Book Summary
A Reformed Catholic by William Perkins is a short but forceful clarification of what the Protestant Reformers meant when they claimed to be truly Catholic. Perkins argues that the Reformation did not reject catholicity but restored it. He defines “Catholic” not as submission to Rome but as fidelity to the whole truth of Scripture, confessed by the universal church across time. By rooting catholicity in biblical doctrine rather than ecclesiastical authority, Perkins reframes the Reformed faith as historically continuous with the early church rather than a novel departure.
The heart of the book is Perkins’s careful distinction between fundamental doctrines necessary for salvation and secondary errors that, while serious, do not automatically sever someone from the church. This allows him to make a bold but nuanced claim. The Roman Church, he argues, still retains enough core Christian truth to be considered part of the visible church, yet it is dangerously corrupted by teachings that obscure the gospel, especially regarding justification and assurance. Perkins’s concern is not merely polemical but pastoral, aiming to help believers discern truth without collapsing into either sectarian pride or careless unity.
Throughout the work, Perkins calls readers to examine whether their faith rests on Christ alone or on external membership, rituals, or tradition. True catholicity, he insists, is proved by sound doctrine joined with repentance and obedience, not by institutional allegiance. For modern readers, A Reformed Catholic remains a clear and challenging guide to gospel-centered unity, reminding the church that faithfulness to Christ must always outweigh loyalty to labels, structures, or inherited assumptions.
A Reformed Catholic
Want to support our work? Please purchase the book on Amazon and leave a positive review.
Book Preview (In Modern English)
Preface
TO SIR WILLIAM BOWES, KNIGHT
Grace and peace.
Sir William,
I dedicate this work to you not only because of our long friendship, but also because you have consistently supported efforts to restore and preserve the Church in these difficult times. Your commitment to true religion and sound doctrine makes you the natural recipient of this discourse on the Reformed Catholic faith.
I am aware that some will criticize me for addressing these contentious matters publicly. Yet I believe the current state of religious controversy demands that thoughtful individuals speak clearly about what distinguishes genuine reformation from dangerous innovation. Too many voices on both sides have muddied the waters with rhetoric that serves factional interests rather than truth.
My purpose here is straightforward: to demonstrate that those of us who embrace the Reformed faith are not schismatics or radicals, but rather faithful Catholics in the truest sense of that word. We have not abandoned the ancient Church, but returned to it. We have not rejected legitimate authority, but refused to submit to corruptions that legitimate authority itself would condemn if freed from political pressure and institutional inertia.
I understand the objections. Critics will say that any break from established practice constitutes rebellion, that unity requires absolute submission to current ecclesiastical structures, and that questioning settled arrangements opens the door to chaos. These are serious charges, and I do not dismiss them lightly. But they rest on a fundamental confusion between the essence of Catholic faith and the accumulated traditions of recent centuries.
The early Church fathers, whose authority all parties claim to respect, knew nothing of many practices now deemed essential. They would not recognize the medieval developments that have been retrofitted onto apostolic Christianity as if they had always existed. When we strip away these additions and return to the foundations, we are not innovating but conserving. We are the true Catholics, maintaining what has been believed always, everywhere, and by all, while our opponents defend novelties that cannot pass this test.
I realize this argument will not convince those whose interests are served by the present system. Institutional momentum is a powerful force, and those who benefit from current arrangements will always find reasons to defend them. But I write for the honest inquirer who wants to understand why thoughtful, educated, and pious Christians have found it necessary to separate from a communion that has separated itself from apostolic truth.
You, Sir William, have demonstrated throughout your public service that you value principle over expedience. You have never been one to accept received wisdom without examination, nor to reject necessary reform out of mere habit or social pressure. It is in this spirit that I offer you this work, confident that you will evaluate its arguments on their merits rather than dismissing them because they challenge comfortable assumptions.
Right Worshipful, one of the devil's most effective strategies in our age has been to plant in many minds the idea that our religion and that of the present Roman Catholic Church are fundamentally the same, and that they can be reunited as people imagine they once were. Writings promoting this view circulate widely in French translation and receive more respect from English Protestants than they deserve or should. For however much people may invoke moderation and claim to pursue peace and the welfare of the universal Church, this union of the two religions can no more be achieved than the union of light and darkness. This becomes clear when we consider how the Roman church has undermined the foundation itself. Though they honor Christ in words, in practice they transform him into a false Christ, an idol of their own imagination. They call him their Lord, but only on condition that the Servant of Servants of this Lord may alter and add to his commandments, wielding such power that he can open and shut heaven to whomever he pleases and bind the very conscience with his own laws, thus becoming a partner in Christ's spiritual kingdom. They also call him a Savior, but only in relation to us: in that he grants us the grace to become our own saviors through our merits, and when our own merits fall short, we may draw on the merits of the Saints. They acknowledge that he died and suffered for us, but with the qualification that once the guilt is pardoned, we must still satisfy the temporal punishment either in this world or in Purgatory. In short, they make him our Mediator of Intercession before God, but at the same time, his Mother must be the Queen of heaven, commanding him there by a mother's right. Thus, while they cry Hosanna in word, in deed they crucify Christ. We therefore have every reason to bless God's name for freeing us from the yoke of this Roman bondage and bringing us to the true light and liberty of the gospel. It would be the height of ingratitude for us not to resist the present Church of Rome, but instead to submit ourselves to schemes of reconciliation. For this reason and purpose I have written this short treatise, which I present to your Worship, hoping it might serve as some token of a grateful heart for undeserved kindness. I ask as well not only for your worshipful protection (which is more common) but also for your learned protection, being fully confident that through skill and scholarship you are able to defend whatever I have truly taught. Thus wishing for you and yours the continuance and increase of faith and good conscience, I take my leave. Cambridge, June 28, 1597.
Your Worships in the Lord, William Perkins.
Introduction
By a Reformed Catholic, I mean anyone who accepts the same essential principles of religion as the Roman Church, yet strips away and rejects all doctrinal errors that have corrupted that religion. I have begun to explain how this might be done in this brief treatise. My purpose is to show how closely we can align with the present Church of Rome on various points of religion, and where we must forever disagree.
I have three aims in writing this short work. First, to refute those pragmatists who claim that our religion and that of the Roman Church differ only superficially, and that they could therefore be reconciled. Yet I do not mean to condemn any peace effort that seeks to persuade the Roman church toward our religion. Second, to win over those Roman Catholics who think so poorly of our religion. When they see how closely we align with them on various points, they may come to view it more favorably. Third, to help ordinary Protestants see and understand the points of difference between us and the Church of Rome, and to know in what manner and to what extent we reject the opinions of that Church.
I ask pardon for the order I have used in handling these various points. I have set them down one by one as they came to mind, without following any strict method. If any Roman Catholic claims that I have misrepresented their opinions, I answer that their books are readily available, and I can justify what I have said.
I ask your acceptance of this work, and I wish you an increase in knowledge and love of pure and sound religion. With that, I take my leave and conclude.
And I heard another voice from heaven say, Come out of her, my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and receive not of her plagues. - Revelation 18:4
In the previous chapter, Saint John describes at length the whore of Babylon as she appeared to him in a vision. In the sixteenth verse of that chapter, he predicts her destruction, and in the first three verses of this eighteenth chapter, he continues to prophesy that same destruction even more directly and plainly, offering arguments throughout the following verses to prove his point. Now in this fourth verse, he issues a warning to forewarn all the people of God so they may escape the judgment that will befall the whore. The passage contains two parts: a command and a reason. The command is "Come out of her my people," meaning from Babylon. The reason derives from the outcome: "that you not be partakers," and so on. Regarding the command, I will first investigate its true meaning and then draw out its practical application and the doctrine that flows from it.
In historical terms, three Babylons are mentioned: the first is Babylon of Assyria, standing on the river Euphrates, where the confusion of languages occurred and where the Jews were held in captivity. This Babylon is reproached in Scripture for idolatry and other iniquities. The second Babylon is in Egypt, standing on the river Nile, and is now called Cairo. Some think this is the Babylon mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13, though it is equally likely, and more commonly believed, that the reference is to Babylon of Assyria. The third Babylon is mystical, and Babylon of Assyria was a type and figure of it. This third Babylon is Rome, which is unquestionably the one meant here. The whore of Babylon, as can be gathered from all the surrounding circumstances, is the state or government of the people who inhabit Rome and belong to it.
This can be proved by the interpretation of the Holy Spirit himself. 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. Now 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 but Rome, which was then the seat where the Emperor exercised his imperial authority. Furthermore, in the seventh verse, she is said to sit on a beast having seven heads and ten horns, which seven heads are seven hills (verse 9) on which the woman sits, and they are also seven kings. Therefore, the whore of Babylon is a city standing on seven hills. Now it is well known, not only to learned men in the Church of God but even to pagans themselves, that Rome alone is the city built on seven distinct hills, called Caelius, Aventinus, Esquilinus, Tarpeius (or Capitolinus), Viminalis, Palatinus, and Quirinalis.
Papists, trying to help themselves, allege that old Rome stood on seven hills but has now moved further to the plain of Campus Martius. I answer that although the greatest part of the city, in terms of habitation, may no longer be on seven hills, it still is in terms of government and religious practice. Even to this day, certain churches and monasteries and other places where papal authority is exercised are seated on these hills. Thus Rome, considered as a state and government, stands on seven hills even now. And though it has come to pass that the harlot in her later days has changed her seat, she still sat on the seven hills during her youth when she was born and raised.
Others, fearing damage to their own position, labor to twist these words to another meaning and say that by the whore is meant the company of all wicked men in the world wherever they are, with the devil as their head. But this interpretation flatly contradicts 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 (as I have said), and therefore must be a state of people in some particular place. The Papists themselves, perceiving that this excuse will not serve their purpose, make two Romes: heathen Rome, and that of which the Pope is head. Now, they say, the whore spoken of is heathen Rome, which was ruled by cruel tyrants like Nero and Domitian and the rest, and that Rome of which the Pope is now head is not meant here. Behold a vain and foolish distinction. Ecclesiastical Rome, in respect to state, princely dominion, and cruelty in persecuting the saints of God, is identical with the heathen empire. The seat of the bishop has been turned into the emperor's court, as all histories make clear.
But let the distinction be as they suppose. Yet by their leave, here by the whore must be understood not only heathen Rome but also papal or ecclesiastical Rome. In verse 3 of this chapter, the Holy Spirit plainly says 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, by which 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. This cannot be understood of heathen Rome, for that left all the kings of the earth to their own religion and idolatry. Nor did they labor to bring foreign kings to worship their gods. Again, in chapter 18, verse 16, it is said that the ten horns, which are ten kings, will hate the whore and make her desolate and naked. This must not be understood of heathen Rome but of popish Rome. Whereas in former times all the kings of the earth submitted themselves to the whore, now they have begun to withdraw themselves and make her desolate, as the kings of Bohemia, Denmark, Germany, England, Scotland, and other parts have done. Therefore, this distinction is also frivolous.
They further allege that the whore of Babylon is drunk with the blood of the saints and martyrs (chapter 17:6) shed not in Rome but in Jerusalem, where the Lord was crucified, and where the two prophets, being slain, lie in the streets (Revelation 11:8). But this place is not meant of Jerusalem, as Jerome has fully taught. It may well be understood of Rome. Christ was crucified there either because the authority by which he was crucified came 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 that 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 its head, the Pope. This interpretation, besides the authority of the text itself, has the favor and defense of ancient and learned men.
Bernard says that 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, has 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 who came to the papacy by intrusion or usurpation. It is true indeed, but why was he a usurper? He renders a reason in the same place: because the Antipope called Innocentius was chosen by the kings of Germany, France, England, Scotland, Spain, and 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 Nicholas the second, in the year 1059, that the Pope will afterward be created by the suffrages 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 the Abbot says that Antichrist was long since born in Rome and will yet be advanced higher in the apostolic see. Petrarch says, "Once Rome, now Babylon." And Irenaeus, in book 5, the last chapter, said before all these that Antichrist should be Lateinus, a Roman.
This commandment refers less to physical separation in terms of living arrangements or physical presence, and more to spiritual separation in matters of faith and religion. The Holy Spirit is directing believers to leave the Roman Church with respect to judgment and doctrine, with respect to faith and the worship of God.
We can see, then, that these words contain a divine commandment, ordering God's Church and people to separate themselves from Babylon. From this I conclude that all who wish to be saved must depart and separate themselves from the faith and religion of the present-day Roman Church. When those who separate in this way are accused of schism, the truth is that they are not schismatics, because they have God's commandment as their authority. The real schismatic is the party in whom the cause of separation lies: that is, the Church of Rome, with its cup of abomination in the whore's hand, which represents their heretical and schismatic religion.
Regarding this duty of separation, I intend to speak extensively, focusing less on proving the duty itself (since the text makes it evident) and more on showing the manner and degree of separation that should be made. In doing so, 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 dissent and depart from them. For this purpose I will select certain points of religion and discuss them in as orderly a fashion as possible, showing in each case where we agree and where we differ. This is especially necessary because some constantly insist that a union could be made between our two religions, and that we differ not in substance but only in matters of circumstance.
Free Will
The first point I will begin with is the question of free will, though it is not the most important.
Where we agree
Both they and we understand free will as a combined power of the mind and will in human beings, allowing them to distinguish between good and evil and to choose or reject accordingly.
Conclusion #1: We must consider humanity in four distinct states: as created, as corrupted, as renewed, and as glorified. In the first state, we attribute to the human will a natural liberty by which one could choose or reject either good or evil. In the third state, we recognize a liberty of grace. In the final state, a liberty of glory. The only real question concerns the second state, yet even there we find agreement, as the following conclusions will demonstrate.
Conclusion #2: Free will operates primarily in human actions, which fall into three categories: natural, human, and spiritual. Natural actions are those we share with animals: eating, drinking, sleeping, hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting, and moving from one place to another. Regarding all these, we agree with the Catholics and maintain that humanity possesses free will. Even after Adam's fall, people freely perform any of these actions or similar ones through the natural power of the mind.
Conclusion #3: Human actions are those common to all people, both good and bad: the use of speech and reason, the practice of mechanical and professional skills, and the outward performance of civil and religious duties. These include attending church, speaking and preaching, extending one's hand to receive the sacrament, and listening to what is taught. We can also include here the external actions associated with civic virtues: justice, temperance, gentleness, and generosity. On this point we agree with the Roman Catholic Church. Experience shows that people possess a natural freedom of will to perform these actions or not. Paul writes in Romans 2:14 that the Gentiles who do not have the law nevertheless do what the law requires by nature—that is, through their natural capacities. He says of himself that before his conversion, as far as the righteousness of the law was concerned, he was blameless (Philippians 3:6). For this external obedience, those without grace receive rewards in temporal matters (Matthew 6:5, Ezekiel 29:19).
Yet several warnings must be kept in mind here:
First, in human actions the human will remains weak and feeble, while the understanding remains dim and clouded. As a result, people often fail in these actions. In all such cases I follow Augustine in understanding the human will as merely wounded or half dead.
Second, the human will remains subject to the will of God and must therefore be governed by it. As Jeremiah says in chapter 10, verse 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 category of actions involves spiritual matters that concern the heart and conscience more directly, and these actions fall into two types: they relate either to the kingdom of darkness or to the kingdom of God. Actions that involve the kingdom of darkness are properly called sins, and here we agree with the Catholics in teaching that human beings possess free will when it comes to sinful or evil actions. Some people may object that we sin necessarily, since anyone who sins cannot help but sin, and that free will and necessity are incompatible. It is true that forced necessity—compulsion—cannot coexist with free will. But another kind of necessity can indeed coexist with freedom of will: some actions can be both necessary and free. Consider a person locked in a prison cell: he must remain there and cannot possibly leave to walk wherever he wishes, yet he can still move about freely and walk within the confines of that cell. Similarly, although human will is naturally bound by the chains of sin and therefore cannot help but sin—and in that sense sins necessarily—it nevertheless sins freely.
Conclusion #5: The second category of spiritual actions concerns the kingdom of God: repentance, faith, the conversion of sinners, new obedience, and similar matters. Here too we partly agree with the Church of Rome. We acknowledge that in the initial conversion of a sinner, human free will works alongside divine grace as something of a collaborator. Three elements are necessary for a sinner's conversion: the word, God's spirit, and human will. Human will is not entirely passive but plays an active role in the soul's first conversion and transformation. When someone is converted, God does not work through force but converts the person willingly. At the precise moment of conversion, divine grace enables the person to desire that conversion. Augustine expressed this well: "He who made you without your help will not save you without your participation." It is certain that our will must be engaged for us to do any good thing properly, yet we do not possess this capacity through our own power. Rather, God creates the will to act within us. Consider this: at the exact moment God grants grace, He simultaneously creates within us the will to desire and embrace that grace. For instance, when God produces faith, He simultaneously works on the will, causing it to desire faith and willingly receive the gift of belief. God transforms an unwilling will into a willing one, because no one can receive grace completely against their will, since a coerced will is no will at all. We must remember, however, that while God's spirit working grace and humanity willing it occur simultaneously in time, there is an order of precedence: grace is worked first, and human will must first be moved and activated by grace before it can act, will, and move itself. This marks the final point of agreement between us and the Roman church regarding free will. We cannot proceed further with them.
The disagreement
The fundamental disagreement concerns the nature of human free will in spiritual matters relating to God's kingdom. Catholics claim that human will cooperates and works alongside divine grace in a sinner's initial conversion through its own inherent power, receiving only assistance from the Holy Spirit. We maintain that while human will does work with grace in conversion, it does not do so through any inherent capacity but solely through grace. To put it another way: they argue for a natural cooperation of the will. We reject this, insisting that cooperation occurs only through grace, since the will is inherently passive rather than active. It wills good only when moved by grace, which must first act upon it and set it in motion before it can act or will anything itself.
To clarify this difference more clearly, let me offer a comparison. The Roman Church illustrates a sinner's condition through the image of a prisoner, as do we. Notice the distinction. Rome imagines this prisoner bound hand and foot with chains and shackles, sick and weak, yet not entirely dead but partly alive. It assumes further that while he does not stir himself to seek help, he nevertheless possesses the ability and power to do so. According to this view, if the jailer comes and removes his restraints, takes him by the hand, and helps him up, the prisoner can and will stand, walk, and leave the prison on his own. In the same way, they say, a sinner lies bound hand and foot by the chains of his sins, yet he is not dead but merely sick, like the wounded traveler on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem. Therefore, although he does not currently will or desire what is good, if the Holy Spirit comes and simply loosens his bonds and extends the hand of grace, he can then stand on his own and choose his own salvation or any other good thing.
We likewise agree that a prisoner aptly represents the natural human condition, but the prisoner in question must be not merely sick and weak but absolutely dead. He cannot move even when the jailer removes his chains, cannot hear even when a trumpet blasts 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 merely chained and shackled in sins but stone dead within them, like a corpse rotting in the grave, possessing no ability or power to move or stir. Consequently, he cannot even desire or do anything truly good on his own. God must first come and place a new soul within him, the very spirit of grace to revive and quicken him. Only then, being thus revived, does the will begin to desire good things at the precise moment when God first infuses grace through his Spirit. This is the true difference between us and the Church of Rome on the question of free will.
Our Reasons
Now to confirm the doctrine we hold, namely, that a person does not will his own conversion by natural ability, either wholly or partially, but by grace wholly and alone, these reasons may be offered.
Reason #1: The first is drawn from the nature and extent of human corruption, which may be divided into two parts. The first is the absence of that original righteousness which existed in humanity at creation. The second is a proneness and inclination toward what is evil, and toward nothing that is truly good. This appears in Genesis 8:21. The frame of the human heart, the Lord says, is evil even from childhood: that is, the disposition of the understanding, will, affections, and all that the human heart devises, forms, or imagines, is wholly evil. And Paul says in Romans 8:5, "The wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God." These words carry great significance, for the word translated as "wisdom" signifies that the best thoughts, the best desires, affections, and efforts that exist in any natural person, even those that come closest to true holiness, are not only contrary to God but enmity itself. And from this I gather that the very heart itself, that is, the will and mind from which these desires and thoughts arise, is also enmity toward God. For as the action is, so is the faculty from which it proceeds. As the fruit is, so is the tree. As the branches are, so are the roots. Both these passages make clear that in humanity there is not only a lack, absence, or deprivation of original righteousness, but also a natural proneness toward what is evil, a proneness that includes an inclination not to some few sins, but to all and every sin, not even excepting the sin against the Holy Spirit. From this, therefore, I reason as follows:
If every person by nature both lacks original justice and is also prone to all evil, then that person lacks the natural free will to will what is truly good.
Every human being naturally lacks original justice and is inclined toward evil.
Therefore, every person naturally lacks the free will to choose what is truly good.
Reason #2: Corinthians 2:14 states that the natural man does not perceive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. In this passage Saint Paul establishes three points:
First, that a natural man does not even conceive of the things revealed in the Gospel.
Second, that when a person hears these things and grasps them intellectually, he still cannot consent to them or approve of them by natural judgment; instead, he considers them foolishness.
Third, that no one can assent to the things of God unless enlightened by the Spirit of God. From this I reason as follows:
1.) If a person by nature does not know and perceive the things of God, and when he does come to know them cannot by nature give assent to them, then he possesses no power to will them.
2.) The premise is clearly true. Therefore, the conclusion follows.
3.) The mind must first approve and give assent before the will can choose or desire anything. When the mind has no power to conceive or give assent, the will has no power to act.
Reason #3: The Holy Spirit declares in Ephesians 2:1 and Colossians 2:13 that all people by nature are dead in sins and trespasses. They are not, as the Papists claim, merely weak, sick, or half dead. From this I conclude that human beings lack not the basic capacity to will, but rather the capacity to will freely and genuinely toward what is truly good. A dead man in his grave cannot move even a finger, because he lacks the power of life, sensation, and motion itself. Similarly, a person who is dead in sin cannot will the slightest good. In fact, if he could either will or do any good, he could not be said to be dead in sin. Just as a dead man in the grave cannot rise except by the power of God, so too a person dead in sin cannot rise except by the power of God's grace alone, without any power of his own.
Reason #4:: When Scripture describes the conversion and salvation of a sinner, it attributes everything to God and nothing to human free will. John 3:3 states, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Ephesians 2:10 declares, "We are his workmanship CREATED in Christ Jesus to good works." And in chapter 4, verse 24, the new man is CREATED in the image of God. To be born again requires no less effort than our first creation, and therefore should be attributed wholly to God, just as our creation is.
True, Paul tells the Philippians in Philippians 2:12-13 to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. But he does not mean to suggest they possess the power to do good on their own. That is why in the very next verse he adds, "It is God that worketh both the will and the deed." This directly rules out any natural free will in spiritual matters. At the same time, Paul acknowledges that human will does play a role in doing good—not by nature, but by grace. When God gives someone the power to will good things, then that person can will them. When he gives someone the power to do good, then that person can do good and does do it. In other words, while human will does not naturally cooperate with God's Spirit during conversion, it does cooperate supernaturally through grace. Grace enables a person, at the moment of conversion, to will their own conversion. This is what Saint Paul means in 1 Corinthians 15:10 when he says, "I have labored in the faith." But to prevent anyone from imagining this was accomplished by natural power, he immediately adds, "yet not I"—that is, not I through anything inherent 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 writes: The will of the regenerate is kindled only by the Holy Spirit, so that they become able because they have the will to do so. And they have this will because God works in them to create it. He also states: We have lost our free will to love God through the magnitude of our sin. In his second sermon on the words of the Apostle, he declares: When humanity was created, it received great strength in its free will, but through sin it lost that strength.
Fulgentius teaches that God gives grace freely to the unworthy, whereby the wicked person, being justified, is enlightened with the gift of good will and with the capacity for doing good. Through mercy going before him, he may begin to will rightly, and through mercy following after, he may accomplish the good he wills.
Bernard says: It is wholly the grace of God that we are created, healed, and saved.
The Second Council of Orange, chapter six, declares: To believe and to will is given from above through infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
More testimonies and reasons could be presented to prove this conclusion, but these will suffice. Now let us examine what arguments are offered to the contrary.
Objections of the Papists
Objection #1: First, they argue that human beings naturally possess the capacity to do good, and therefore the will to do good follows: no one can perform an action without first willing and intending it. They claim that people can naturally perform good deeds such as giving to the poor, speaking truthfully, acting justly, and practicing other civic virtues, and therefore they possess the will to do good.
Answer: A person without grace can indeed perform good works if we consider only the external substance of the action, but not if we examine the quality of how that action is performed. These are two entirely different matters. Someone without supernatural grace can give to the poor, act justly, speak truthfully, and so on. These actions are good in themselves, considered as things God has commanded. But such a person cannot perform them well. To think good thoughts and to perform good deeds are natural capabilities. But to think good thoughts in a good manner, and to perform them well enough that God accepts the action, requires grace. Therefore, when a natural person without grace performs a good deed, that deed remains a sin in relation to the doer, because it lacks both the proper foundation (which consists of a pure heart, good conscience, and genuine faith) and the proper end (which is the glory of God).
Objection #2: God has commanded all people to believe and repent. Therefore, they must possess natural free will, through which (aided by the spirit of God) they can believe and repent.
Answer: His reasoning fails, because such commandments do not reveal what people are capable of doing, but rather what they should do and what they cannot do on their own. Moreover, the reasoning is poorly constructed. It should instead run as follows: Because God commands people to repent and believe, therefore they have the power to repent and believe, either through nature or through grace. Framed this way, we agree with them. For when God commands people in the Gospel to repent and believe, he simultaneously enables them through his grace both to desire and will to believe and repent, and to actually repent and believe.
Objection #3: If human beings have no free will to sin or not to sin, then no one should be punished for their sins, because they sin out of unavoidable necessity.
Answer: This reasoning fails. Even though human beings cannot help but sin, the fault remains their own, and therefore punishment is justified. Consider this parallel: a bankrupt person is not released from their debts simply because they lack the ability to pay them. The claims against them remain legally valid because the debt arose through their own failures.
Want to keep reading? Purchase the entire book on Amazon and support the work of updating old books.