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
utramque attingimus por fidem and saith we attain to both sorts of Righteousness by faith Then he puts the question Vpon which of these righteousnesses we ought to relye or hold our selves justified before God and accounted righteous He concludes Justitiâ Christi nobis donatâ non autem Sanctitate gratiâ nobis inhaerente ibid. it must be upon the righteousness of Christ given us not upon the Sanctity or Grace inherent in us and adds the Reason Inchoata imperfecta quae tueri nos non potest quin in multis offendamus assidue peccemus because that which is in us is but inchoate and imperfect which cannot keep us from offending often Idcircò in conspectu Dei non possumus ob hanc Est vera perfecia justitia quaeomnino placet oculis Dei in qua nihil est quod Deum offendit and sinning daily and therefore have daily need to say Forgive us our Debts therefore we cannot be accounted just in the sight of God for this our righteousness but the righteousness of Christ given to us is the only true and perfect righteousness which is altogether pleasing in the eyes of God and in which there is nothing that offends him Unto this the same Author applies Phil. 3.9 Not having mine own righteousness but the Righteousness which is through Faith He gives us withall a good lesson It is found by experience saith he that holy men * quantò magis in sanclitate proficiunt tanto minùs sibi placere tanto magìs intelligunt se indigere Christo justitia Christi sibi donata ideóque se relinquunt soli Christo incumbunt Contar. ibid. the more they advance in Sanctity the less are they pleasing to themselves and the more do they understand how they stand in need of Christ and his Righteousness given unto them therefore they forsake themselves and relie upon Christ only He answers also to some places of Scripture objected as that the Psalmist saith often Judge me O Lord according to my righteousness and the Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness for I have kept the waies of the Lord Ps 18.20 21. If David had said and meant this so it à ut putasset se propterea justificatum esse coram Deo as to think himself therefore justified before God he had spoken as arrogantly as the Pharisee Luc. Scd essent mera mendacia 18. Nay he had spoken mere lies All this was spoken in regard of his Enemies especially Saul and Absalom of whom he had deserved well and not in regard of his righteousness before God Also to that place of Deut. 6.25 It shall be our righteousness if we observe all these Commandments he answers * Justitia nostra Legalis est custedire omniâ— sed quia nullus servet omnia praecepta Legis ergò sub maledicto omnes ideoque omnes indigemus Christo Our legal righteousness is to observe all but because there is none that keeps all the precepts of the Law therefore all lye under the curse or condemnation and all stand in need of Christ and his righteousness Thus that Cardinal was convinced of the Truth of the Protestant Doctrine in this point or question between imputed and inhaerent righteousness acknowledging the imperfection of the Inhaerent as to its effect of Justifying and that the imputed was to be relied on We might to these add what the Colen Divines in their Antididagma Antidida gma Tit. Justific or book opposed to the reformation endeavoured by Hermannus the Archbishop do acknowledge speaking of the Causes of Justification Nobis imputatur ad justitiam dum fide apprehenditur That the righteousness of Christ as it is apprehended by Faith is imputed to us for righteousness and more to like purpose Hitherto we have shewen by the foregoing witnesses that this Romish Doctrine of inhaerent Righteousness has not been Catholick within that Church not so generally held among themselves as they pretend It is now time to look higher and briesily examine what they bring from Scripture and Antiquity to make it seem according to Vincentius Rule Catholick Romanists destiture of Scripture in this point And by this trial it will still appear less worthy of that name The Cardinal brings * Bell. l. 2. de Justif c. 3. eight places of Scripture for justification by inhaerent righteousness Which might all be answered with this one exception They may prove that there is an inhaerent righteousness but not that there is Justification by it To instance in the chief of them His first place is Rom. 5.19 Made sinners really inhaerently We grant it true and answerably made righteous by Christ but were we made sinners only so by Adams disobedience were we not also made so by imputation the Cardinal himself acknowledges it Bell. de Aâ— miss gâ—a l. 5. c. 17. sect itaque and then are we not also made righteous by imputation of the second Adams obedience The Cardinal as we saw * Nu. 4. above in three places acknowledges the imputation of Christs satisfaction and merits for freeing us from the offence of sin and and the guilt of eternal death and therefore from that condemnation under which we are by the first Adams disobedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That condemnation the Apostle here vers 18. sets against Justification and so in this Antithesis vers 19. between made sixners and made righteous must first stand good in regard of Condemnation and Justification taken properly then between the inhaerent depravation and the inhaerent Righteousness Take what the Ancient Commentators here say is meant by made sinners Chrys in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost and after him Occumenius and Theophylact to the like purpose expounds it made subject to punishment and condemned to death that 's the first sense of made sinners and unto that is Justification in the first and proper sense opposed The Cardinals second Testimony is Rom. Bel. quo suprá 3.24 Here he would finde all the Causes of Justification and in the word Grace taken for inherent righteousness he fixes the Formal Cause Of Grace and Gratis That it is taken for the gift of Grace inhaerent and not for the favour of God he would prove by the word gratis freely which was enough to set out the favour of God and his love to Mankinde But the Cardinal here also is impertinent and his argument inconsequent For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gratis freely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not put here to set forth the true Cause of our Justification viz. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods gracious favour so much as to exclude the false Causes viz. any cause desert motive on mans part Freely that is without any price paid by us without any Cause given by us or any worth in us Thus gratis is taken in Scripture and though it consequently
Trent saith nothing which contraries the Protestant Doctrine saving that it cals that Justification which is not so according either to Scripture or Fathers Of this second and improper Justification we spoke * Chap. IV. nu 2 5. above and shewed how it brings the Controversie of Justification by Works to nothing if indeed they would pretend to no more by their second Justification then their Council seems to make of it So that we might spare farther labour in calling them to shew what proof they have for this doctrine of Justification by works in Scripture and Antiquity And as for their first Justification by inhaerent habitual Righteousness it is not concerned in this question of Justification by Works that Righteousness being Gods work not ours at all as they do acknowledge yet because we were in the former Treatise chap. 4. bound up by Mr. Spencers Replies to say only what he gave occasion for it will not be amiss for a fuller clearing of that wherein they and we do differ to enter a farther consideration of Inhaerent Righteousness of Faith and of Works as to this point of Justification By which it will appear They lay too much upon the Inherent and are too much afraid of an imputed Righteousness also that they give Faith too little in this business and are needlesly affraid of the Sola Fides Faith only Lastly that they speak too confusedly when they say and give out Men are justified by VVorks 1. For inhaerent Righteousness The question being Of Iohaerent Righteousness as to Justification by what Righteousness we are Justified before God We must in the first place draw from them the acknowledgement of some Truths Such as they indeed are loath readily to profess and plainly to speak out but such as are necessary for understanding this Question as to the two Terms in it Justification and Righteousness The first Truth is this Justification sounds opposition to Condemnation That Justification speaks opposition to Condemnation as Rom. 8.33 34. and stands primarily in the acquitting of a sinner from the guilt of his sin offence and punishment the remission or not imputing of his sin the reconciling of him to the favour of God and according to this importance or sense the Apostle St. Paul continually speaks of it The definition or description which the * Decret c. 4. Justificationem Impii non esse aliud quam translationem a statu filiorum Adâ— Trent Council gives of Justification is this It is nothing else but a Translation from the state of the Sons of Adam into the Adoption of the sons of God through Jesus Christ Here is no mention of Remission of sins but elsewhere it is implied they grant it when they say Decret c. 7. Non est sola peccatorum remissio sed etiam sanctificatio In ipsa Justificatione una cum Remissione peccatorum fidem spem charitatem accipientes Justification is not only Remission of Sins but also Sanctification and a little after In Justification we receive faith hope and charity together with Remission of sins Here it is implyed that in Justification there is remission of sins but since the Jesuites prevailed it is made subsequent to the infused Righteousness which purges out the sin and that with them is Remission of sin or Deletion of it for these they confound as above noted and are loath to express Remission of sin as the Scripture doth by not imputing of sin A Second Truth Of the Grace of God taken for his Favour and Love which they are not so willing to profess is That by the Grace of God to which we finde Justification and Salvation often ascribed is meant the Favour Love or good Will of God towards Man I do not say they deny such an acception of Grace for the Trent Council condemning those that say Concil Trid. can 11. the Grace by which we are justified is only the Favour of God doth imply it to be of the Grace and favour of God that we are Justified and their Writers when put to it will acknowledge Grace so taken but decline so to interpret the word Grace where ever they can holding out for it the gift of grace inhaerent in us A third Truth Of Impuaed Righteousness they unwillingly profess and decline to speak of is that there is an imputed righteousness or that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification Their Council acknowledges * Decret c. 7. Christ the meritorious cause of Justification which doth closly imply this Truth viz. the application or imputation of his satisfaction or Merits to us for Justification and this imputation is mentioned when in that * Câ—non 11. Council they are Anathematiz'd that say Men are justified by the only imputation of Christs righteousness And we shall have occasion below to shew how the Cardinal admits of this Imputation in one place with a Non est absurdum It is not absurd to say Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 10. Christs righteousness and merits are imputed to us as if we our selves had satisfied It seems we are but lightly concerned in this great Truth of the Imputation of Christs righteousness for justification but deny it they cannot A fourth Truth is Inhaerent Righteousness imperfect That inhaerent Righteousness is imperfect and weak both in the habit or first infusion and also in the working This they would fain decline as prejudicial to Justification by it but they must and do acknowledge this Truth as we shall see below Indeed these Truths have not been so readily professed since the Jesuites prevailed whose study seems not to be for Truth and Peace but to set every point of doctrine farther off from agreement Yet notwithstanding aâ—l the devices and endeavours of such dissemblers of Truth and enemies of Peace we gain by the former Truths this Evidence for clearing the Doctrine of Justification of a Sinner What Justifications is and wherein properly is stands That it is a not-imputing of his sin an absolving or acquitting him from his sins and the condemnation due to them a reconciling of him or receiving him into Gods favour an accepting of him in the beloved through the imputation of Christs satisfaction and merits apprehended by Faith Also that albeit Inhaerent Righteousness be at the same time given by which the sinner is made righteous also and truly righteous according to that measure of righteousness yet is all the righteousness inhaerently in him too weak and imperfect for his justification his appearing and standing in judgment he needs the righteousness of Christ to make a supply of what is wantting and to cover what is amiss Contaremus a Cardinal of Rome and a writer against Luther was in this point clearly Protestant convinced of the former Truth and expressing it as we shall see by his words below rehearsed But now let us see what work they make in that Church Of Inherent Right Habitual and Actual
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