and disposed by the motion of his will It implies that which I said and that such preparatory works are not excluded by every meaning of Justification by faith alone for it condemns him that saith a wicked man to be justified by faith alone so that he means there is none of these required II. These works or workings of the soul are preparatory and dispositive to Justification for there are many acts and motions of the will that go before desire fear love sorrow purposes which may be call'd Initials upon the ministry of the word the threatnings and the promises as before child-bearing many throws so in the travail of the soul for the second birth Faith it self rises by degrees of persuasions for there are divers acts and persuasions of faith till it come to that last act that believing with the whole heart immediately requisite to Justification Now faith in all those preparatory motions has the preeminence for it gives beginning to them for by the persuasions that faith has of those threats and promises in the Gospel Preeminence of faith in them and of all the truths of Christs performances and merits arise desires and fears sorrow love the motions of the heart or will and these Initials advance and gather strength according to the advance that faith has in its apprehensions and perswasions for this the Trent Council acknowledges Faith to be the beginning of mans salvation the foundation and root of Justification Chap. 8. this is well said in regard of faith's preeminence and efficacy in the preparatory works had they but given to it its due in the act of Justification that singular efficacy and property it has above all other graces in the apprehending and receiving of the meritorious cause of our Justification Christ and his righteousness Now let not any think these preparatory acts or workings to be without grace preventing as if a man did of himself and by the proper motion of his own will dispose himself to justification the Trent Council condemns such doctrine Can. 3. III. There are other acts and works also besides faith Conditions and qualifications in Justification which according to their measure are required in Justification as conditions of receiving remission of sins so repentance and the act of charity in forgiving others But Faith here also has the preeminence no other act or work of the soul having the capacity or efficacy to apprehend the meritorious cause and so notwithstanding that other workings of the soul as those of Repentance and Charity according to their measure be required as conditions of receiving the benefit Preeminence of faith which is remission of sins or as qualifications of the subject that receives it yet not as Instrument of receiving and apprehending the meritorious cause of justification and remission as faith is for which justification is specially ascribed to Faith IIII. As for that infused inherent Righteousness Inherent Righteousness which the Church of Rome laies so much upon in the point of our Justification seeing it is the Work of God as they acknowledge it is no proof of their doctrine of justification by works and they might forbear to make it the formal cause of our justification when we acknowledge the presence of it in and with justification as a necessary qualification of the person Justified A needless dispute it is what should be the formal cause of our Justification seeing the meritorious cause is acknowledged on both sides But if they will talk of a Formal cause it can be no other then Christs righteousness as imputed Formal Cause and by faith apprehended and made ours for that phrase of the Apostle he is made unto us righteousness 1 Cor. 1.30 and we made the righteousness of God in him sounds something to a formal cause not inherent but by way of imputation and account not that God imputes his righteousness as if we had done it but that for his righteousness performed for us he not only forgives sin to them that apprehend it duly by faith but accounts of them receives them as righteous Therefore instead of asking after the formal cause in us more proper it is to enquire according to the Apostles expression Ro. 4.13 it was counted to him for righteousnes v. 23. it shall be imputed to us what is that which is imputed to us for righteousness i. e. upon which being performed on our part God receives accounts of us as righteous We finde by the Apostle it is our believing for it was so with Abraham He believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness not the Tò Credere the very act of believing but more concretely considered with that which it apprehends the receiving of what is offered in the promise Christ and his righteousness V. Lastly as for those that are commonly call'd good works which being done in the state of grace are more perfect then the former such as were preparatory and dispositive to justification or according to their measure required in Justification as Conditional to the remission of sins given in it Those good works I say are the only works concerned in their doctrine of Justification by works yet is not the first justification by these works for they follow it Our Adversaries when put to it do grant it and draw the whole dispute as we see by this Author to that which they call the second Justification of which if they will make no more then as I hinted above their Council makes of it we might here sit down having the cause yeilded up to us but that they think themselves concerned to propound the doctrine in gross to the people Justified by works and in their disputes for it to confound the first and second Justification using places of Scripture which treat of the first or true and proper Justification as we shall see in examining of them This Author begins with S. James 2.24 which he brings as a confirmation of the Romish Position that Faith only does not Justify where it is our turn now to observe his mistakes Should we therefore demand what justification is this that S. James treats of first or second he must confess his impertinency for the Apostle here treats of the first the true and proper Justification and that both he and his Trent Council acknowledge most free and not by works now this Author acknowledges it is the same Justification which S. James and S. Paul treats of and its evident by S. James citing the same Scripture for his Justification v. 23. whic S. Paul does Rom. 4.3 Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness But it is plain that S. Paul every where treats of the first and proper Justification The other example also that S. James makes use of viz. of Rahab plainly speaks the first Justification And therefore this Author spending his whole discourse against that distinction of being Justified before God and before men to prove that S. James speaks
the first beast or Heathen Rome and I know not wherein one can be like the other more then in erecting a new kind of Idolatry or image-worship and in persecuting the gainsayers that will not receive the mark or worship the beast So that this Author and those of his communion may be concerned in this prophesie more then they are aware of I am sure they can have no advantage from hence for their image-worship I will but adde this one thing had this image-worship been used in Irenaeus his dayes and thought tending to Christs honour then would those Hereticks he speaks of who held our Saviour not to be the Son of the God of the Old Testament that made the world and gave the Law have had a fair plea for how should they think him his Son if allowing and taking it for honour what was so cautioned against and abominated by God in the old Testament and for which the Jews still do abominate Christian Religion viz. the use of images in religious worship It is a great piece of cunning in the Dragon or Devil to induce men to believe that this service of images and creatures so strictly forbidden by Moses Law is authorized by the Gospel allowed by Christ CHAP. IV. Of Justification by Works HAving set down the Trent decree against Justification by works before grace Merit of congruity and against the merit of them he challenges the 13. Article of our Church for charging the School-Authors with the merit of congruity in such works which he denies any of them to have held and is something passionate against the composers of the Articles pa. 138. and 139. But what need such anger here Seeing the Article determines the same truth as to this doctrine that the Trent decree doth it might have so far pacified him as to allow that parenthesis in the Article as the School-Authors say such a candid interpretation as it is capable of for it may refer to their expressing of the doctrine by that phrase of their invention deserve grace of congruity not to their holding of that doctrine for thus the words stand in the Article neither do they works done before grace make men meet to receive grace or as the School-Authors say deserve grace of congruity do but for say put in express or phrase it and you have that sense plainly But suppose the Article had directly said the School-Authors held that doctrine will Mr. Spencer hazard his credit and call it a great untruth and say none can be produced that held it It seems He is acquainted only with Thomists for though their Angelical Doctor did not approve it yet their Seraphical Bonaventure does not account it such an honour no more does Scotus and they were not without their followers Yea since the Council of Trent the two * Trigosius and Fr. Longus à Coriolano Commentators or Epitomizers of Bonaventure acknowledge it may be defended and do answer the objections from the Trent Decrees And as they say it may be defended and do defend it so I think to defend it is as little or less to Gods dishonour then their merit of condignity in works after grace which besides its own untruth is attended in that Church by more corruptions both of Error and Practice then the other is possibly capable of Of the seven Particulars which he draws out of the Trent Definitions pa. State of the question 142 143. he should have told us which he opposes to Protestant doctrine for not any one of them can be framed into a just Controversie Only he tells us that in the last chiefly consists the Roman doctrine of Justification by works pa. 143. See then what that last particular is and mark what this great noise they make of Justification by works comes to His last particular or collection out of the Trent decrees stands thus Being freely justified we may do good works and by them accepted through Christs merits become more and more just in the sight of God To fix it upon the second Justification is to yeild the Gause Wherein chiefly consists the Roman doctrine of Justification by works He might have added wherein we yeild up the cause to the Protestants for this is the second Justification as they call it and he knows unless he will grosly mistake that when we say justified by faith and not by works we mean their first Justification which indeed and properly is Justification and from which they themselves exclude works as the words above also do imply Being Justified we may do good works they follow Justification As for that which they make the second justification and is thus described by the Council of Trent Being therefore thus justified and made the friends of God there 's the first or true and proper justification going on from virtue to virtue they are renewed from day to day and using those armes of justice to sanctification you have Mr. Spencers words by the observance of the Commandments of God and the Church their faith co-operating with their good works they increase in the justice they have received and are justified more and more as it is written he who is just let him be justified still Revel 22. Now if this be their second Justification and they intend no more by it then is here expressed in the Trent decree viz. renovation day by day and yeilding up our members as weapons of righteousness to sanctification and increase in righteousness We have no cause to quarrel at the thing but only that they will call that Justification which indeed is Sanctification But if under this their Justification they intend also a meriting of remission by good works or a redeeming of sins done after grace by the merit of good works which neither the Council nor Mr. Spencer mentions but their earnest contending for Justification by works and some arguments their writers use for it too plainly shews they are concerned in it I say if they intend so and would speak it we would think our selves more concerned in the cause Now as Mr. Spencer thought good to premise seven collections he made out of their Council the better as he conceived to shew wherein the Roman doctrine of Justification by works did consist so I shall take leave before I come to examine his confused labour and impertinencies in the defence of that pretended doctrine to set down some particulars the better to shew wherein the true Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith doth consist I. Albeit good works do not justify but follow Justification Preparatory works to justification yet are there many works or workings of the soul required in and to justification what the Council of Trent saith Can. 9. pronouncing Anathema to him that shall say a wicked man to be justified by faith alone so that he mean there is nothing else required which may co-operate to the obtaining of the grace of Justification nor that it is necessary he be prepared
justified and in grace were concerned to acknowledge If God would be extreme to mark what is done amiss who could abide it or stand Psal 130. and to pray Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143.2 that is if thou in strict judgment wilt examine what he does The latter part of the verse is sometimes thus repeated by the Apostle No flesh can be justified Rom. 3.20 Gal. 2. v. 16. which word flesh Mr. Spencer vainly takes hold on as implying one not yet spiritual but carnal under the guilt of sin and corruption of nature So pa. 158. But David speaks it in relation to himself No man can be justified not thy servant by his own doings So that still upon the same reason no man under the Gospel can be justified in the sight of God by what he does because the Law convinces him of sin and to the same purpose it is said We make God a Liar if we say we have not sin 1 Io. 1.10 So that if God enter with him into judgment he cannot be justified if the Lord mark what is done amiss he cannot abide it What he saith to Gal. 2.16 as to the works of the Law is the same he said above to Rom. 3.28 and needs no farther reply But that which is the main exception and will ease us of farther trouble in this controversie is his limiting of the word Justify in those and the other places of S. Paul's Epistles acknowledging they speak every where of the first justification which is not by works So then the Protestant position as he calls it of justification by faith only stands good as they intend it by faith only i. e. not by works and this also shews their exception against the word only is needless and therefore the mistake he fastens on us pa. 148. groundless the word only being but exclusive to works which he and his Council exclude from the first justification Now for his Second Justification to which he retires from the force of all that S. Paul saith of justification Sanctification and increase of grace and righteousness it is not worth our contending about as to proper speech which controversies require for we acknowledge all that he or his Council speaks of this second justification to be done in sanctification and to be properly so called viz. the renovation and increase of that grace and sanctification received and that such increase is made by works or acting Philosophy teaches it is so in ordinary habits much more in these which have also the influence and assistance of Gods spirit for their increase But if he would have said any thing to purpose whereby this Increase of righteousness by works should seem to deserve to bear any sense of justification he should have resolved us as I noted above whether a man in grace may by good works merit the remission of his sin into which he is fall'n as David and as he granted pa. 142. that the first justification could not be merited by works so he should have told us plainly whether remission and restauration of a justified person after his fall which may be called in some sort a second justification can by any works of that person be merited They sometimes pretend to this when they urge Daniels saying to Nebuchadnezzar Redeem break off thy sins by righteousness c. 4.27 Where let the Translation go as they would have it by the word redeem yet must they confess this remission of sins to Nebuchadnezzar would have been the first justification and not to be acquired by works in like manner they must acknowledge their impertinency when by Luc. 7.47 for she loved much they endeavour to prove that her love was the cause of her forgiveness when this was her first justification But thus do they confound their first and second justification in their proofs of justification by works and being pressed by argument they retire for answer to their second Justification That which they cite out of Revel 22. justificetur adhuc let him be justified still is all the pretence they have for this second justification where we accord with them that by the justificetur is meant a progress and increase of righteousness but it s their mistake to make this which is sanctification to be justification which stands in remission of sins That part of the Trent decree which pretends to this justification by the increase of righteousness Exhibendo arma justitiae in Sanclificationem cap. 10 de justific saith by yeilding up our members weapons of righteousness unto sanctification and thereby confesseth it is sanctification rather then justification And therefore it is to little purpose that he saith pa. 154. If Protestants would conclude any thing against us they must produce a Text which saith good works of such as are justified already done by virtue of the grace of Christ do not justify that is augment and increase that righteousness already received and make us more just for we must tell them this is sanctification and no text of Scripture uses the word justify in that sense unless that place of Revel c. 22. be so translated and we need not fear it should be seeing the word there is to signify no more then a continuance in the state of justification or an increase of righteousness which we grant to good works yea we grant them more the increase of the favour of God if they will put that also into their second justification for the more good works a justified person doth the more he is accepted of God But such a person if he fall into sin as David did must come unto remission of sins Justification by Faith by the same way as he did in his first justification viz. by faith and repentance And albeit repentance has its works or workings and charity also in the first justification or remission of sins as Iona 3. ult God saw their works i. e. of repentance in turning from their evil way and our Saviour saw the works of repentance and love in Mary Magdalen Luc. 7. yet it is faith that properly justifies because they are required according to their measure as conditions present but it is faith from whose apprehensions the acts of repentance and charity do arise and take their advance its faith which has a proper efficacy in laying hold upon and bringing in its hand as it were the meritorious cause for justification and so that only and properly on our part said to justifie To conclude that other mistake which he would fasten on us Justifying Faith in regard of the word faith pa. 153. is needless we must understand saith he a faith vivificated informed animated by charity and other Christian virtues joyned with it The impropriety I may say absurdity of his speech in saying faith is informed and vivificated by charity and other vertues we noted * Nu. 6. above where he said it was vivificated
free promise and liberality Seeing then the matter stands clean otherwise between God and man as appears by the former concessions of free grace for the performance of free acceptation of it unto reward of free and liberal promise in appointing the reward the service or work cannot be truly meritorious And certainly these considerations did and still do cause diverse in the Church of Rome to decline this truly meritorious Against merit of condignity in goodworks or merit of Condignity as we may gather by the * Bel. l. 5. de justific c. 16. sect quod attinet Cardinal acknowledging it of Tho. Waldens And of P. Brugens who would have them call'd meritorious not ex condigno of condignity but ex gratia Dei tantum only of the grace of God which is the ancient notion of the word meriting as it signifies the obtaining of the reward through the grace and liberal promise of God and speaking of Durand he saith that the same arguments that fight against the Hereticks fought against his judgment in this point Bel. de Just l. 5. c. 17. sect Alâ—j contra Also of Scotus and other Schoolmen and of Viega that they held good works meritorious only ratione pacti in regard of Gods compact and promise not ratione operis for the worthof the work which falls in with the former so that the Cardinal finds only this difference between the Lutheran doctrine and theirs They hold good works verè bona non peccata truly good and not sins which the Lutherans did not That we grant them truly good and not sins was said above But this satisfies not the Cardinal and therefore chap. 18. endeavours to prove them meritorious ex condigno not only ratione promissionis because of the promise assuring the reward but ratione operis because of the worth of the work it self and fears not to affirm that God is made our Debtor Non sola pro missione sed etiam ex opere nostro Deus efficitur Debitor Bel. ibid cap. 18. not only by virtue of his promise but also by reasonof our work This I note to shew how the reason of verè mereri truly to merit does force from the Cardinal who strives to defend it such affirmations and from others who did not see how merit could be properly between God and man such concessions and yeilding up of the Cause For this being agreed according to former Concessions First What is required to make a work truly meritorious and then what man receives of Gods free grace to enable him for working and how man stands indebted to God the controversy is at an end all their proofs fall short as not ad idem to the point all our proofs from Scripture stand good against merit properly taken and the mistakes Mr. Spencer would fasten on us appear frivolous as we shall now see The first place he sets down as alledged by us is Rom. 8.18 The sufferings of t his present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory Nothing here saith he against merit Why so because Goodworks produce eternal life but not ex condigno as a grain of mustard-seed is not to be compared with the great bulk it bears yet it produces it so do sufferings the fair tree of life as Saint Paul 2 Cor. 4.17 This flourish of a similitude in transferring things Physical to Moral neither proves nor answers any thing Controversal Again it comes not home speaking only to the word Compared whereas the force is in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not worthy which in comparing things Moral as the work and the reward is mainly considerable so is here a great deal of difference between Physical or Natural productions and Moral For we grant that the small sufferings of this life may produce or work as S. Paul saith there in their way and measure a more exceeding and eternal weight of glory but if this Author will have it any thing to the reason of merit he must affirm that sufferings and good works do produce it veritate insitâ by their own virtue and worth as that seed doth the bulk which comes of it by its own inbred vertue The next place is Luc. 17.10 When ye have done all say Vnprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty The mistake here he imputes to us is because we will have merit excluded here Unprofitable servants in respect of God by this acknowledgment of doing but our duty and being unprofitable Why then saith he deserves a servant his Wages by doing his duty and nothing else pa. 169. Because duty of a servant does not exclude merit or desert for the servant is not bound to that duty antecedently or before his voluntary compact or Covenant with his Master as man stands bound to God Neither does the Master supply the Servant with life health ability these the servant brings with him and therefore may be said to merit or deserve his wages though his service was duty after covenant with his Master It is not so between God and Man For the acknowledgment of being Vnprofitable servants Who saith he can bring profit to God hence is only proved that God is no way beholden to us but we owe to him for all our good works this is good Catholick doctrine but contrary to what his Master the Cardinal saith as * Num. 2. above cited and directly overthrowing the vâ—re mereri the merit of works in any proper sense for if we owe to him for all our good works as we do because he enables us to do them by his grace how can we merit properly by those works at his hands therefore we are all to humble our selves before him and to acknowledge that all our merits are his gifts and the reward bestowed on them grounded on his free promise and acceptation of them for the merits of Christ so he pa. 169. This is good doctrine again but still contradictory to merit for if his gifts then not our merits if reward upon free promise and divine acceptation then are not our works truly meritorious of such reward Nor will such concessions which Truth and shame forces from you salve the matter whilst your doctrine delivered in Gross teaches to plead merit and to place confidence in it that is to be proud of your own works and to excuse it by saying Thou O Lord hast given me to be confident and think thus well of my doings Thou O Christ hast merited that I should merit That saying Our Merits are his Gifts though it be S. Augustines yet as used by you together with your other sayings do no more witness you humble in this point then the Pharisee was who said God I thank thee c. yet all the while was proud and conceited of what he had done and so returned unjustified nay he did not as we can gather adde the conceit of merit to his doings and therefore more justifiable then a Romanist
Justification will not continue I say till Faith does so engage the Soul it is not a believing with the whole heart not a Justifying Faith Chrys in Phil. c. 3. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As St. Chrysostom who often attributes the whole to Faith alone requires it should be a working Faith as where he saith Faith ought not to be simply by it self or alone and then shews how our willingness to suffer and in like manner our well doing is from faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our fellowship with him in sufferings is from faith for he that believes he shall reign with Christ will be willing to suffer I need not trouble the Reader here with the Particular sentences of the Fathers using that expression of Sola Fides Faith only The Cardinal has recited many Bell. de Justificat l. 1. c. 25. and undertakes to answer them Well he acknowledges the Testimonies and for his Answers they come to this That Faith only is set against the works of Moses Law It is true that it is sometimes so but we must not think that the Apostle or Fathers denying Justification to be sought or had by the works of the Law do therefore admit our works under Grace to serve in the stead of the other for our Justification but do rather imply that no men Iew or Christian can be justified by doing what they are bound to do by the Law or Commandement under which they are as * Chap. IV. p. 102 103. above was shewen more amply Another of the Cardinals Answers is That faith only excludes the outward work only as in the sentences there cited out of Origen and Chrys but not Repentance and Charity How it does not exclude Repentance and Charity we said hard above i. e. it admits them as Conditions of Remission but not to that condition or Causality rather which the Church of Rome advances Charity to in the work of our Justification which is not a little to the prejudice of the imputed Righteousness and of that singular act of Faith for which it s said we are Iustified by faith only But when the Cardinal tels us those Fathers said by faith only because the outward work was wanting not to exclude Repentance and Charity he should have told us whether he meant charity in habit only or as sending forth its elicit Acts and inwardly working I suppose he will think it as great an absurdity to attribute Justification to a bare not working Habit as to a bare and not working faith which they falsly reproach us with and then he should have remembred he made Habitual inherent Righteousness the Formal Causs of Justification excluding the Actual that is charity as it is acting inwardly or outwardly for this it must come to A third sort of Answer the Cardinal and generally they of the Church of Rome have for Testimonies of Fathers which by Faith only exclude all righteousness in our selves and cannot be shuffled off by saying they exclude thereby all righteousness of Works before Grace or done by power of our Free-wil without Grace then to say all righteousness in us is excluded and sometime denied as of our selves because so we have none but of the gift of God This is in it self a great Truth but makes no apposite answer to Faith only which we have not of our selves any more then we have other Graces and which is the gift of God as much as they When Chrysost saith upon that of the Apostle Rom. 5.2 Chrys in Ro. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have by Faith access into this Grace of Justification reconciliation and peace with God We brought nothing with us but faith only and when Oecumenius upon Rom. 3.24 Oecumen in Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith likewise bringing with us Faith only to our Justification it cannot be answered we brought nothing else of our selves for neither did we bring Faith of our selves to our Justification seeing therefore we do bring besides Faith some things else as above granted they may have their place either as preparatives and dispositions to our Justification or as requisite conditions to the Remission that is in our Justification or as fitting qualifications of the subject or person justified yet Faith we bring as that which has a singular property and efficacy for the receiving this great benefit of Justification for which it may be said Fide Sola by Faith only And this we are taught to say both by Fathers and Scripture that so we may attribute the more to Christs merit and righteousness which Faith apprehends and the more lessen or take off from any righteousness in our selves We may shut up this discourse with that saying of Theophylact which the Cardinal cites as objected by the Protestants Fides sola habet in se Iustificandi virtutem ex Theo. phyl in Ep. ad Gal. cap. 3. Faith only has the power in its self of Iustifying cannot be answered as the Cardinal would have it Faith only is said to have that power because there is nothing can justifie without Faith for so there are other things without which there can be no justification but among all those things or Graces Faith only can be said properly to Justifie And now for Iustification by works Not justification by Works in the prime sense it is in vain to put it to the trial of Antiquity For as we may observe the Cardinal though he concludes his 4. Book of Justification with this Question and pretends several places of Scripture to prove good works do Justifie yet has he nothing from Antiquity for it Indeed the Fathers did not know the Romish second Justification to which the Romanists when they are forced to speak distinctly do restrain their Justifying works acknowledging all good works follow Justification in the first and proper sense and that this second Justification is but increase in righteousness as * Chap. IV. nu 2. above shewed We grant and so will the Fathers Vide ch IV. nu 8.105 106 107. that we are of duty to encrease in righteousness and that our often actings or doing good works do augment the inhaerent Righteousness and that the more we do good works the more Favour we have with God the more acceptable are we to Him but there are two words we have cause to reject Merit Iustification That good Works cause an encrease of the habit and do obtain additional grace we grant but if they will stand upon the word Merit properly taken we shall see in the next Section Our good works cannot properly merit Also we see no reason why this should be call'd Justification to make a confusion in this Doctrine of so great concernment Mans Justification before God and to deceive people when they have the doctrine of Justification by Works barely delivered unto them If the Romanists would allow what they ought to the Application of Christs merit and righteousness and give
in justice rewards that he renders or restores so he will have the importance of it p. 173. as if due before that the reward is a Crown of justice so he will have it that is saith he a true reward or price gotten by labour Which appears saith he by 1 Cor. 9.24 our running for it and by 2 Cor. 4.17 by afflictions working for us an eternal glory whence he gathers if they work a Crown of glory then are they a true cause of it which cannot be but by merit pa. 173. then to shew they are worthy of eternal life he cites Revel 3.4 for they are worthy adding Heb. 6.9 for God is not unrighteous to forget your work which must imply the same as the righteous judge will render 2 Tim. 4.8 If he will stand strictly on these words according to the reason of true merit he overthrows his former true concessions of free grace promise acceptation which also gives us the true meaning of these words or expressions not such as he would draw out of them For the free grace which he and his Council yeilds is given us for performance of the work that is of that fighting and running and then cannot merit truly what follows on it in the way of reward also that free and liberal promise of the reward in performing of which God is just and righteous to render the reward the Crown of righteousness will not suffer good works either to challenge the reward of Gods justice as due to the worth of the work or to be true causes of eternal life by way of merit they have their work and causality in their way or measure Non causa regnandi sed via Regni They are not the cause of reigning but the way of or to the kingdome saith a Father Conditions of obtaining the promise not true Causes in the way of meriting it we may adde 1 Jo. 1.9 where God is said to be just in forgiving our sins in regard of his promise of it to them that perform the condition of it confessing their sins Lastly that divine acceptation which Mr. Spencer and his Council do yeild is that by which they are accounted worthy Rev. 3.4 And we may note that when the Scripture saith not worthy as Rom. 8. How said to be worthy v. 18. and in other places saith are worthy the Negative must be taken properly as to true value and worth the affirmative must be understood in some respect are worthy as to Gods account and gracious acceptation Also note that the Scripture saith not worthy of our doings or sufferings to shew they are so if examined compared with the reward but saith Worthy of the Persons which argues its divine acceptation that makes them so and then accepts their works also to the rewarding of them though imperfect and unanswerable to it See what this Author acknowledges pa. 175. All their merits are his gifts as S. August saith and rewarded through the free acceptation of them through the merits of Christ To the Protestant argument of the Saints ever ready to acknowledge their unworthiness The best acknowledg unworthiness he answers that by this cannot be understood that no just man hath any works truly good and pleasing to God pa. 175. Neither do we understand or prove by unworthiness that they have no good works but no merit in proper sense So to Ps 130.3 If thou Lord wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss who may abide it This proves not saith he that no Saint has any good works or merits for they do many things amiss yet through the grace of Christ may do somethings aright pa. 177. Good works and merits go for the same with this Author which is his perpetual mistake and that which he grants they do some things amiss some things aright shews good works may be where no merit is i. e. where many things are done amiss Merit cannot be where there is still need of pardon where there is still need to beg Lord enter not into judgment with thy servant Psal 143.2 that is that God would not deal with him in extremity of judgment or as he deserves How then can any just person that needs divine acceptation for mercy and pardon of many things amiss in him and again needs divine acceptation for his good works that they may be rewarded notwithstanding they are accompanied with many things done amiss and are in themselves imperfect how can such a person by his works be said truly or in any proper sense to merit the reward of eternal life There is a saying of S. Augustine Multum nobis in hac carne tribueremus si non usque ad ejus depofitionem sub venia viveremus We should attribute too much to our selves in this flesh or time of this life if we did not live under Pardon to the very deposition of it or to the end of our life So then to conclude as S. Augustine said our merits are Gods gifts which excludes merit à parte ante in the original of our works because done by Gods free grace or gift so was it a saying of an ancient Father my merit is the mercy of God which excluds merit à parte post in the end when our works are admitted to the reward because that is done through Gods mercifull acceptation CHAP. VI. Purgatory OF the fower particulars which Mr. Spencer notes out of the Trent Council The unreasonableness of Romish Purgatory three of them speak their own unreasonableness and carry their condemnation in their forehead 1. That just persons after they have as they hold merited heaven at Gods hand by their justice and died acceptable to him should go to a Purgatory to be tormented 2. That the mercifull God after the Remission of their sin after he had forgiven them for the all-sufficient satisfaction of his Son should exact of them such extreme satisfaction or punishment and that only for some remainder of temporal pains not satisfied or born in this life when as that punishment exceedingly goes beyond all that can be suffered in this life though never so long 3. That the Church of Rome forbidding all temporal gain to be made of this doctrine of Purgatory should notwithstanding suffer it daily to be done where the poor must be content with the general suffrages of the Church but the Rich that dy and can pay for it have many particular Masses Indulgences in order to their ease or delivery The places of Scripture here brought in the sense of which he will have us mistaken are such as are intended for comfort against sufferings in this life and against dissolution or death by the bettering of their estate but this doctrine makes all these miserable comforts and his answers miserable not only mistakes but wrestings of Scripture The first place is Revel 14. Blessed are the Dead who dy in the Lord that they may rest from their labours and their works follow them or
Ps 96. By such expressions St. Aug. truly speaks the inhaerent righteousness given us of God and when he cals this Justifying a sinner he uses the word Justifie according to the Latin origination and importance of it for thereby a man is made truly righteous by that grace received righteous I say for its measure and proportion not to exclude Justification by an imputed righteousness through faith which is the primer and more proper meaning of the word Iustifie If therefore we finde St. August acknowledge another Righteousness and Iustification differing from that which he seems to ascribe to Inhaerent Righteousness then have we our intent and purpose and the Cardinal is impertinent in his allegations out of St. Aug. as also in those other which he pretends from other Fathers which we may let passe as speaking but the being of Inhaerent righteousness not proving justification by it Ambr. in Hexam l. 6. c. 8. Justitia unde justificatio derivata est in any proper sense as for example St. Ambrose who is one of those Fathers cited by the Card. speaks of it according to the Grammatical origination of the word Justice saith he from whence Instification is derived Now for St. Aug. his allowing of the imputed righteousness and our Justification by it Aug. Enchir. cap. 41. Ipse ergo peecatum ut nos justitia nec nostra sed Dei simus nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis constitutum See his Enchirid where he thus explains that of the Apost 2 Cor. 5. ult He therefore was made sin that we might be righteousness and that not ours but of God and not in our selves but in him even as he was Sin not his own but ours and not in himself but in us This admits none of their exceptions as that we are made righteous in him because we have our righteousness by his Merit and the righteousness of God because we have it of his gift and by the infusion of his Grace This is all they can say and this though true of our inhaerent righteousness yet comes not home to the purpose of St Augustine who saith plainly As our Sauiour was made Sin not in himself but in us and manifestly acknowledges we are so also made righteousness in him that is righteousness is imputed to us See also how this is asserted by the Greek Fathers Chrys on that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1.30 He doth not say he hath made us wise and just and holy but he is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification which is as if he had said He hath given himself unto us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And upon that of 2 Cor. 5. ult Made him sin for us the same Father thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in locum He suffered him to be condemned as a sinner And here also he observes as above The Apostle did not say we are made righteous but righteousness and that of God for it is the righteousness of God when it is not of Works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that we are justified by the Grace of God and he gives this as a reason of the need we have of such a righteousness because there must be found no blot or stain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he observes the Apostle said not made him a sinner but sin for he named not the habit as if sin had been inhaerent in him but the bare quality as in the Abstract 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in locum Which shewes that when he said righteousness rather then righteous there is a righteousness made ours beside the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or inhaerent quality With Chrysostom agree Oecumenius and Theophylact upon the places cited So St. Cyril Glaphyr 5. cap. ult Cyril sets out our Saviour under the name of Iosedeck which signifies the righteousness of God because we are justified in him through the mercy of God and unto this he applies that of Ierem. 23.6 The Lord our Righteousness Oecumenius upon Psal Oecum in Phil 3. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3.9 not having my own righteousness but the righteousness which is of God by faith gives us a distinction of Righteousness not properly or properly taken That is our Righteousness or the righteousness of Works This is the Righteousness which is by Grace and the faith of Christ And needful it is in this Question and the Testimonies of Fathers concerned in it to hold to the Justification properly taken To this imputed righteousness belongs that of the ancient Father Iustin Martyr Justin ad Diogen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What thing else can cover our sins but his righteousness and that which he adds to be justified in him only Which is a stronger expression then to be justifiedby him and then he cries out O sweet and happy exchange wherein that because as the Apostle He made sin for us we righteousness in him or as Iustin subjoyns because one mans righteousness justifies many unrighteous men To this also belongs what Chrysost hath who with reference to Isa 43.26 that thou mayst be justified Chrys homil 3. de poenitenti◠Eximens poenae donat justitiam facit enim peccatorem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus expresseth himself as to this point Freeing us from punishment he gives righteousness for he makes a sinner to be alike or in the like condition to him that had not sinned which must needs be by not imputing sin and imputing righteousness upon his faith and repentance This imputing of Righteousness to him that believes will also appear by the Fathers using the expression of sola fide by faith only There is scarce any Father but so expresses himself I promised at the beginning to speak something of Faith only and of Works Of Sola Fides in this point of Justification as to that which Antiquity yields unto them in the business of our Justification What this Faith is which justifies was sufficiently debated * Chap. IV. nu 3 4 9. above and also why and in what respect Faith alone is said to justifie The expression is exclusive yet did not as appeared above in the fourth chapter exclude the praeparatory workings of the soul dispositive to Justification did not exclude Repentance and charity but admitted them as conditions to Remission did not exclude inhaerent Righteousness but only from being the formal cause of Justification properly taken else it was admitted as a Concomitant and necessary qualification of the subject or person justified Lastly it did not so exclude good works as if justifying faith could be without them but did infer them as necessary consequents engaging the soul to do them and till so it is not a believing to justification and unless it continue so doing that is still to engage the Soul to well doing or good works the state of
Faith its due which apprehends that righteousness and be content that inhaerent Righteousness should hold its due place there would be little cause of Controversie in this great point of Christian Doctrine I will conclude with the Cardinals answer to a saying of holy Bernard upon the Canticles * Bern. in Cantic Christus nobis justitia in dulgentia Dei nostra justitia Christ is our righteousness because he justifies us from our sins and the Indulgence of God is our righteousness By Indulgence and Remission saith the * Cardinal he understands full and compleat Justification Bel. de Iustif l. 2. c. 13. Nomine Indulgentiae Remissionis intelligit plenam Iustificationem quoniam ut saepè diximus nunquam remittitur culâ—a quin simul because as we have often said the sin is never remitted but righteousness is together with it insused And so say we But the righteousnes which Bernard cals Indulgence is not the Infused but the righteousness of Justification for where sin is not imputed there righteousness is imputed as * Nu. 4. above shewen out of Rom. 4.6 7. and this is indeed Divine Indulgence But still we acknowledge that continuance in the state of Justification is by good Works or continuance in wel-doing SECT V. Of Merit of good works IT was observed above Chap. V. nu 1. that the Council of Trent had desined Explication of the Question and the Reason of Merit properly taken Good works do truly merit eternal life but did not tell us plainly wherein the Reason of Merit truly so called doth stand only it gives us certain acknowledgements of Gods bounty promise and grace which are so far from being the grounds of Merit as Mr. Spencer there cals them that they do by necessary consequence overthrow it The Question therefore being about Merit truly so called it will be first necessary to see into that for the clearing of it will plainly shew the impertinency of what they alledge out of Scripture or Fathers for their works truly Meritorious We spoke something to this purpose in the V. Chap. as Mr. Spencer gave occasion We may further observe that They who hold up the Controversie for the moderate sort in the Church of Rome do let it fall use three Adverbials which speak the meaning of that Vere merentur or truly meritorious and they are simplicitèr propriè ex condigno simply properly and condignly meritorious as we see in their * Bel. 5. de Iustif c. 16. Vasq in 1.2 Tho. disp 213. c. 4. two great Champions for Merit The word Simply is alwaies exclusive of that which is so or so according to some respect only Now the respect here considerable and to be inquired into has regard to Gods promise bounty and acceptation whereby good works say we obtain so great a reward The Asserters of Merit will not say that their simply meritorious does exclude the Promise or all respect unto it but lay the Promise as a ground-work of their merit The word Merit sounds two things The better to understand this mystery we must consider that the word to merit sounds two things obtaining and deserving the first stands by the promise but the second which carries the reason of merit stands by the worth of the work The Cardinal and his fellowes must say that if God had not made the promise and of his gracious bounty appointed such a reward the best service of man could not have obtained it or brought him to eternal life but they will also say that such service would by the worth of the work and labour have deserved the reward See to this purpose what the Cardinal putting the queston of works condignly meritorious delivereth Bell. l. 5. de Justif c 17. Meritoria ex condigno ratione Pacti tantùm vel operis tantùm vel ratione utrâ—usque This may saith he be three waies varied or considered that works be called condignly meritorious In regard of the Covenant or promise only or in regard of the work only or in regard of both Opus multò inferius mercede promissâ In the first he supposeth the work or service far inferiour to the reward promised as if a hundred Crowns should be promised for one daies labour in the Vineyard Opus revera aequale mercedi Opus verè par mercedi In the second he supposeth the work equal to the reward but no covenant or promise intervening In the third he supposeth the work truly equal to the reward set out in the Covenant or promise and the example of this he makes the penny given to the Labourers in the vineyard Mat. 20. And this third way he declares for that Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of both the promise and the work it self Whereas it is plain that the promise makes but way for the Consecution or obtaining of the reward and is requisite to make works meritorious only according to the first and less proper importance of the word meriting for obtaining but as for deserving of the reward wherein the reason of Merit properly stands that is laid upon the worth of the work which is supposed as we see to be truly equal to the Reward promised Vasquez usually more free and open then the Cardinal plainly professeth and mamtains †Vasquez in Tho. 1.2 disp 214. c. 5. that good works without any promise or divine acceptation are condignly meritorious of eternal life and have of themselves a value or worth equal to it For he saw that the pretence of the Covenant or promise or divine acceptation was no ground but a prejudice to the reason of Merit truly so called and therefore a little after sets himself to prove Vesq c. 8. nullo msdâ— pertinere ad rationem meriti that the Covenant or promise does not at all belong to the reason of Merit and makes this his argument for the condign meriting of Good Works Sin saith he deserves a punishment equal to it without all Covenant or Commination therefore also the works of the Just do condignly merit the eternal Crown of glory Vasq ibid. cap. 10. absque ullo pacto vel comminatione without all Covenant or promise * siqui dem hoâ— praetrâ—â— aequale est for this reward is equal to the worth of the work without the promise But this is thwarted by the Bull of Pius V. and Greg. XIII two Popes condemning certain Propositions of which this is one Vasq ibid. cap. 13. â— Even as the evil of sin in its own nature deserves eternal death so a good work of its own nature deserves or merits eternal life What else did Vasquez say but he strives to clear himself by pretending this difference between his Assertion and the condemned Proposition that the Author of those Propositions held good works without Grace were so meritorious which Vasquez does not Now whether Jesuites little regard what their Popes define in their Bulls being
seeing the Apostle saith The sufferings of this life are not worthy Rom. 8.18 Anselm saith If a man should serve God most fervently for the space of a thousand years Amselm de mensur Crucis prope medium Non mereretur ex condigno dimidiam diem esse in regne coelorum he would not merit condignly to be half a day in the kingdome of heaven so great a disproportion did he conceive there was between our performances and the heavenly reward Lastly Bernard on the Canticles It may suffice for Merit to know Bern. in Cant. Serm. 68. Sufficit ad meritum scire quod non sufficiant Merita that our Merits are not sufficient for such a reward and bliss besides many other sayings he hath in those Sermons to beat down Merit as also in his Sermons on the Annunciation the place above cited Nu. 6. where among other Reasons that may be gathered this from the improportion of our good works to so great a glory is one The whole School agrees in this that to merit is an act of justice and justice alwaies requires an equality between the things which are awarded one for the other as between the price and the thing bought between the offence and the punishment between the work and the reward And though the Assertors of merit as it stands between God and man cannot finde the Reason of Justice either commutative or distributive properly between them Dur. l. 2. dist 27. qu. 2. nu 6 yet Durand holds them to it if they will have good works condignly meritorious of eternal life in proper speech and sense they must finde such an equality and proportion between Mans service and Gods reward as Justice in a proper sense requires To make up some proportion between them it was Aquinas his invention and is held to by all the Assertors of Merit for they have no better defence then to say Good works are proportionable to eternal life Quatenùs à spiritu San cto fiunt in as much as they proceed or are done by the Holy Ghost But this could not blinde Durands eyes Dur. quo suprà nu 8 9. who answers it with good reason The force of that invention he thus puts by way of objection or Doubt The grace of Gods Spirit which we have Etsi non actu est tamen aequalis â—n virtute Seminarium quoddam gloriae Semen autem in virtute est tota Arbor is equal to glory though not in act yet in vertue because it is a kinde of Seminary of glory Now the Seed of a Tree is in vertue the whole Tree Which was the reasoning of Mr. Spencer above in Chap. V. nu 4. Durand answers first to that of their proceeding from the Spirit of God An Agent saith he Agens non perficit passum secundum seipsum sed secundum aliquid immissum doth not perfect the patient according to it self or its own perfection but according to that which is put into or impressed and formally exists in the act or the power of the subject that is although the Holy Ghost be of infinite perfection yet the grace or gift infused or impressed is finite and imperfect in it self Indeed the Master of the School who did not distinguish the gift of Charity from the Holy Ghost it self could he have made it good might have stood upon the extraordinary perfection of that Gift But all that followed him quitted that erroneous opinion and the Assertors of Merit not able to defend that opinion can as little defend the answerable proportion they say good works have to eternal life because they proceed from the Holy Ghost Durand adds another reason to confute them because the Holy Ghost * Movet ad actus qui non sunt meritorii ibid. moveth to acts which are not meritorious as the prophesying of Balaam and Saul So the many gifts which St. Paul speaks of 1 Cor. 12. were all from the Holy Ghost though such as the School cals Graces given gratis Gratia gratis datae or not to the purpose of justification or Merit yet all proceeding from the same Spirit I will conclude with the Concessions of those that assert Merit truly so called Concessions The Council * of Trent thus Eternal life is to be propounded to them that do well Sess 6. c. 16. tanquam Gratia filiis misericorditèr promissa tanquam Merces ex ipsius Dei promissione fideliter reddenda both as a Grace mercifully promised through Jesus Christ to children and as a reward faithfully to be rendred through the promise of God to their good Works and Merits If they would hold here there would be no further Controversie and if they will give cause still for exception by adding for all this that good works do truly merit yet is that decree of the Council enough to refute it tanquam Caput in membra jugitèr virtutem influit Semper antecedit comitatur subsequitur Grata meritoria Verè promeruisse Moreover in the same Chapter the Council affirms Christ infuses virtue continually into Persons justified as the Head into the Members which virtue alwaies precedes and accompanies and followes their good works and without which they could not be acceptable to God This is good but inconsistent with that which follows and meritorious and that such do truly merit eternal life for therefore those works though acceptable to God cannot be also meritorious because they are so from his free grace The Cardinal Bel. l. 5. de Just c. 16 17 18. that stoutly takes upon him to maintain against so many honest Schoolmen and Writers that went before him That good works are Condignly and truly meritorious not only by reason of the promise of God but by reason of their own worth and that God is made Debter to us not only by his promise but by our work He I say had before granted enough to overthrow such bold Assertions Bel. l. 5. de Justif c. 12. For he proves a man must be received into the state of Adoption before he can Merit and that is an Act of free Grace also that life eternal is due to such children as an Inheritance which Title overthrows the other pretended Title of Merit For albeit Almighty God has freely prepared the heavenly inheritance yet he will have us do something for it upon the doing whereof we may expect and shall obtain what he has so freely prepared and faithfully promised without challenging it by the Title of Merit Furthermore He tels us Bel. c. 14. the Doctor whom Pius V. condemned and of whom we spoke at the beginning of this Sect. meritoria ex sua natura held that good works were of themselves meritorious so that a Convention or free promise was not requisite for this gratuita promissio ad hoc ut ex justitia debeatur that the reward of eternal life should be in justice due to good works