Doctrine 1

Revelation 18:4. And I heard another voice from heaven say, Go out of her my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and receive not of her plagues.

In the former chapter Saint John sets down a description of the whore of Babylon, and that at large as he saw her in a vision described to him. In the sixteenth verse of the same chapter, he foretells her destruction: and in the three first verses of this 18th chapter, he goes on to propound the said destruction yet more directly and plainly; withal alleging arguments to prove the same, in all the verses following. Now in this fourth verse is set down a warning serving to forewarn all the people of God, that they may escape the judgment which shall befall the whore: and the words contain two parts: a commandment, and a reason. The commandment, Come out of her my people, that is, from Babylon. The reason, taken from the event lest you be partakers, etc. Touching the commandment, first I will search the right meaning of it, and then set down the use thereof and doctrine flowing thence. In history therefore are three Babylons mentioned: one is, Babylon of Assyria standing on the river Euphrates, where was the confusion of languages, and where the Jews were in captivity: which Babylon is in Scripture reproached for idolatry and other iniquities. The second Babylon is in Egypt standing on the river Nile, and it is now called Cairo; of that mention is made (1 Peter 5:13) (as some think) though indeed it is as likely and more commonly thought, that there is meant Babylon of Assyria. The third Babylon is mystical, whereof Babylon of Assyria was a type and figure; and that is Rome, which is without question here to be understood. And the whore of Babylon, as by all circumstances may be gathered, is the state or regiment of a people that are the inhabitants of Rome and appertain thereto. This may be proved by the interpretation of the Holy Ghost: for in the last verse of the 17th chapter the woman that is the whore of Babylon is said to be a city which reigns over the kings of the earth: now in the days when Saint John penned this book of Revelation, there was no city in the world that ruled over the kings of the earth but Rome; it then being the seat where the Emperor put in execution his Imperial authority. Again in the seventh verse she is said to sit on a beast having seven heads and ten horns which seven heads be seven hills (verse 9), whereon the woman sits, and also they be seven kings. Therefore by the whore of Babylon is meant a city standing on seven hills. Now it is well known, not only to learned men in the Church of God, but even to the heathen themselves, that Rome alone is the city built on seven distinct hills, called Caelius, Aventinus, Esquilinus, Tarpeius or Capitolinus, Viminalis, Palatinus, Quirinalis. Papists to help themselves, do allege that old Rome stood on seven hills, but now is removed further to the plain of Campus Martius. I answer, that however the greatest part of the city in regard of habitation be not now on seven hills, yet in regard of government and practice of religion it is: for even to this day upon these hills are seated certain churches and monasteries and other like places where the Papal authority is put in execution: and thus Rome being put for a state and government; even at this day, it stands upon seven hills. And though it has come to pass that the harlot in regard of her later days even changed her seat, yet in respect of her younger times in which she was bred and born, she sat upon the seven hills. Others, because they fear the wounding of their own heads, labor to frame these words to another meaning, and say, that by the whore, is meant the company of all wicked men in the world wherever, the devil being the head thereof. But this exposition is flat against the text: for in the second verse of the 18th chapter, she is opposed to the kings of the earth with whom she is said to commit fornication, and in the last verse she is called a city standing on seven hills and reigning over the kings of the earth (as I have said), and therefore must needs be a state of men in some particular place. And the Papists themselves perceiving that this shift will not serve their turn, make two Romes, heathenish Rome, and that whereof the Pope is head: now (say they) the whore spoken of, is heathenish Rome, which was ruled by cruel tyrants, as Nero, Domitian, and the rest: and that Rome whereof now the Pope is head, is not here meant. Behold a vain and foolish distinction: for Ecclesiastical Rome in respect of state, princely dominion, and cruelty in persecuting the Saints of God, is all one with the heathenish Empire: the See of the Bishop being turned into the Emperor's court, as all histories do manifest. But let the distinction be as they suppose, yet by their leaves, here by the whore must be understood not only heathenish Rome, but even the Papal or Ecclesiastical Rome: for verse 3 of this chapter the Holy Ghost says plainly, that she has made all nations drunk with the wine of the wrath of her fornication: indeed it is added, that she has committed fornication with the kings of the earth, whereby is signified that she has endeavored to entangle all the nations of the earth in her spiritual idolatry, and to bring the kings of the earth to her religion. Which thing cannot be understood of the heathenish Rome, for that left all the kings of the earth to their own religion and idolatry: neither did they labor to bring foreign kings to worship their gods. Again (Revelation 18:16) it is said, that the ten horns, which be ten kings, shall hate the whore, and make her desolate and naked, which must not be understood of heathenish Rome, but of popish Rome: for whereas in former times all the kings of the earth did submit themselves to the whore, now they have begun to withdraw themselves, and make her desolate; as the king of Bohemia, Denmark, Germany, England, Scotland, and other parts: therefore this distinction is also frivolous. They further allege that the whore of Babylon is drunk with the blood of the Saints and Martyrs (Revelation 17:6), shed not in Rome, but in Jerusalem: where the Lord was crucified: and the two prophets being slain lie there in the streets (Revelation 11:8). But this place, is not meant of Jerusalem, as Jerome has fully taught, but it may well be understood of Rome: Christ was crucified there, either because the authority, whereby he was crucified was from the Roman Empire, or else because Christ in his members was and is there daily crucified, though locally in his own person he was crucified at Jerusalem. And thus, notwithstanding all which has been said, we must here by the whore understand the State and Empire of Rome, not so much under the heathen Emperors as under the head thereof the Pope: which exposition, besides the authority of the text, has the favor and defense of ancient and learned men. Bernard says, They are the ministers of Christ, but they serve Antichrist. Again, The beast spoken of in the Apocalypse, to which a mouth is given to speak blasphemies, and to make war with the Saints of God, is now gotten into Peter's chair, as a lion prepared to his prey. It will be said, that Bernard speaks these latter words of one that came to the Popedom by intrusion or usurpation. It is true indeed: but why was he a usurper? he renders a reason thereof in the same place: because the Antipope called Innocentius was chosen by the kings of Germany, France, England, Scotland, Spain, Jerusalem, with consent of the whole clergy and people in these nations, and the other was not. And thus Bernard has given his verdict, that not only this usurper, but all the Popes for these many years are the beast in the Apocalypse; because now they are only chosen by the college of Cardinals. To this agrees the decree of Pope Nicolas the second, in the year 1059, that the Pope shall afterward be created by the votes of the Cardinal bishops of Rome, with the consent of the rest of the clergy and people, and the Emperor himself: and all Popes are excommunicate and accursed as Antichrists, that enter otherwise, as all now do. Joachim Abbas says, Antichrist was long since born in Rome, and shall be yet advanced higher in the Apostolic See. Petrarch says, Once Rome, now Babylon. And Irenaeus book 5, last chapter, said before all these, that Antichrist should be Latinus, a Roman.

Again, this commandment must not so much be understood of a bodily departure in respect of cohabitation and presence, as of a spiritual 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 judgment and doctrine, in regard of their faith and the worship of God.

Thus then we see that the words contain a commandment from God, enjoining his Church and people to make a separation from Babylon. From which I observe, that all those who will be saved, must depart and separate themselves from the faith and religion of this present Church of Rome. And whereas they are charged with schism that separate on this manner; the truth is, they are not schismatics that do so, because they have the commandment of God for their warrant: and that party is the schismatic in whom the cause of this separation lies: and that is in the church of Rome, namely the cup of abomination in the whore's hand, which is, their heretical and schismatical religion.

Now touching this duty of separation I mean to speak at large, not standing so much to prove the same, because it is evident by the text, as to show the manner and measure of making this separation: and therein I will handle two things. First how far forth we may join with them in the matter of religion: secondly how far forth and wherein we must dissent and depart from them. And for this cause I mean to make choice of certain points of religion, and to speak of them in as good order as I can, showing in each of them our consent and difference: and the rather, because some harp much upon this string, that a union may be made of our two religions, and that we differ not in substance but in points of circumstance.

The first point wherewith I mean to begin shall be the point of free will: though it be not the principal.

1. Our consent.

Free will both by them and us, is taken for a mixed power in the mind and will of man; whereby discerning what is good and what is evil, he does accordingly choose or refuse the same.

Conclusion 1. Man must be considered in a fourfold estate, as he was created, as he was corrupted, as he is renewed, as he shall be glorified. In the first estate, we ascribe to man's will liberty of nature in which he could will or refuse either good or evil: in the third, liberty of grace: in the last, liberty of glory. All the doubt is of the second estate: and yet therein also we agree, as the conclusions following will declare.

Conclusion 2. The matters about which free will is occupied are principally the actions of men, which be of three sorts, natural, human, spiritual. Natural actions are such as are common to men with beasts, as to eat, drink, sleep, hear, see, smell, taste, and to move from place to place: in all which we join with the Papists, and hold that man has free will, and even since the fall of Adam by a natural power of the mind does freely perform any of these actions or the like.

Conclusion 3. Human actions are such as are common to all men good and bad, as to speak and use reason, the practice of all mechanical and liberal arts, and the outward performance of civil and ecclesiastical duties, as to come to the Church, to speak, and preach the word, to reach out the hand to receive the sacrament, and to lend the ear to listen outwardly to that which is taught. And here we may also refer the outward actions of civil virtues; as namely, justice, temperance, gentleness, generosity. And in these also we join with the church of Rome, and say (as experience teaches) that men have a natural freedom of will, to put them or not to put them in execution. Paul says (Romans 2:14), The Gentiles that have not the law do the things of the law by nature, that is, by natural strength: and he says of himself, that before his conversion touching the righteousness of the law, he was blameless (Philippians 3:6). And for this external obedience, natural men receive reward in temporal things (Matthew 6:5; Ezekiel 29:19). And yet here some caveats must be remembered: 1, that in human actions, man's will is weak and feeble, and his understanding dim and dark; and thereupon he often fails in them. And in all such actions with Augustine I understand the will of man to be only wounded or half dead. 2, That the will of man is under the will of God, and therefore to be ordered by it; as Jeremiah says (Jeremiah 10:23), O Lord I know that the way of man is not in himself: neither is it in man to walk or direct his steps.

Conclusion 4. The third kind of actions are spiritual, more nearly concerning the heart and conscience, and these be twofold: they either concern the kingdom of darkness, or else the kingdom of God. Those that concern the kingdom of darkness are sins properly: and in these we likewise join with the Papists and teach, that in sins or evil actions man has freedom of will. Some perhaps will say, that we sin necessarily, because he that sins cannot but sin: and that free will and necessity cannot stand together. Indeed the necessity of compulsion or coercion, and free will cannot agree: but there is another kind of necessity which may stand with freedom of will: for some things may be done necessarily and also freely. A man that is in close prison, must needs there abide and cannot possibly get forth and walk where he will; yet can he move himself freely and walk within the prison: so likewise, though man's will be chained naturally by the bonds of sin, and therefore cannot but sin: and thereupon sins necessarily, yet does it also sin freely.

Conclusion 5. The second kind of spiritual actions or things concern the kingdom of God — as repentance, faith, the conversion of a sinner, new obedience, and such like. In which we likewise in part join with the Church of Rome and say that in the first conversion of a sinner, man's free will concurs with God's grace as a fellow or co-worker in some sort. For in the conversion of a sinner three things are required: the word, God's Spirit, and man's will. For man's will is not passive in all and every respect, but has an action in the first conversion and change of the soul. When any man is converted, this work of God is not done by compulsion, but he is converted willingly, and at the very time when he is converted, by God's grace he wills his conversion. To this end said Augustine: He who made you without you will not save you without you. Again, it is certain that our will is required in this, that we may do any good thing well — but we have it not from our own power, but God works to will in us. For at whatever time God gives grace, at the same time he gives a will to desire and receive the same grace. As for example: when God works faith, at the same time he works also upon the will, causing it to desire faith and willingly to receive the gift of believing. God makes of the unwilling will a willing will, because no man can receive grace utterly against his will — for a will constrained is no will. But here we must remember that however in respect of time the working of grace by God's Spirit and the willing of it in man go together, yet in regard of order grace is first wrought, and man's will must first of all be acted and moved by grace, and then it also acts, wills, and moves itself. And this is the last point of consent between us and the Roman Church touching free will: neither may we proceed further with them.

2. The dissent or difference.

The point of difference stands in the cause of the freedom of man's will in spiritual matters which concern the kingdom of God. The Papists say man's will concurs and works with God's grace in the first conversion of a sinner by itself and by its own natural power, and is only helped by the Holy Spirit. We say that man's will works with grace in the first conversion, yet not of itself but by grace. Or thus: they say the will has a natural cooperation; we deny it and say it has cooperation only by grace, being in itself not active but passive — willing well only as it is moved by grace, whereby it must first be acted and moved before it can act or will. And that we may the better conceive the difference, I will use this comparison. The Church of Rome sets forth the estate of a sinner by the condition of a prisoner, and so do we — mark then the difference. It supposes the said prisoner to lie bound hand and foot with chains and fetters, and withal to be sick and weak, yet not wholly dead but living in part. It supposes also that being in this case he stirs not himself for any help, and yet has ability and power to stir. Hereupon if the keeper comes and takes away his bolts and fetters, and holds him by the hand and helps him up, he can and will of himself stand and walk and go out of prison. Even so, say they, is a sinner bound hand and foot with the chain of his sins, and yet he is not dead but sick — like the wounded man in the way between Jericho and Jerusalem. And therefore he does not will and affect what is good; but if the Holy Spirit comes and does but untie his bonds and reach him his hand of grace, then can he stand of himself and will his own salvation or anything else that is good. We in like manner grant that a prisoner fitly resembles a natural man, but yet such a prisoner must he be as is not only sick and weak but even stark dead — who cannot stir though the keeper unties his bolts and chains, nor hear though he sounds a trumpet in his ear. And if the said keeper would have him to move and stir, he must give him not only his hand to help him but even soul and life also. And such is every man by nature: not only chained and fettered in his sins but stark dead in them — like one who lies rotting in the grave, having no ability or power to move or stir. 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 soul into him — even the Spirit of grace to quicken and revive him. And then being thus revived, the will begins to will good things at the very same time when God by his Spirit first infuses grace. And this is the true difference between us and the Church of Rome in this point of free will.

3. Our Reasons.

Now for the confirmation of the doctrine we hold, namely, that a man wills not his own conversion of himself by nature either in whole or in part, but by grace wholly and alone; these reasons may be used. The first is taken from the nature and measure of man's corruption, which may be distinguished into two parts. The first is the want of that original righteousness, which was in man by creation: the second is, a proneness and inclination to that which is evil, and to nothing that is truly good. This appears (Genesis 8:21): The frame of man's heart (says the Lord) is evil even from his childhood: that is, the disposition of the understanding, will, affections, with all that the heart of man devises, forms, or imagines, is wholly evil. And Paul says (Romans 8:5): The wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God. Which words are very significant: for the word [reconstructed: phronema] translated wisdom, signifies that the best thoughts, the best desires, affections, and endeavors that be in any natural man, even those that come most near to true holiness, are not only contrary to God, but even enmity itself. And hence I gather, that the very heart itself, that is, the will and mind, from whence these desires and thoughts do come, are also enmity to God. For such as the action is, such is the faculty from which it proceeds; such as the fruit is, such is the tree; such as the branches are such are the roots. By both these places it is evident, that in man there is not only a want, absence, or deprivation of original righteousness, but a proneness also by nature to that which is evil, which proneness includes in it an inclination not to some few, but to all and every sin; the very sin against the Holy Ghost not excepted. Hence therefore I reason thus.

- If every man by nature does both want original justice, and be also prone to all evil, then he lacks natural free will to will that which is truly good. - But every man by nature wants original justice, and is also prone to all evil. - Therefore: Every man naturally lacks free will, to will that which is good.

Reason 2. (1 Corinthians 2:14) The natural man does not perceive the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. In these words Saint Paul sets down these points: 1, that a natural man does not so much as think of the things revealed in the Gospel. 2, that a man hearing, and in mind conceiving them; cannot give consent to them and by natural judgment approve of them, but contrariwise thinks them to be foolishness. 3, that no man can give assent to the things of God, unless he be enlightened by the spirit of God. And hence I reason thus.

- If a man by nature does not know and perceive the things of God: and when he shall know them, cannot by nature give assent to them: then he has no power to will them. - But the first is evidently true. Therefore. - For first the mind must approve and give assent, before the will can choose or will: and when the mind has not power to conceive nor give assent, there the will has no power to will.

Reason 3. Thirdly the Holy Ghost affirms (Ephesians 2; Colossians 2:13) that all men by nature are dead in sins and trespasses: not as the Papists say, weak, sick, or half dead. Hence I gather, that man lacks natural power not to will simply, but freely and frankly to will that which is truly good. A dead man in his grave cannot stir the least finger, because he lacks the very power of life, sense, and motion: no more can he that is dead in sin, will the least good — indeed if he could either will or do any good, he could not be dead in sin. And as a dead man in the grave cannot rise but by the power of God; no more can he that is dead in sin rise, but by the power of God's grace alone, without any power of his own.

Reason 4. Fourthly, in the conversion and salvation of a sinner, the scripture ascribes all to God, and nothing to man's free will. (John 3:3) Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (Ephesians 2:10) We are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus to good works. And (Ephesians 4:24) the new man is created to the image of God. Now to be born again, is a work of no less importance than our first creation; and therefore wholly to be ascribed to God as our creation is. Indeed Paul (Philippians 2:12-13) bids the Philippians work out their salvation with fear and trembling: not meaning to ascribe to them a power of doing good by themselves. And therefore in the next verse he adds, It is God that works both the will and the deed: directly excluding all natural free will in things spiritual: and yet withal he acknowledges, that man's will has a work in doing that which is good, not by nature but by grace. Because when God gives man power to will good things, then he can will them: and when he gives him a power to do good, then he can do good, and he does it. For though there be not in man's conversion a natural cooperation of his will with God's spirit, yet is there a supernatural cooperation by grace, enabling man when he is to be converted, to will his conversion: according to which Saint Paul says (1 Corinthians 15:10), I have labored in the faith: but lest any man should imagine, that this was done by any natural power: therefore he adds, yet not I, that is, not I by anything in me, but God's grace in me, enabling my will to do the good I do.

Reason 5. The judgment of the ancient Church. Augustine: The will of the regenerate is kindled only 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. And, We have lost our free will to love God by the greatness of our sin. Sermon 2 on the words of the Apostle: Man when he was created, received a great strength in his free will: but by sinning he lost it. Fulgentius: God gives grace freely to the unworthy, whereby the wicked man being justified is enlightened, with the gift of good will, and with a faculty of doing good: that by mercy going before him, he may begin to will well, and by mercy coming after he may do the good he wills. Bernard says, It is wholly the grace of God that we are created, healed, saved. Council of Orange 2, chapter 6: To believe and to will is given from above by infusion, and inspiration of the Holy Ghost. More testimonies and reasons might be alleged to prove this conclusion, but these shall suffice: now let us see what reasons are alleged to the contrary.

3. Objections of Papists.

Objection 1. First they allege that man by nature may do that which is good, and therefore will that which is good: for none can do that which he neither wills nor thinks to do, but first he must will and then do. Now (say they) men can do good by nature, as give alms, speak the truth, do justice, and practice other duties of civil virtue: and therefore will that which is good. I answer, that a natural man may do good works for the substance of the outward work: but not in regard of the goodness of the manner: these are two diverse things. A man without supernatural grace may give alms, do justice, speak the truth, etc., which be good things considered in themselves as God has commanded them; but he cannot do them well. To think good things and to do good things are natural works: but to think good things in a good manner, and to do them well, so as God may accept the action done, are works of grace. And therefore the good thing done by a natural man is a sin, in respect of the doer: because it fails both for his right beginning, which is a pure heart, good conscience, and faith unfeigned; as also for his end which is the glory of God.

Objection 2. God has commanded all men to believe and repent: therefore they have natural free will, by virtue whereof (being helped by the spirit of God) they can believe and repent. Answer: This reason is not good: for by such commandments God shows not what men are able to do; but what they should do, and what they cannot do. Again, the reason is not well framed, it ought rather to be thus: Because God gives men commandment to repent and believe, therefore they have power to repent and believe, either by nature or by grace: and then we hold with them. For when God in the Gospel commands men to repent and to believe, at the same time by his grace he enables them both to will or desire to believe and repent, as also actually to repent and believe.

Objection 3. If man has no free will to sin or not to sin, then no man is to be punished for his sins: because he sins by a necessity not to be avoided. Answer: The reason is not good: for though man cannot but sin, yet is the fault in himself, and therefore he is to be punished: as a bankrupt is not therefore 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.

Revelation 18:4: And I heard another voice from heaven say, "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues."

In the previous chapter Saint John gives a detailed description of the whore of Babylon, as he saw her in a vision. In the sixteenth verse of that chapter he foretells her destruction, and in the first three verses of this eighteenth chapter he continues to present that destruction even more directly and plainly, going on to give arguments supporting it in all the verses that follow. In this fourth verse a warning is given to all God's people so they may escape the judgment that will fall on the whore, and the words have two parts: a commandment and a reason. The commandment is: Come out of her, my people — that is, out of Babylon. The reason is drawn from the outcome: lest you be partakers, and so on. Regarding the commandment, I will first search out its true meaning and then set down its practical use and the doctrine that flows from it. In Scripture three Babylons are mentioned. The first is Babylon of Assyria, standing on the river Euphrates, where the languages were confused and where the Jews were held in captivity — a Babylon reproached in Scripture for idolatry and other evils. The second Babylon is in Egypt, standing on the river Nile, now called Cairo; that is the place some think is meant in 1 Peter 5:13, though it is more commonly and equally likely that Babylon of Assyria is meant there. The third Babylon is mystical — the one of which Babylon of Assyria was a type and figure — and that is Rome, which is without question the city meant here. The whore of Babylon, as all the circumstances indicate, is the state or government of a people who are the inhabitants of Rome and belong to it. This can be proved by the Holy Spirit's own interpretation: in the last verse of the seventeenth chapter, the woman who is the whore of Babylon is said to be a city that reigns over the kings of the earth. In the days when Saint John wrote the book of Revelation, there was no city in the world that ruled over the kings of the earth except Rome, which was then the seat where the Emperor exercised his imperial authority. Again, in the seventh verse she is said to sit on a beast having seven heads and ten horns, and the seven heads are seven hills (verse 9) on which the woman sits, as well as seven kings. Therefore by the whore of Babylon is meant a city standing on seven hills. It is well known, not only to learned men in the Church of God but even to the pagans themselves, that Rome alone is the city built on seven distinct hills, called Caelius, Aventinus, Esquilinus, Tarpeius or Capitolinus, Viminalis, Palatinus, and Quirinalis. To help their cause, papists argue that old Rome stood on seven hills but has since spread to the plain of Campus Martius. I answer that although most of the city in terms of population is no longer on seven hills, in terms of government and religious practice it still is — even to this day, certain churches, monasteries, and other places on those hills serve as centers of papal authority. So Rome, considered as a state and government, still stands upon seven hills. And though it has come about that the harlot in her later days has moved her seat somewhat, in respect of her earlier days when she was first established, she sat upon the seven hills. Others, afraid of having their own heads wounded, labor to reinterpret these words, saying that the whore represents the company of all wicked men throughout the world, with the devil as their head. But this reading is directly against the text: in the second verse of the eighteenth chapter she is contrasted with the kings of the earth with whom she is said to commit fornication, and in the last verse she is called a city standing on seven hills and reigning over the kings of the earth — and therefore she must be a state of men in some particular place. The papists themselves, seeing that this dodge will not serve them, make two Romes: heathen Rome and the Rome over which the Pope presides. The whore spoken of, they say, is heathen Rome, ruled by cruel tyrants like Nero, Domitian, and the rest — and the Rome now headed by the Pope is not meant here. What a vain and foolish distinction: for ecclesiastical Rome in terms of its imperial character, political dominion, and cruelty in persecuting the saints of God, is one and the same as the heathen empire — the bishop's seat having been turned into the emperor's court, as all the histories make plain. But even granting their distinction, by their own admission the whore here must be understood not only as heathen Rome but also as papal or ecclesiastical Rome. For in verse 3 of this chapter the Holy Spirit says plainly that she has made all nations drunk with the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and she has committed fornication with the kings of the earth — meaning she has worked to entangle all the nations of the earth in her spiritual idolatry and to bring the kings of the earth to her religion. This cannot be understood of heathen Rome, which left all the kings of the earth to their own religion and idolatry and did not labor to bring foreign kings to worship their gods. Again, Revelation 18:16 says that the ten horns — which are ten kings — shall hate the whore and make her desolate and naked. This must be understood of papal Rome, not heathen Rome, for whereas in former times all the kings of the earth submitted to the whore, now they have begun to withdraw — the kings of Bohemia, Denmark, Germany, England, Scotland, and other parts. Therefore this distinction is also hollow. They further argue that the whore of Babylon is drunk with the blood of the saints and martyrs (Revelation 17:6), shed not in Rome but in Jerusalem, where the Lord was crucified, and where the two prophets are said to lie slain in the streets (Revelation 11:8). But this place is not meant of Jerusalem, as Jerome has fully shown — it may well be understood of Rome. Christ was crucified there in the sense that the authority by which he was crucified came from the Roman empire, or because Christ in his members was and is daily crucified there, though in his own person he was locally crucified at Jerusalem. Thus, despite all these objections, we must understand the whore here as the state and empire of Rome — not so much under the pagan emperors as under its head the Pope. This reading, beyond the authority of the text itself, has the support and defense of ancient and learned men. Bernard says: 'They are the ministers of Christ, but they serve Antichrist.' And: 'The beast spoken of in the Apocalypse, to whom a mouth is given to speak blasphemies and to make war with the saints of God, is now seated in Peter's chair, like a lion ready for its prey.' It will be said that Bernard spoke these latter words of one who came to the papacy by usurpation. That is true — but why was he a usurper? Bernard gives the reason in the same passage: because the Antipope called Innocentius was chosen by the kings of Germany, France, England, Scotland, Spain, and Jerusalem with the consent of the whole clergy and people in those nations, and the other was not. And thus Bernard delivered his verdict that not only this usurper but all the popes for many years are the beast in the Apocalypse, because now they are chosen only by the college of cardinals. This agrees with the decree of Pope Nicholas the Second in the year 1059, that the pope shall hereafter be created by the votes of the cardinal bishops of Rome with the consent of the rest of the clergy and people, and the emperor himself — and all popes are excommunicated and accursed as antichrists who enter otherwise, as all now do. Joachim Abbas says: 'Antichrist was long since born in Rome and shall yet be advanced higher in the Apostolic See.' Petrarch says: 'Once Rome, now Babylon.' And Irenaeus in book 5, last chapter, said before all of these that Antichrist would be Latinus — a Roman.

Further, this commandment is not to be understood so much as a bodily departure in terms of physical presence, but as a spiritual separation in terms of faith and religion. The Holy Spirit's meaning is that people must depart from the Roman Church in their judgment and doctrine, in their faith and in the worship of God.

We see then that the words contain a commandment from God, directing His Church and people to make a separation from Babylon. From this I observe that all who wish to be saved must depart and separate themselves from the faith and religion of the present Church of Rome. Those who are charged with schism for separating in this manner are not in fact schismatics, because they have God's own commandment as their warrant. The party in whom the cause of this separation lies is the true schismatic — and that is the Church of Rome, with its cup of abomination in the whore's hand, which is its heretical and schismatical religion.

Now regarding this duty of separation, I intend to speak at length — not so much to prove it, since the text makes it plain, but to show the manner and measure of making this separation. I will address two things. First, how far we may join with them in matters of religion; second, how far and in what ways we must disagree and depart from them. For this reason I will select certain points of religion and speak of them in as orderly a way as I can, showing in each case our agreement and our difference — the more so because some press hard on the point that a union of our two religions may be made, and that we differ not in substance but only in circumstantial matters.

The first point with which I will begin is the point of free will, though it is not the most important.

1. Our consent.

Free will, as understood by both them and us, is a combined power in the mind and will of man by which, discerning what is good and what is evil, he chooses or refuses accordingly.

Conclusion 1. Man must be considered in a fourfold condition: as he was created, as he was corrupted, as he is renewed, and as he shall be glorified. In the first condition we ascribe to man's will a freedom of nature by which he could will or refuse either good or evil; in the third, a freedom of grace; in the last, a freedom of glory. All the uncertainty concerns the second condition — and yet even there we agree, as the conclusions that follow will show.

Conclusion 2. The matters with which free will is chiefly concerned are human actions, which are of three kinds: natural, human, and spiritual. Natural actions are those shared with animals, such as eating, drinking, sleeping, hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting, and moving from place to place. In all of these we agree with the papists and hold that man has free will, and that even since the fall of Adam he performs any of these actions or similar ones freely by a natural power of the mind.

Conclusion 3. Human actions are those common to all people, good and bad alike — such as speaking and using reason, practicing all mechanical and liberal arts, and carrying out outward civil and ecclesiastical duties: attending church, speaking, preaching the word, reaching out a hand to receive the sacrament, and lending the ear to listen outwardly to what is taught. To this category we may also add the outward practice of civil virtues such as justice, temperance, gentleness, and generosity. Here too we agree with the Church of Rome, and say — as experience confirms — that people have a natural freedom of will to perform or not perform these actions. Paul says in Romans 2:14 that the Gentiles who do not have the law do the things of the law by nature — that is, by natural strength. He also says of himself that before his conversion he was blameless with regard to the righteousness of the law (Philippians 3:6). For this outward obedience, natural people receive reward in temporal things (Matthew 6:5; Ezekiel 29:19). Yet certain qualifications must be remembered here: first, that in human actions man's will is weak and feeble and his understanding dim and dark, and he therefore often fails in them. In all such actions I understand with Augustine that the will of man is only wounded or half dead. Second, the will of man is under the will of God and must therefore be directed by it — as Jeremiah says: 'O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man to walk and direct his own steps' (Jeremiah 10:23).

Conclusion 4. The third kind of actions are spiritual, bearing more directly on the heart and conscience, and these are of two sorts: those that concern the kingdom of darkness, and those that concern the kingdom of God. Those that concern the kingdom of darkness are sins in the proper sense, and here too we agree with the papists, holding that in sins or evil actions man has freedom of will. Some might say we sin necessarily, because one who sins cannot but sin, and that free will and necessity cannot coexist. It is true that the necessity of compulsion and free will cannot agree — but there is another kind of necessity that can coexist with freedom of will, for some things may be done both necessarily and freely. A man in close prison must stay there and cannot walk wherever he wishes, yet he can move freely and walk within the prison. In the same way, though man's will is naturally chained by the bonds of sin and therefore cannot but sin — sinning necessarily — it still sins freely.

Conclusion 5. The second kind of spiritual actions — those concerning the kingdom of God — include repentance, faith, the conversion of a sinner, new obedience, and the like. Here too we partly agree with the Church of Rome, holding that in the first conversion of a sinner, man's free will works together with God's grace as a fellow worker in some sense. Three things are required in the conversion of a sinner: the word, God's Spirit, and man's will. Man's will is not entirely passive in every respect — it has an active role in the first conversion and change of the soul. When any person is converted, God does not accomplish this work by compulsion; rather, the person is converted willingly, and at the very moment of conversion, by God's grace he wills his own conversion. To this end Augustine said: 'He who made you without you will not save you without you.' Again, it is certain that our will is required for us to do any good thing well — but we do not have this from our own power; God works in us to will. At whatever moment God gives grace, He at the same time gives the will to desire and receive that grace. For example, when God works faith, He at the same time works upon the will, causing it to desire faith and willingly receive the gift of believing. God makes an unwilling will into a willing will, because no one can receive grace entirely against his will — for a will that is forced is no will at all. Yet here we must remember: although in terms of time the working of grace by God's Spirit and the willing of it in man go together, in terms of order, grace is worked first. Man's will must first be acted on and moved by grace, and then it also acts, wills, and moves itself. This is the final point of agreement between us and the Roman Church on the subject of free will — and we must not go further with them.

2. The disagreement or difference.

The point of difference concerns the cause of the freedom of man's will in spiritual matters related to the kingdom of God. The papists say man's will works together with God's grace in the first conversion of a sinner by its own natural power, merely assisted by the Holy Spirit. We say that man's will works with grace in the first conversion, but not by itself — only by grace. Put another way: they say the will has a natural cooperation; we deny this and say it has cooperation only by grace. In itself it is not active but passive — willing good only as it is moved by grace, and must first be acted on and moved before it can act or will. To make the difference clearer, I will use an analogy. Both the Church of Rome and we describe the condition of a sinner by the image of a prisoner — but mark the difference. They imagine the prisoner lying bound hand and foot with chains and fetters, and also sick and weak, yet not wholly dead but still living in part. They also suppose that though he lies in this condition and does not stir himself to seek help, he has the ability and power to stir. So when the jailer comes and removes his chains and shackles and helps him up, he can and will, by his own power, stand and walk and go out of prison. Even so, they say, a sinner is bound hand and foot by the chain of his sins, and yet he is not dead but only sick — like the wounded man on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem. Therefore, he does not will and desire what is good; but if the Holy Spirit comes and simply unties his bonds and reaches out a hand of grace, then the sinner can stand by himself and will his own salvation or anything else that is good. We likewise grant that a prisoner fittingly represents a natural person — but the prisoner must be not merely sick and weak, but completely dead. He cannot stir though the jailer unties his chains, nor hear though the jailer sounds a trumpet in his ear. If the jailer wants him to move and stir, he must give him not only a helping hand but soul and life itself. Such is every person by nature: not only chained and fettered in sins, but completely dead in them — like one who lies rotting in the grave, with no ability or power to move or stir. Therefore he cannot so much as desire or do anything truly good by himself — God must first come and put a new soul into him, even the Spirit of grace to quicken and revive him. Then, being revived, the will begins to will good things at the very same moment when God by His Spirit first infuses grace. This is the true difference between us and the Church of Rome on the point of free will.

3. Our reasons.

To confirm our doctrine — that a man does not will his own conversion by nature, either in whole or in part, but entirely and only by grace — the following arguments may be used. The first argument is drawn from the nature and extent of human corruption, which has two parts. The first part is the absence of the original righteousness that was in man at creation; the second is a deep tendency and inclination toward evil and away from anything truly good. This is clear from Genesis 8:21, where the Lord says: 'The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth' — meaning that the dispositions of the understanding, will, and affections, and everything the heart of man devises or imagines, are entirely evil. Paul adds in Romans 8:5 that 'the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God.' These words carry great weight: the word translated 'mind' refers to the best thoughts, the best desires, affections, and efforts found in any natural person — even those that come closest to true holiness — and these are not merely contrary to God but are enmity itself against Him. From this I conclude that the heart itself — the will and mind from which these desires and thoughts arise — is also in a state of enmity with God. For the nature of any action reflects the nature of the faculty that produces it; the nature of fruit reflects the nature of the tree; the nature of branches reflects the nature of the roots. Both of these passages make clear that in human beings there is not only a loss and absence of original righteousness, but also a natural tendency toward evil — an inclination not toward just a few sins, but toward every sin without exception, not even excluding the sin against the Holy Spirit. From this I reason as follows.

- If every person by nature both lacks original righteousness and is prone to all evil, then he lacks natural free will to choose what is truly good. - But every person by nature lacks original righteousness and is prone to all evil. - Therefore, every person by nature lacks free will to will what is good.

Reason 2. In 1 Corinthians 2:14, Paul says: 'A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.' In these words Paul establishes three points: first, that a natural person does not even think about the things revealed in the Gospel; second, that even when a person hears and mentally grasps them, he cannot consent to them or approve them by natural judgment — on the contrary, he considers them foolishness; third, that no one can assent to the things of God unless he is enlightened by the Spirit of God. From this I reason as follows.

- If a person by nature neither knows nor perceives the things of God, and even when he does know them cannot by nature give assent to them, then he has no power to will them. - But the first is clearly true. Therefore the conclusion follows. - For the mind must approve and give assent before the will can choose or will; and when the mind has no power to understand or assent, the will has no power to will.

Reason 3. The Holy Spirit affirms in Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2:13 that all people by nature are dead in sins and trespasses — not, as the papists say, merely weak, sick, or half dead. From this I conclude that human beings lack not just the capacity to will simply, but the capacity to will freely and genuinely what is truly good. A dead man in his grave cannot move the slightest finger, because he lacks the very power of life, sensation, and movement; in the same way, the person who is dead in sin cannot will the smallest good — indeed, if he could will or do any good at all, he could not be said to be dead in sin. And just as a dead man in the grave cannot rise except by the power of God, so the person dead in sin cannot rise except by the power of God's grace alone, without any power of his own.

Reason 4. In the conversion and salvation of a sinner, Scripture ascribes everything to God and nothing to man's free will. John 3:3 says: 'Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Ephesians 2:10 says: 'We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works.' And Ephesians 4:24 says the new man is created in the image of God. To be born again is a work no less significant than our first creation, and therefore it must be ascribed entirely to God, just as our creation is. Paul does tell the Philippians in Philippians 2:12-13 to work out their salvation with fear and trembling — but he does not mean to credit them with a natural power to do good. In the very next verse he adds that it is God who works both the willing and the doing — directly excluding all natural free will in spiritual matters — while at the same time acknowledging that man's will does play a role in doing what is good, not by nature but by grace. When God gives a person the power to will good things, he can will them; and when God gives him the power to do good, he can and does do it. Although there is no natural cooperation of man's will with God's Spirit in conversion, there is a supernatural cooperation by grace that enables a person, at the moment of conversion, to will his own conversion. This is what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 15:10 when he says 'I have labored' — but then immediately qualifies it by adding 'yet not I,' meaning not by anything in himself, but by God's grace working in him, enabling his will to do the good he does.

Reason 5. The testimony of the ancient Church. Augustine wrote: 'The will of the regenerate is kindled only by the Holy Spirit, so that they are able because they will in this way, and they will in this way because God works in them to will.' He also wrote: 'By the greatness of our sin we have lost our free will to love God.' In his second sermon on the words of the Apostle he says: 'When man was created, he received great strength in his free will; but by sinning he lost it.' Fulgentius wrote: 'God freely gives grace to the unworthy, by which the wicked man, being justified, is enlightened with the gift of a good will and the ability to do good — so that through mercy going before him he may begin to will well, and through mercy following after he may do the good he wills.' Bernard said: 'It is entirely the grace of God that we are created, healed, and saved.' The Second Council of Orange, chapter 6, declared: 'To believe and to will is given from above by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.' More testimonies and arguments could be brought to prove this conclusion, but these are sufficient. Now let us examine the objections raised on the other side.

3. Objections of Papists.

Objection 1. Their first argument is that a person can by nature do what is good, and therefore can will what is good — since no one can do what he neither wills nor thinks to do; he must first will it and then do it. They claim that people can do good by nature: giving alms, speaking the truth, doing justice, and practicing other duties of civil virtue — and therefore can will what is good. My answer is that a natural person may do good works as far as the outward act itself is concerned, but not with respect to the quality or manner in which they are done. These are two different things. A person without supernatural grace may give alms, do justice, speak the truth, and so on — things which are good in themselves as God has commanded — but he cannot do them well. To think good things and to do good things can be natural acts; but to think good things in the right way and to do them well, in a manner God can accept, are works of grace. Therefore a good deed done by a natural person is, from the perspective of the doer, a sin — because it lacks both the right starting point (a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith) and the right aim (the glory of God).

Objection 2. God has commanded all people to believe and repent; therefore they must have natural free will by which, aided by the Spirit of God, they can believe and repent. Answer: This reasoning does not hold. When God issues such commands, He does not show what people are able to do on their own, but rather what they ought to do — and what they cannot do by themselves. Furthermore, the argument is not well formed. It should rather be stated this way: because God commands people to repent and believe, they therefore have the power to repent and believe, either by nature or by grace. And stated that way, we agree. When God commands people in the Gospel to repent and believe, He simultaneously enables them by His grace both to desire to believe and repent, and actually to do so.

Objection 3. If a person has no free will to sin or not to sin, then no one should be punished for his sins, since he sins out of an unavoidable necessity. Answer: This reasoning does not hold. Even though a person cannot but sin, the fault still lies within himself, and therefore he is to be punished. It is like a bankrupt debtor who is not released from his debts simply because he cannot pay them; the claims against him remain valid because the debt arose through his own fault.