Apostle purposely makes in saying Death is the wage or stipend of Sin but not saying so of life eternal There is another place cited out of St. August that makes a great noise of Justice in giving the reward Aug. de nat gra c. 2. Non est injustus Deus ut Justos fraudet mercede justitiae God is not unjust saith he that he should defraud or disappoint the just of the reward of their justice or righteousness But upon what respect God is said to be Just in rewarding was shewen * Nu. 3. above in answer to those places of Scripture which spake Gods Justice in that particular And the same answer may serve all those Testimonies which the Cardinal or others bring out of the Fathers saying in some loftiness of Language that man by good deeds may make God his Debtor The Wiseman in effect said so Prov. 19.17 and that proverbial way of speech may bear it That saying of St. Aug. which in this Controversie of Merit Truth has forced the Cardinal thrice to mention will clearly unfold how God becomes and may be call'd Mans Debtor and answer all plea of Merit made from such speeches of the Fathers The Lord saith he Aug. Ps 83. Debitorem Dominus ipse se secit non accipiendo sed promittendo makes himself a Debtor and how is that not by receiving from us but promising unto us To this purpose it is what the same Father saith elsewhere * Aug. l. 1. Confess c. 4. O thou that payest Debts or renders what is due yet owest nothing to any man qui reddis debita nulli debes where debita debts are promissa his promises And †Aug. Serm 16. de verb. Apost redde quia accepisti sedâ—edde quia promisisti elsewhere We do not say to God render because thou hast received but render because thou hast promised The Cardinal pretends he can easily answer all this and replies thus It is said so by St. Bel. l. 5. de Justif c. 18. sect Sed facilis absolutè sed solum ex promissione dono suo quod autem non ex sola promissione sed etiam ex opere nostro Deus efficiatur Debitor docet Aug. cum subjungit redde quod promisisti quia fecimus quod jussisti Aug. because God owes nothing to any man absolutely but only by his promise and his own bounty and gift This is fair and true but nothing to his advantage and therefore not many lines after he sups it up again with the same breath saying Nevertheless that God is made our Debter not only by his promise but by our work too St. Aug. teacheth when he subjoyns we may say render what thou hast promised for we have done what thou commandest If this may be said to God Almighty yet with such caution that it cannot as bold as it is be a plea for Merit for it must be said with respect to the bounty and promise of God appointing such a reward for them that do so and so and with acknowledgment of his Free-grace helping us to do so wherefore it follows immediately in St. Et hoc tuâ—fecisti qui laborantes juvisti Aug. Ser. 16. de verbis Apost Aug. which the Cardinall thought good to omit and this thou hast done which hast helped those that labour or strive to do well If we take it not as said in such a respect St. Aug. himself will judge it a proud and presumptuous saying for so it is censured by him Against the plea of Merit upon Ps 142. vers 2. Enter not into judgment where he brings in the presumptuous justifiers of themselves saying * Aug. in Ps 142. Jejunavimus non vidisti fecimus quod jussisti quare non reddis quod promisesti ut accipias quod promisi ego dediut faceres We have fasted and thou seest not we have done what thou hast commanded why dost thou not render what thou hast promised To such saith he God will answer that thou maist receive what I promised I gave unto thee to do Finally the Prophet speaks to such proud ones c. If therefore man may so plead render what thou hast promised for we have done what thou hast commanded it must be with such corrections We have done what thou commandest what thou graciously doest require of us and accept as condition of obtaining what thou hast bountifully promised VVe have done but what was our duty antecedently to thy gracious promise done what thou mightest have required of us without such reward done what thou didst help and enable us to do and done it but imperfectly so that it needs thy merciful acceptation and still we need to say Testimonies of Fathers a gainst Romish Merit Enter not into judgment with thy servants O Lord. Now to proceed to the Testimonies of Fathers against Romish Merit First we alledge their sayings whereby they plainly deny Merit or that we are worthy And here we must observe as to the sense of those words Those that deny Merit and Worthiness in us Merit and Worthy in this Controversie a great difference between those sayings of the Fathers which barely affirm our Merits or Worthiness those which deny the same I say a great difference between the force of the one and of the other For when they affirm they speak according to the remiss sense of Merits put for good works obtaining eternal life and do mean such a worthiness that consists by divine acceptation but when they deny either they speak punctually to the exclusion of that worth and merit which the Church of Rome would establish in the Works themselves Bern. de dedicat eccl ser 5. dignatione divinâ non dignitate nostra Nec dignatio locum habet ubi fuerit prasumptio dignitatis as answerable to the reward Thus Bernard We are so by divine dignation not by our own worth ordignity a little after he saith Divine dignation hath no place where there has been a presumption or conceit of self-dignity Thus when they are upon the negative they speak punctually distinctly of merit and worth as concerned in this Controversie St. Basil speaks home * Basil in Ps 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eternal rest saith he remains for them that have striven lawfully in this life not rendred according to Debt unto their works but given according to the grace of a bountiful God He speaks it with reverence to those words of the Apostle Henceforth a Crown is laid up for me 2 Tim. 4. and a distinction borrowed from the same Apostle Rom. 4.4 of grace or of debt and so cuts out all the core of pretended Merit which the Romanists would fix in the former place of 2 Tim. 4. Bel. l. 5. de Inâ—â—â—f c. 6. The Cardinal cites this Testimony of St. Basil as objected by Protestants and shuffles pitifully in his replies to it First leaving out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
according to grace he repeats the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Debt in the second place and makes St. Basil speak thus rendred not according to the Debt of their works but according to the debt of a bountiful God meaning it is not rendred according to absolute debt or right but according to the debt of Bounty This exception of absolute right or debt is one of their general answers But the Cardinal has this gift as to choose the worst translation so to follow the worst copy for the Paris edition has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the necessary consequence of the words would infer it beside the reserence it had plainly to Rom. 4.4 from whence it was borrowed And the Cardinal might have bethought himself what good sense he could make of his repeating the word debt in the reddition saying the debt of a bountiful God which surely cannot reasonably be said by the Assertors of Merit But to shew he could yet speak more against sense and reason Merita quae sunt homini à se suis viribus Bel. ibid. he adds a second reply that St. Basil excludes only Merits which man may have from himself and his own strength This is their other usual exception to the Testimonies of Fathers denying Merit that is say they only such merits as are pretended to before Grace such as are of our selves and own strength but how impertinently is this replied here to St. Basil who most plainly speaks of their reward and works that have fought a good fight Aug. in Ps 70. con 2. Coronabit dona sua non mâ—rita tua St. Aug. we hear often denying Merit VVhen the reward saith he shall come He will crown his own gifts not thy Merits And above we had him speaking to Rom. 6. ult we are brought to eternal life not for our merits but through his mercy and elsewhere Aug. Tract 3. in Jo. Non pro merito quidem accipies vitam aeternam sed progratia Thou shalt receive eternal life not through thy Merits but the Grace of God! The two former places of Aug. the Cardinal sets down and replies according to their usual exception that he speaks against Merits before or without Grace It is most true that St. Aug. in his Controversie with the Pelagians does very often speak against such Merits and that all those sayings of the Father are misapplied in this Controversie of Merit of good VVorks but it is as true that he often cals good works Merits Merits after grace and of those he denies Merit in a proper sense when he denies not only the first grace to be given for our Merits but eternal life also and saith that when the Lord gives it he crowns not our merits but his own gifts i.e. our good works not upon the account of Merit but of his free gift and bounty That place which the Cardinal brings out of St. Aug. to countenance his impertinent reply affords enough to confute it VVhat hast thou saith that Father there which thou hast not received Aug. Ep. 105. ad Sixtum Quid habes quod non accepisti quapropter O homo si accepturus es vitam aeternam justitiae quidem stipendium est sed tibi gratiae est cui gratiaest ipsa justitia this indeed excludes all Merit before the first receiving of grace but he goes on to the receiving of life eternal wherefore O Man if thou shalt receive eternal life it is the stipend indeed or reward of righteousness because righteousness or holiness of life is appointed as the condition of obtaining it but to thee it is grace or the gift of God to whom also righteousness or power of wel-doing is grace and of the gift of God And a little after he adds Nunc ergò de plenitudine ejus accepimus non solum gratiam quâ justè in laboribus usque ad finem vivimus sed gratiam pro hac gratia ut in requie postea sine fine vivamus ibid. Now therefore we receive of his sulness not only grace by which we live justly in our labours and endeavours to the end but also grace for that grace that we may for ever hereafter live in rest Here is excluded plainly not only Merit before grace but afterward and not only the first grace is here called grace but eternal life alfo is called grace and Merit every where excluded because the righteousness which carries the reward is not of our selves but of grace and Gods free gift as also the reward is of his free bounty and promise In like manner when he saith Aug. Ep. 105. Cum Deus coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronaâ— qudâ—â— muaera sua God crowns his own gifts not our Merits or as he saith in the same Epistle God when he crowns our Merits our good Deeds crowns nothing else but his own gifts in saying so he plainly excludes Merit after grace Merit I say properly taken To the like places out of Prosper de vocat Gent. c. 17. out of Greg. on the seventh penit Psalm above cited and out of Bernard de annunc Serm. 1. all denying Merit the Cardinal has nothing to oppose but his usual impertinency of Merits before or without Grace whereas they all speak of giving not the first grace but the reward of eternal life Our second rank or sort of Testimonies is of such as affirm Testimonies affirming our continual need of mercy and indulgence That the best need mercy and forgiveness and that our righteousness stands chiefly in Gods mercifulness and indulgence and therefore our need of mercy excludes the plea of merit St. Aug. upon Ps 142. Enter not into judgment and answer me in thy Righteousness saith thus Aug. in Psal 142. In tua justitia non in mea ad me enim cum respicio nihil aliud meum quam peccatum invenio In thy righteousness not in mine for when I look back upon my self I finde nothing mine but sin He that begs so cannot plead Merit We had occasion in the former Sect. to alledge what St. Aug. in his 19. Book de Civit. Dei speaks of the imperfection of our own righteousness in this life the same is forcible to exclude our plea of Merit Such saith he there Ang. de Civ Dei l. 19. c 27. ut potius peccatorum remissione constet quam petfectione virtutum is our righteousness in this life that it stands in the remission of sins rather then in the perfection of vertues And in the same chapt he shewes such necessity incumbent on us in this mortal and bodily condition that one thing ut à Dâ—o petatur venia delictoum wherein mans righteousness stands is to beg of God pardon of his offences and failings and this he saith the Lords Prayer witnesseth which teacheth us daily to beg forgive To this purpose that of * Ambr. in Exhort propè finem Vnde mihi tantum meriti cui
to others besides God The quest is about Religious worship and therefore notes it as a double mistake of the Protestants to infer from this place that worship and service are only due to God pa. 5. c. It seems he was bound to make up his tale or number of mistakes he does so causelesly fasten them upon the Protestants for he knows they do not argue from this place that all kinds of worship or service are to be given to God only but that kind of worship which according to his own expression pag. 8. is performed by an act of Religion i. e. religious worship or as S. Aug. gives us the limitation of that Word Worship and indeed the determination of the question that if we add Religion to that word Aug. de Civ l. 10. c. 1. then it speaks that worship which is due to God only This Author knew well enough that Protestants confine their dispute here to a Religious worship and he speaks it pa. 11. that this place Mat. 4.10 must according to Protestants be understood to forbid only religious worship to any save God and therefore applies himself under his second pretended mistake to the consideration of it endeavouring to finde out such a worship given to Creatures as may be call'd Religious All that he brings we shall see very far short of the purpose altogether insufficient to excuse their practice or answer what we charge them with for their encroachments upon the Worship and Service due to God in the way of Religion The first thing we need take notice of is his premising the distinction of Worship The Acts of Worship inward and outward into Interior Exterior as subservient to his purpose pa. 1.2 telling us pa. 13. The External deportment as prostration may be the very same when we worship God or Saint or Angel Bishop Apostle King Magistrate Father Mother yet they become different kinds of Worship according to the different humiliations intentions and acknowledgments which he who worships desires to express by those outward deportments of the body It is true that the inward intent makes a difference in the worship given when the outward act is the same though not alwaies so different a kinde of worship as he would have the worship of Saints and Angels to be in regard of the Civil worship and honour as we shall see below But here note for there will be use of it hereafter that in all this discourse of worship he only insists in such outward expressions Some Acts of worship proper to God as properly fall under the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as bowing kneeling prostration which are indeed common to the worship of God and Creatures but there are other which both in Scripture and in the nature of the thing appear proper to God and the worship due to him Altars burning incense oblations nuncupation of Vows upon which score we may finde the Church of Rome faulty as in doctrine so much more in practice The * Bel. de Beat. sanctorum l. 1. c 12. Cardinal having said the external acts are common to all worship makes his exception of sacrifices and those †Greg. de Val. in Tho. 2.2 Disp 6. qu. 5. de virt Riligionis puncto 2. things which have relation to them And Greg. de Val. acknowledges it of Prayer Oblations Sacrifices c. that they immediately belong to Religion and do peculiarly contain a certain subjection of the creature to God The second thing we are to take notice of Excellency Dignity how the Reason of Honour and Worship is that to lay some ground-work for raising such a worship on as they give to Saints and Angels he sets himself to shew that besides the Civil and Divine dignities or excellencies there is a third sort neither infinite as the Divine nor humane as the Civil but Spiritual and Supernatural and would make his Readers believe that all the difficulty in this matter consists in shewing there are three worths or excellencies to be acknowledged and honoured by an act of worship pag. 14. Whereas we grant such supernatural excellencies in Angels and Men and that there ought to be an acknowledgment and honour in the mind commensurate to such a worth or excellency and that to be expressed by such acts as are fitting and we believe that the Romanists have not such an acknowledgment in their minds when they worship Saint or Angel as they have when they worship God Almighty but whether that acknowledgment they have be commensurate to created Excellencies and no more they know best We cannot but say the expressions they make of it in the several particulars of their Religious Worship do too plainly shew they yield them more devotion of soul then is due to meer Creatures entrenching far upon the religious worship and service due to God The third thing we take notice of is that albeit he said Of the words Religion and Reliigous worship All the difficulty consisted in clearing the third sort of worth or excellency to be acknowledged and honoured yet he knew well enough the difficulty stood not in that but in the acknowledging and honouring them with acts of Religious worship And therefore pa. 20 21. he sets himself to distinguish of the words Religion and Religious that among all the acceptions of those words mentioned in Scripture he might finde some according to which the worship of Saints and Angels may be called Religious Religion saith he pa. 20. may be taken either in a strict sense for the vertue of Religion So when the School Doctors dispute about the nature of infused graces or largely for the whole belief or profession of those that esteem themselves to have the true way of serving God so when we say the Religion of the Christians or of the Jews having thus distinguished he determins pa. 22. It will be sufficient for the defense of the Cathol Roman faith in this point to affirm that when the Doctors say that any thing created may be or is worshipped with religious worship it is religious in the larger sense i. e. vertuous pious Christian as belonging and proper to our Religion and tending finally to the acknowledgment of God and our Saviours honour as Author of our faith and religion and pa. 23. instances in Levit. 7.6 where the giving of the brest and shoulder of the sacrifice to the Priest is call'd a perpetual religion in their generations and then in Ia. 1. ult where a work of mercy done to the poor to a Creature is called Religion i. e. proceeding from and belonging to Religion But this together with all the instances be can give of Religion or Religious in such a sense comes not home either to the thing in question Religious worship or to defence of his Catholick Roman Church attributing more to Saints and Angels then he can bring out of Scripture or Fathers either either to parallel or excuse it For upon
against those that joyned the observation of legal ordinances with the profession of Christ and therefore it is very probable he condemns such worshipers of Angels as did it upon that account because the law was given by the disposition of Angels * In Colos c. 2. Theodoret who is shuffed in among the rest of the Fathers cited by this Author speaks directly to this purpose that these worshippers of Angels were such Christians as joyned the observation of the law with the Gospel and therefore used them as mediatours because the law was given by their ministry The other Fathers cited by him speak of strange phansies of some Hereticks about Angels but without such reference to this place of the Apostle as Theodoret doth who comments upon the Text and cites the canon of the Synod of Laodicea a place not far from Coloss forbidding any to pray to Angels Oecumenius also upon the text agrees with Theodoret touching these Angel-worshippers and out of Chrysostome for he borrows it from him shews the pretence they made of humility in this their going to God by Angels saying * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chryst Oecum in locum It was more then belonged to us to go to God by Christ which excludes Mr. Spencers pretence above that these were such as made Angels equal or superiour to Christ when its plain they in humility applyed to them as of inferiour rank As for his reason from the Apostles adding not holding the head that proves not that they placed the Angels in Christs stead or destroyed his soveraign headship directly as the phansie of those Hereticks he would have here to be meant did for he may be said not to hold the head that holds it not in that manner he ought or because this worshipping of Angels was the way to let go the head as in the Church of Rome their worshipping of Angels and Saints and their Images draws off the people much from Christ And albeit the Church of Rome does not retain the observation of the law as these did and so has not the same cause of their worshipping Angels as they had yet let the cause or motive be what it will for the same deslexion from truth and duty has not alwayes the same motive they of the Church of Rome have the same pretence of humility in their coming to God by the mediation of Angels and do place the Angels where they should not intruding into things they have not seen and not holding the head the one mediatour between God and man as they ought Again he will have us mistaken * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Religion of Angels in rendring the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a worshipping when it should be translated a religion of Angels and thereupon declaims against Protestants as having a design in it pa. 45.46 But this is needless for the word religion had been more advantageous to us in as much as we yield a worship to creatures but when religion is added to it we mean it a worship due to God as St. Aug. also said above Indeed if we look into the Church of Rome and well consider their exercises of devotion how they are directed how frequented there will appear a very religion of Saints and Angels And as in this point the Romanists are too like these half Christians whom the Apostle blames for their worship or religion of Angels so will they appear not much unlike to the Heathen Platonicks in their worship or religion of their Daemons and Hero's whom they placed and worshipped as celestial messengers and mediatours between men and the supream God Of which below * in the consent of Antiquity But to make up his number of mistakes he must needs repeat here also pa. 49. how worship was given to Angels by Lot and Joshua and that it may be call'd religious by Ja. 1.26 27. not remembring how much he is mistaken in giving us still for the worship we blame in them examples only of the worship we allow the bowing of the body to Angels when they appeared whereas we charge them with the worship which the Laodic Synod forbad which the Apostle here blames the praying to them and making them mediators nor will he remember how he is mistaken in telling us still St. James calls a work of mercy religion as if this were any thing to the religious worship they give to Saints and Angels which is the exercise or performance of their religion and devotion as religion belongs to the first table in a stricter sense whereas that work of mercy as all duties of the second table because commanded and proceeding from religion may in that general sense be call'd religious works not religious worship But indeed this Romish worship cannot truly be call'd religion in the larger sense or in any sense for it is not commanded it proceeds not from religion not dictated by that devotion and religion we owe to God it pertains not therefore to religion unless it be to the Romish Of all this more largely above CHAP. II. Of Prayer and Invocation NOw we are come to a special act of worship given to Saints and Angels the places of Scripture here examined are Come unto me Mat. 11.28 Ask the Father in my name Jo. 16.21 When ye pray say Our Father One mediatour 1 Tim. 2.5 We have an advocate 1 Jo. 2.1 The Protestants inference therefore we must come to God by no other Name Mediatour Advocate he will have inconsequent Indeed such arguments from the affirming of one to the denying all others are not for the most part concluding and valid yet in the point of Gods worship they are of good force if we allow the truth of the rule which S. Aug. de consensu Evang. l. 1. c. 18. Aug. saith that Socrates allowed God is so to be worshiped as he has commanded himself to be worshiped A general Rule for worship So that it must be a bold presumption in man when the Lord has in so many places prescribed the way to add thereunto by admitting and using other Mediators though inferiour to Christ What he saith to the Lords Prayer comes to this The form of the Lords prayer that Protestants by like argument might prove We are only to pray to God the Father and that one Christian living may not pray for another pa. 57. But this is not alike for we have command and direction to come and pray unto the other persons of the Trinity and also for one another living And we may call any of the Persons Father for all the works of the Trinity ad extra towards the Creature as giving life and being nourishing and preserving Fatherly acts toward us are as the School saith undivided common to all the persons but because we can also call God the Father our Father upon special relation by and through his only Son therefore this forme implies we ought to come in prayer to God the Father only
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
by good works which was somewhat more absurd for charity receives life from faith arising and advancing according to the apprehensions that faith has of the goodness and mercy of God and his several manifestations of it and therefore S. Paul saith it worketh by charity Gal. and note that all his proof for this informing or vivificating of saith by charity is S. Iames his saying that Abrahams faith was made perfect by works wherein as I noted * Ibid. above appear both the falshood of his interpretation and the impertinency of his argument for works belong to his second justification but that informing of faith by charity is supposed to be done in the first A working faith it is that S. Iames requires and so do we to justification a believing with the whole heart as Philip required of the Eunuch Acts 8.37 a faith that engages the whole heart in receiving Christ not only for the benefits of his merits and participation of his righteousness but also for obedience to his command and performance of every Christian duty Such was Abrahams faith or believing to which his justification is ascribed the acts of it were pure acts of faith though virtually including works because a readiness to do works of every kinde or obey any of Gods commands Lastly Albeit such a faith justifies as gaining at present remission of sins past and giving a right to the heavenly inheritance yet no man shall gain finall justification and absolution if he continue not in doing good works i. e. if his faith continue not to work as Abrahams did And this is that S. Iames intended by propounding Abrahams example for works not denying his justification by faith but urging it was such a faith or believing that continued working by fuitable obedience to every command of God CHAP. V. Of the Merit of good works THe Council of Trent has defined The notion and reason of merit that good works do verè mereri truly merit increase of grace and eternal life but neither the Council nor Mr. Spencer tells us wherein the reason of merit stands that we might know what it is they contend for when they speak of a work truly meritorious Many fair acknowledgements their Council makes as of the free grace mercy promise of God merits of Christ Sess 6. c. 16. which Mr. Spencer calls the grounds of merits pa. 162. But if they stand to this we have the cause yeilded to us and nothing left but a verbal controversy for those former particulars are so far from being grounds of our meriting truly and properly that they directly overthrow it One would have thought that the verè mereri our truly meriting should imply all the conditions requisite to merit truly and properly taken and that the doctrine of condignity or merit upon worth of the work which the men of Mr. Spencers society generally contend for should be the sense of the Councils definition but that Council was wiser then to speak too plain in this point in which there is so great difference amongst them and therefore may seem to content both parties the one with this verè mereri◠truly merit and the other dissenting party with the former acknowledgments of free grace mercy promise Christs merits as grounds of merit And Mr. Spencer may remember of what society he is and how most of his Fellows speak out and say The righteous merit eternal life by their good works even as the wicked do eternal death by their evil works this is plain and home to a verè mereri truly meriting however he minces it at the beginning with professions of free grace divine acceptation and promise as pa. 164 165. Well notwithstanding all the fair proressions they make when put to it such indeed as overthrow merit truly taken yet will they hold the name and thing of mans meriting eternal life and so propound it grosly to the people They know best how it concerns them By reason of such general concessions of their Council Goodworks acceptable to God he will have some words in our 22. Article to favour merit of good works because it saith they are pleasing and acceptable unto God in Christ From whence he infers 1. Then are they no way sinfull but truly and absolutely good and just for no sin can be pleasing to God in Christ pa. 167. But this is too carlessly spoken for if absolutely good say we then had there been no need to have added in Christ such works would been pleasing and acceptable of themselves We say also good works are truly good and just but not absolutely so they are not sins but something sinfull may stick to them in the performance some imperfections and defects some mixture of by-respects and glances at self-interest yet because they are good both for substance and for manner of performance as to the chief respects and motives upon which they are done they are truly good though not absolutely for which the Article saith they cannot endure the severity of Gods judgment Not that God accepts those sinfull imperfections or accrescencies as he would infer upon us but pardoning and over-looking them in Christ he accepts the good works And what else is the cause that they acknowledge it so hard for a man to know he has merits upon which * Tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia reponere De justific l. 5. c. 7. Bellar. concludes it most safe to put our whole confidence in Gods mercy only what but defects and imperfections which are less perceptible when the works themselves are notorious enough 2. He infers seeing such good works have the promises annexed to them and shall be rewarded in Christ they are truly meritorious in Christ having such a supernatural goodness in them The conformity of good works to the Reward conformable to that heavenly reward and this is all which is taught by the Church of Rome in this point So he pa. 168. This is the most he speaks to the reason of merit or why works are meritorious viz. Reward and Conformity but the first Reward upon the free promise as he affirms it to be takes away more from the reason of merit then the latter which is Conformity can adde unto it for that conformity if our works or sufferings be weighed or examined with the weight of glory falls short by infinite degrees 2 Cor. 4.17 Rom. 8.17 A conformity we grant between good works and the reward as between grace and glory the way or means and the end but it must be equality in worth and value that makes merit And that Conformity or Equality were it to be had is but one of the things requisite to make truly meritorious there are other conditions as that the service be of our own not his enabling us of whom we are said to merit also that the service be not of antecedent duty to the Compact also that the reward be though by compact yet not out of
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
holding the doctrin of Works truly meritorious and accordingly trusting in them The next place is Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life Here he will have us mistaken in the word Wages Life eternal the gift of God excluding merit and gift misapplied by us Why so because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendred Wages signifies the base stipend of common Souldiers but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendred gift signifies a donative a more noble reward anciently given to them that had carried themselves more valiantly thus pa. 171. thence he will have the true meaning of the Text to be the base recompense of sin is death but the high and noble reward of God is life eternal pa. 172. But first who taught him to render the true meaning of Scripture by such significations of the word as the Scripture does not own for where can he finde in Scripture the word Charisma to signify such a Donative Charisma free gift but alwayes the free gift of God his own Latine edition renders it gratia Dei the grace i. e. free favour or gift of God Again be it so that the Apostle whose purpose is to shew the different reward of sins service and Gods had some reflexion that way of stipend and Donative among Souldiers it s but verbal an using of like words not affording any plea or answer in this point when we speak of Gods gift or donative For first If Souldiers could pretend any merit for a donative it was for some special service above duty or of custom upon the succession of a new Prince and then it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gift rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a free gift such as that word in Scripture-use signifies and such as Gods gifts and rewards to us are Secondly Souldiers have not from the Emperour that so rewards or gratifies them the strength courage and valour which he so rewards in them but this Donative of Gods gift implies such notions of grace free grace for the performance of the service free grace for the acceptation of the service free grace in the promise of the reward as exclud all merit At length he begins to yeild to the true signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we take the word saith he for a pure free gift we may answer with S. Augustine and the Council of Trent that because the good works and merits themselves are the free gifts of God so also the glory of heaven which is deserved by them is called truly a gift also because the primary title and right which all Gods children have to eternal life is that of inheritance which is the free gift of eternal life may be properly called the gift of God 172. Thus does his answers and concessions which truth forces from him overthrow the doctrine of merit properly taken For if eternal life is called properly the gift of God and our good works be the free gifts of God then cannot they in any proper sense be truly meritorious of eternal life And because he mentioned Saint August take his sense of this Text. * Cum possit dicerectrecle dicere stipendium justitiae vita aeterna maluit dicere gratia Dei vita aeterna ut intelligeremus non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam sed pro sua miseratione perducere Aug. de gratia lib. Arbitrio cap. 9. Whereas the Apostle might say and say it truly the wages of righteousness is life eternal he chose rather to say the gift of God is life eternal that we might understand how God brings us to eternal life not for our merits but for his mercies sake Another place is Eph. 2.8 9. Saved by Grace not by works least any should boast He gives here the Answer we had above in the point of justification The Grace of God excludeth merit properly taken That these works are such as are done before Justification of Grace distinguished from the good works of the Regenerate of whom it is said v. 10. Created to good works so he p. 170. True they are to be distinguished but here the opposition stands between Works and Grace not only in regard of Justification but even to the last Salvation and with a denial of merit which is here boasting so Rom. 4.4 to him that worketh c. he directly shews that meriting by works which challenges the reward as of debt is excluded by grace in the way of salvation so that if any man will merit by works he must do them of himself according to the condition of the Legal Covenant but if he must come into the way of grace to stand in need of a Redeemer for forgiveness of sins past for a supply of free grace for performance of good works for divine acceptation of his performances through the merits of that Redeemer he is clean out of the road of meriting or challenging the reward as debt in any proper sense And therefore how vain are their pretty sayings for evasions That our merits are his gifts That they merit through the merits of Christ or that Christ has merited that we should merit and that good works are meritorious through divine acceptation All which speaks contradiction or folly For to say Christ has merited that we should merit is to acknowledge we are indebted to God for giving his Son to die for our sins and for his purchasing or meriting the first grace for us but then that we enabled thereby should begin to make God and our Saviour endebted to us in the reward of eternal life Christ indeed has merited that we should not be bound to merit that is to obtain salvation by our merits or performance of exact obedience by our selves according to the Legal Covenant Again he has merited that we might be under grace and so perform good works created unto good works To say that Christ has merited that we should merit or that God accepts our works as truly meritorious is to alledge that for the merit of works which excludes it To obtain the reward by works because they are done in Grace or of grace is sense but to merit by works because done in or by grace is folly and contradiction He proceeds to prove the Catholick Position as he calls it That the works of the Regenerate are such as can deserve Heaven where it is our turn again to observe his mistakes in the places of Scripture which he brings to prove his Catholick Position The argument from them is altogether inconsequent to prove a deserving of heaven in any proper sense of merit His places are 2 Tim. 4.7 8. God is righteous in rewarding yet works are not meritorious wherein he will have the words righteous or just judge and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give or render and a Crown of righteousness to favour his plea for merit as if by these expressions were implied that God
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
Vnum quid as it were one and the same thing †Valen disput 6. in 3. Tho. punct 1. Sect. 19. Christum illa accidentia in Eucharistia vere proprie formaliter inter se uniri Greg. de Val. proves Christ and those Accidents to be truly properly formally united From hence as I said many inconveniences follow for what happens to the species must also to the body and blood of Christ Thirdly if we consider this with reference to the Sacrament we may well put the question how can Accidents of bread and wine be in the Sacrament without their proper subject how can they supply the purposes of the Sacrament as to the outward part of it without the substances of bread and wine or if the body and blood of Christ under the species must supply the defect of their proper subject or substances as his answering by the personality of our Saviour must imply then must the body and blood of Christ supply the place and property of the outward part of the Sacrament which is most absurd By this of the Personality of our Saviour he serves himself in answering the eight question and the three last But the disparity is evident for the personality of the divine nature may supply the defect of it in the humane by reason of the hypostatical union which joyns the humane nature to the divine But the body and blood of Christ can neither be united to the species of bread and wine in such a manner as to make it supply the defect of their proper subject neither is apt to supply the properties of that subject or outward element of the Sacrament as we noted above yet does Mr. Spencer by his answer suppose the body and blood of our Saviour to supply all and the Romish writers by that strict union which they suppose to be between his body and the Species make it subject to many inconveniences To the question how can the same body be in several places at once Same body in several places he returns this question as satisfactory how can the Soul or an Angel or God be at the same time in many places But any one may see the disparity between the properties and condition of a Body and of a Spirit and consequently the unsatisfactoriness of his Answer Nor is it true which he here must suppose that a Soul can be in several bodies distant one from other or an Angel in distant places at once therefore they are forced to take in Gods property of being present in many places l 3. c 4. de Enchar quomdo Deus est in Loco Mr. Spencer learnt it of the Cardinal affirming the body of Christ to be in place as God is To that of Penetration of parts if our Saviours body should be contained in the least part or crumb of the host Penetration of Dimensions he answers by our Saviours body passing through the doors and through his mothers womb both being shut But it s no where said they remained absolutely shut * in 4. sent dist in 44. qu. 6. Durand shews how with more reason it may be said our Saviour came in the doors opening to him unperceived by his Disciples for it is not said saith he that he came in per januas clausas but januis clausis not through the shut doors but the doors being shut And for his passage through his Mothers womb it being shut the Scripture puts him among the first born that opened the womb and though the Fathers often speak of the womb being shut yet is it only to deny such an opening of the womb as is injurious to her Virginity and much to this purpose Durand shews in the place above cited may be said of our Saviours coming out of the womb citing Saint Aug. Ambr. Greg. Another objection p. 308. If our Saviours flesh and blood be really in the Sacrament Our Saviours body exposed to indignities then may Catts and Rats eat it This objection is not carefully expressed for such inconveniences do not follow upon a Real presence but such a Presence as the Romanists fancy which binds his body and blood to the species and so makes it liable to all the indignities which happen to them But see how he would answer it by the like as he supposes If the flesh and blood of Christ saith he were really in the Passion then might dogs eat his blood that was shed As if it were alike what was done to his passible body appointed then to suffer and done now to his glorious body All the disgraces and indignities that were done or could happen unto him then were agreeable to the work he came about viz. to redeem us by suffering and whatever became of that precious blood that was shed it had notwithstanding its due effect for our Redemption but now to expose his glorious body to such indignities as they do by uniting it so to the species does not beseem Christians The next objection or question If there were so many miracles as you must hold wrought in the Sacrament Multiplying of miracles need lessy Why are none of them seen He answers by another question If there be so many miracles wrought in the incarnation of our Saviour why were none of them seen p. 309. But great disparity here for albeit the miraculous Incarnation of our Saviour was secret and unseen in the working of it yet seen and apparent enough in the effect wrought Again the nature of that mystery required it should be secret in the working but for our believing it the word doth sufficiently attest it and the thing or work wrought was sufficiently evident therefore S. Jo. saith c. 1.14 The word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we saw his glory c. Nothing like in the sacrament notwithstanding that the nature of sacraments requires all be done to the sense for confirmation and as nothing appears of all the supposed miracles so nor does the word of God plainly attest any of them so destitute is their way of Transubstantiation of any just proof or evidence CHAP. VIII Against Communion in one kinde THe Doctrine of the Church of Rome delivered in the Council of Trent and here prefixed by Mr. Spencer carries its Condemnation in the forehead The boldness of the Church of Rome in this point acknowledging that our Saviour instituted and administred in both kinds and that the use of both kinds was frequent might have said Constant in the beginning of Christian Religion might have said for 1200. years after the beginning of Christian Religion yet is not ashamed to approve the contrary practice and to plead for it an authority in the Church about the Sacraments to make a change Salvâ substantia that is the substance being preserved entire where again it speaks its own condemnation for how can the substance be preserved when half of that which our Saviour made the Sacrament is denied to the people He calls
never destitute of an Evasion or whether indeed it be the doctrine of the Church of Rome and the meaning of the Councils Vere merentur that good works done in grace do as truly deserve and are as condignly meritorious of eternal life as sins and evil deeds are of eternal death I will not further inquire into but out of that which has been said we may draw up the Question to this Issue That the first way set down by the Cardinal and rejected by him Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of the Covenant and Promise only was indeed The Issue of the Question if rightly interpreted the true and ancient Doctrine of the Church asserted by the Fathers and the former Writers of the Church of Rome as may in part be seen by those Authors whom the Cardinal and Vasquez have noted and rejected We need not here be afraid of the words condignly meritorious for being joyned with those words in regard of the Covenant and promise only they must have such a sense as their consistence will allow which is by interpreting the word meritorious according to the first importance of consecution or obtaining and the word condignly according to such a deserving or worthiness as stands by divine acceptation when we do the condition which the promise requires in such a sort as God will accept unto a rewarding Even as in Scripture holy Men are said to be just and perfect through divine acceptation So it comes to this plain Truth The good Works and Life of holy Men will be accepted of God as good and faithful service and certainly obtain eternal life See Mat. 25.21 Well done thou good c. In this sense the Augustan and Wittenburg Confessions did not abhor to use the word meritorious nor Brentius and Melanchthon as Vasquez notes of them and in this sense we need not be affraid to admit it and to say that good works do merit that is do obtain or are rewarded with eternal life through the gracious acceptation bounty and promise of God and one would think this were enough for us both to encourage us to do good and to comfort and stay us in the doing of it and persevering in it without standing upon any farther title or contesting with God that we have made him our Debter or that eternal life is due to our works for the worth of them This is therefore that which we deny That good works do truly and properly merit eternal life Truly and properly I say as deserving it upon the worth of the work and good reason have we to deny it Finding all they can bring from Scripture or Fathers as I hinted above impertinent and inconsequent to the proving of Merit truly so called yea it will appear that the more ancient writers of the Church of Rome are against it yea they that asserted it are forced sometimes by Truth it self to yield so much as may overthrow it First out of Scripture they give us two places bearing the Name of Merit Scripture alledged for the Name Merit but it is only according to their Latin translation not according to the Original Greek The one place is Eccles 16.15 according to the merit of their works so their Edition but the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is according to their works as we finde it often said in the Scriptures But Bellarm. reddere ficut opera merentur and Vasquez reply what is it to render according to their works but to render to them as their works deserve or merit to which we may say Albeit such expression as their works deserve may be very well admitted yet is there much difference between Secundum opera according to works and as their works deserve or merit taking the word Merit in the Cardinals sense for to say according to their works is but to speak the quality of them that it shall be well with those that do well and on the contrary evil to those that do evil it does not speak equality between the work and the reward St. Gregory speaks home to this purpose upon the 143. Greg. in 7. Psalmum poenitential v. 8. Si secundâ—un opera quomodò misericordia aestimabitur Sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa opera reddere In eo enim ipsa operum qualitas intelligiuâ— Psalm If it shall be rendred to every one saith he according to their works how shall it be accounted mercy but it is one thing to render according to works another to render it for the works themselves for in that where it 's said according to their works the very quality of the works is meant that they whose works appear good shall have a glorious retribution Another place they alledge for Merit is Heb 13.16 which in their Latine Edition has promeretur Deus as bad Latine as Divinity In the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well pleased and so by Occumenius the word is interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies as much as well pleased Indeed the Ancient Latine Fathers did some of them especially St. Cyprian according to the ancient and innocent meaning of the word Merit use to say promereri Deum i. e. to engage or obtain of God what he had promised but we do not contend about Words or Phrases Let us see what they bring for the proof of the thing it self Merit truly so called First they alledge all those Scriptures that call eternal life a Reward Their Scriptures to prove the thing From Reward and compare it to the hire or pay of Labourers We grant it is so often call'd but the Inference therefore our works or labour does truly merit such reward is inconsequent for the Apostle supposes there is a reward reckoned of Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. in prafat Ps 31. as there is of Debt Rom. 4.4 Accordingly St Aug. Merces nostra vocatur Gratia Our Reward is called Grace and if so then is it freely given And St. Ambrose tels us in his Epistles there is Merces liberalitatis the Reward or Recompence of liberality where bounty is seen on the one part rather then desert on the other Between man and man there may be Merit and Reward according to debt or justly due not so between God and man yet is Gods rewarding set out by the other to shew the certainty of the recompence and that it shall be rendered according to their works not that the similitude stands good in all parts for the duty of man to God is antecedent to all covenant or promise the ability man has to perform it is from Gods free grace the reward given is infinitely beyond all that man can do Secondly Of Reward given in proportion to Works They alledge all such Scriptures as speak the reward given according to works therefore proportionably to the works and what is that else but according to Merit when as in giving there is regard had
indulgentia pro Corona est St. Ambr. in his exhort to Virginity VVhence have I so great merit to whom Indulgence is in stead of a Crown and upon Ps 118. in reference to those words thy tender mercies and thy judgments in the 156. Ambr. in Ps 118. contione 20. quis enim mostrum sine divina potest miseratione subsistere vers The Lord saith he tempers his judgment with mercy for which of us can subsist without the divine mercy indulgence And a little after concludes the process of divine Judgment is made * Non ergo secundum merita mostra sed misericordiam Dei not according to our Merits but Gods Mercy St. Hilary upon the beginning of the 31. Ps or as with us the 32. where the Psalmist places righteousness in the forgiveness or not imputing of sin Hil. in Ps 31. Opera justitiae non sufficient ad beatiâ—ud nisi misericordia Dei non reputet vitia saith thus The works of righteousness will not be sufficient for a desert or Merit or obtaining of that blisse Greg. mor. 9. c. 14. ad vitam non ex meritis sed ex venia unless that the mercy of God do not impute our faults Greg. the great saith thus in his Comments on Job If I grow up to the work of vertue I come to life not by my merits but by his pardon and indulgence To these sayings of Hilary and Gregory the Cardinal answers by their needing of the remission of Venial sins as if the several acknowledgments of these and other Fathers yea of the * Ps 143.2 Psalmist too did but imply they complained only of some venial sins and stood in need only of mercy for them Experience may sufficiently convince such conceit of vanity and presumption Bern. de Annunc ser 1. Holy Bernard in one Sermon gives many reasons against the presumption of Merits and alledges the example of the Psalmist VVho saith he is better then the Prophet that is could better plead merit and righteousness yet he held it necessary to say Enter not into judgment with thy servant Our third rank or sort of Testimonies Testimonies affirming our Duty to the excluding of Merit is of such as speak our Duty in doing all we can conformably to that of our Saviour Luc. 17.10 Say unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to do The Romanists think to elude this Scripture by saying Though we be unprofitable to God yet we may be profitable to our selves gaining everlasting life by our good works This is true but it s one thing to gain or obtain so great profit as eternal life by good works another thing to merit it by doing them and if our being unprofitable to God will not overthrow the Romish Merit yet our duty to do all we can will do it Indeed unto Merit taken in the most strict sense according to absolute right and debt it is required that a man bring profit and advantage to the person of whom he challenges any thing by such Merit but because the Romanists will say there is not such Merit between God and Man therefore the force of the Argument rests upon the Duty which silences all plea of such Merit they contend for Merit truly so called St. Aug. thus O the great goodness of God! Aug. Serm. 3. de verb. Domini Cui cum pro conditione reddere debeamus obsequia ut mancipia redemptori to whom though we ought by reason of our Creation to return all service and obedience as servants to our Lord as bond-servants to our Redeemer he makes us promises of rewards as to friends Bernard in his Sermon of the fourfold Debt shews as the * Bel. de Justific l. 5. c. 14. sect Tertia Cardinal acknowledges that all our good works are so due to God that he might exact them although he would give no reward Bern. de quadrup debito Creator tuus est tu Creatura tu servus ille Dominus ille Figulus â—u figmenâ—um Totum ergò quod es illi debeâ— He is thy Creator saith Bernard thou his Creature thou art a servant He thy Lord He the Potter thou his workmanship therefore all that thou art thou owest to him of whom thou hast all Theophyl saith Theophyl in Luc. 17.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A servant that doth not his work is worthy of stripes but when he has done his work let him be content that he has escaped stripes that is if reward come for so doing let him account and receive it as of meer bounty for it follows in Theophyl Therefore that servant ought not to exspect honour or reward as necessarily following or as due as he might if he truly merited for it is of his Lords liberality and bounty to give him yea rather frankly to bestow any thing upon him where we may observe he did not think it enough to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give him but adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely bestow on him the better to express the undeserved bounty of God so rewarding man for doing what was his duty to do Bernard gives a good reason against our Meriting Bern. de Annun ser 1. because all our Merits are Gods gifts that St Aug. said often but he adds and for them man is a debtor to God So far are Gods gifts of Grace from being the ground of Merit as the Romanists pretend that they take from it by encreasing our Duty and Debt Our last sort or Rank of Testimonies is of such as speak Testimonies affirming the Improportion of our works to the reward our sufferings or doings not to be compared with the Reward in any proportionable measure and herein they have the Apostle going before them Rom. 8.18 2 Cor. 4.17 St. Ambrose thus What can we do worthy of those Coelestial rewards Ambr. in Ps 118. conc 20. Quid possumus praemiis dignum facere coelestibus which has so much the more force in it if we consider what goes before and what follows after it He had said before God tempers his judgment with mercy and none of us can subsist without the divine indulgence then immediately after alledging that of the Apostle Rom. 8.18 he concludes Therefore the execution of the heavenly decrees proceeds not according to our Merits but the mercy of God Something of this we had above in the second rank of Arguments Nu. 6. Greg. the first upon the seventh penit Psalm having said God renders according to works Greg. in Psal 142. Illi namque beatae vitae in qua cum Deo de Deo vivitur nullus labor aequari potest nulla opera comparari presertim cum Apostolus not for our works which saying was made use of above he adds immediately as a reason For unto that blessed life in which we live with God and of God no labour can be equal no endeavour or doings compared with it especially
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