluding God's general help; as it is PIOƲS, it is from Grace alone; as it is a PIOƲS WORK, it is both from our free Will, and from Grace. To this we ſubſcribe.
XX. That it is impoſſible to keep the Commandments of God, tho aſſiſted with his Grace, and the Holy Ghoſt.
Anſwer.
THIS is ſuch a down-right Calumny, that I cannot but ſay with the Pſalmiſt, What ſhall be done unto thee, O thou falſe Tongue? We moſt thankfully acknowledg the Power of the Divine Grace to be ſo great, that it is poſſible for us to keep God's Commandments, to ſuch a degree as he requires and accepts; tho not with ſuch an exact and ſtrict obedience, as to ſtand in no need of his gracious Pardon of our defects.
Phil. IV.St. Paul means, no more, when he ſaith, he could do all things, that is, all before mentioned, and harder things yet, if occaſion were, by the help of Chriſt, who adminiſtred ſtrength to him, to do all thoſe things, as Menochius interprets it. IV. Philip. 13.
I. Luke 5, 6.Nor doth St. Luke's Character of Zachary and Elizabeth, amount to more than this, that they were ſincerely good People; who were therefore Blameleſs, or Irreprehenſible, (as Menochius tranſlates it) becauſe, ſaith Theophylact, they acted out of pure reſpect to God, and not to pleaſe Men. For many walk in the Law of God, who are not irreprehenſible, becauſe they do all to be ſeen of men. But Zachary both did what God commanded, and did it irreprehenſibly; not performing ſuch things that he might pleaſe men. Thus he, and St. Auſtin gives another reaſon of this, gloſſing upon the Virgins mention'd Revel. XIV. In whoſe mouth was found no guile, becauſe they were irreprehenſible (as he renders the word, we (tranſlate, without fault) before the Throne of God: They were, ſaith he, therefore without reprehenſion, becauſe they faithfully reprehended themſelves; and therefore guile was not found in their mouth; becauſe if they had ſaid, they had no ſin, they had deceived themſelves. It is plain by this, they did not look upon ſuch perſons as without all ſin, but only ſincere and intire in their obedience to Chriſt's Commands. Nay, it is evident Zachary himſelf, whom St. Luke ſo highly commends, was not thus blameleſs, as to be without all ſin; for he was much to blame in not believing the Angel, who brought him a meſſage from God, and was puniſhed for not believing it, by being ſtruck dumb till the Angel's word was fulfilled.
All his other Scriptures therefore, and Fathers, proving that which none of us deny, are here alledged in vain.
He next of all ſaith, we maintain,