they acknowledge the Mass conteins magnam populi eruditionem great edification and instruction for the people yet decree it not expedient to have it or the Liturgy in the popular or vulgar tongue cap. 8. But if the Court of Rome had seen it equally to their advantage they could have held the people to that which they ought viz. the Communion as well as keep all their Priests from that which they ought not viz. Marriage They acknowledge that Justification precedes good Works Sos 6. c. 8. yet deliver this doctrine Justified by Works grosly to the People They know how it is to their advantage And in the 16. chap. of that Session They acknowledge the grace of God for performance of the work and his gracious promise of the reward yet decree that good Works do truly Merit Add to this their mincing of points of doctrine when they are put to it As when the enquiry is driven home what worship is due to Saints and Angels What Invocation to be used VVhat worship or adoration to be given to Images We see how they lessen it and seem to be contented with very little as we observe in Mr. Spencers concessions upon those points yet do they keep up the practise in the height and full extent suffering if not encouraging the people to perform it grosly and superstitiously as they must needs do being uncapable of such nice distinctions as are used to excuse that worship So when they are put to it in the points of Satisfactions Purgatory Indulgences to shew what is satisfied for what is remitted and consequently what is granted in the Indulgence and to what sort of Persons they are forced to bring it to such an uncertainty and to so small a scantling that the people if they knew it would consider well what they laid out that way before they parted with it but these points are so in gross propounded to the people that they have cause to think as generally they do they are by these satisfactions and indulgences freed from any sin and do escape thereby Hell fire it self This which has been said speaks concessions and yieldings on their part and shewes a possibility of agreement and that some fair way might be found for some tolerable accord did not filthy lucre gotten by those points and the exorbitant greatness of Papal power obstruct it the Court of Rome as we see in all the offers made for reformation being alwaies more sollicitous of upholding it self then of reforming the Church of advancing its own greatness then of promoting the peace of Christendom To conclude The peace of Christians the agreement of the Roman and other Churches is possible if 〈◊〉 e possible for the Pope to do his duty or Christian Princes theirs that is if he would do the duty of a Bishop of Rome or prime Patriarch the duty he is bound to sworn to in taking oath to observe the Canons of the Ancient General Councils which prescribe the bounds of the Roman and other Patriarchal Jurisdictions But if he make light of this and all other bonds of duty why should it not be possible for Christian Princes to do their duty in reducing him within those known and confessed bounds fixed by the Ancient Church In the mean time let them cease to reproach us with Schism till he return to his station where he may receive the obedience due to him by those Ancient Canons let them rather consider whom they follow in all his transgressions and extravagances thereby engaging themselves in his Schism against the whole Catholick Church And let them not please themselves with the specious Name of Catholicks for holding such points of Difference from other Christians as will upon trial appear to be far from the Truth and soundness of Catholick Doctrine And to make this appear by the undeniable Rules of Christian verity Scripture and Catholick Tradition as they are solidly set down by Vincentius is the scope and purpose of this ensuing Treatise If any of their Masters shall think fit to make any Reply let him do it not as one carping at small things and catching at seeming advantages but as one really intending the Manifestations of Truth and the Expedients of Peace the restoring of which throughout the Catholick Church is the Prayer of H. Ferne. The Points of Doctrine here Examined I. OF the worship of Saints and Angels II. Of the Invocation of Saints and Angels III. Of the worship of Images IV. Of Justification by Works V. Of the Merit of Good Works VI. Of Purgatory VII Of Real Presence VIII Of Communion under one kinde An Answer to Mr. Spencers Book INTITULED SCRIPTURE MISTAKEN By the Protestants CHAP. I. The first Point Of the Worship of Saints and Angels THis Author first tells us Introduction what the Council of Trent delivers touching the Worship and invocation of Saints and Angels not as Gods or Saviours but as Creatures dependent on God and Christ and that it is not commanded as necessary but commended as profitable and this to disabuse vulgar Protestants who think the Roman Church teaches it is as necessary to salvation to invoke and worship the Saints as to invoke and worship Christ himself Pag. 3.4 The Council indeed touches this point warily and in general which circumspection and cunning we finde used in most of the decrees they best know wherefore But Vulgar Protestants are not abused when they are told that according to the practice of that Church if we look into the applications made to Saints and their shrines both for the forms and the frequency there appears not much of that dependency on Christ but very much of an opinion connived at if not rather cherished among the Vulgar Papists that it is as necessary and profitable if not more to invoke and worship them then Christ himself But if they will commend this as profitable why did not the Council for the disabusing their own people condemn those unprofitable poisonous forms of invocation yet extant in their books and used in their Churches why has it not yet anathematiz'd that blasphemous Lady Psalter and that horrid doctrine broached by Aquinas and still maintained by most of this Authors soâ—iety that the Image is to be worshipped * Greg. de Val. in Thâ—disput vi Qu. xi puncâ—o 6. Azor. Instit Mor. To. 1. li. 9. c. 6. qu. 5. with the same worship with which he is whose Image it is So that if it be the Image of Christ it is to be worshiped with divine worship The †Bel. de Imaginib l. 2. c. 22 Cardinal acknowledges they which speak so are forced to use distinctions which they themselves scarce understand much less the people So that Mr. Spencer had need look home to disabuse his own people The first place of Scripture Matth. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Numb I Here he needlesly spends time in shewing that worship and service may be given
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
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
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
Faith its due which apprehends that righteousness and be content that inhaerent Righteousness should hold its due place there would be little cause of Controversie in this great point of Christian Doctrine I will conclude with the Cardinals answer to a saying of holy Bernard upon the Canticles * Bern. in Cantic Christus nobis justitia in dulgentia Dei nostra justitia Christ is our righteousness because he justifies us from our sins and the Indulgence of God is our righteousness By Indulgence and Remission saith the * Cardinal he understands full and compleat Justification Bel. de Iustif l. 2. c. 13. Nomine Indulgentiae Remissionis intelligit plenam Iustificationem quoniam ut saepè diximus nunquam remittitur culâ—a quin simul because as we have often said the sin is never remitted but righteousness is together with it insused And so say we But the righteousnes which Bernard cals Indulgence is not the Infused but the righteousness of Justification for where sin is not imputed there righteousness is imputed as * Nu. 4. above shewen out of Rom. 4.6 7. and this is indeed Divine Indulgence But still we acknowledge that continuance in the state of Justification is by good Works or continuance in wel-doing SECT V. Of Merit of good works IT was observed above Chap. V. nu 1. that the Council of Trent had desined Explication of the Question and the Reason of Merit properly taken Good works do truly merit eternal life but did not tell us plainly wherein the Reason of Merit truly so called doth stand only it gives us certain acknowledgements of Gods bounty promise and grace which are so far from being the grounds of Merit as Mr. Spencer there cals them that they do by necessary consequence overthrow it The Question therefore being about Merit truly so called it will be first necessary to see into that for the clearing of it will plainly shew the impertinency of what they alledge out of Scripture or Fathers for their works truly Meritorious We spoke something to this purpose in the V. Chap. as Mr. Spencer gave occasion We may further observe that They who hold up the Controversie for the moderate sort in the Church of Rome do let it fall use three Adverbials which speak the meaning of that Vere merentur or truly meritorious and they are simplicitèr propriè ex condigno simply properly and condignly meritorious as we see in their * Bel. 5. de Iustif c. 16. Vasq in 1.2 Tho. disp 213. c. 4. two great Champions for Merit The word Simply is alwaies exclusive of that which is so or so according to some respect only Now the respect here considerable and to be inquired into has regard to Gods promise bounty and acceptation whereby good works say we obtain so great a reward The Asserters of Merit will not say that their simply meritorious does exclude the Promise or all respect unto it but lay the Promise as a ground-work of their merit The word Merit sounds two things The better to understand this mystery we must consider that the word to merit sounds two things obtaining and deserving the first stands by the promise but the second which carries the reason of merit stands by the worth of the work The Cardinal and his fellowes must say that if God had not made the promise and of his gracious bounty appointed such a reward the best service of man could not have obtained it or brought him to eternal life but they will also say that such service would by the worth of the work and labour have deserved the reward See to this purpose what the Cardinal putting the queston of works condignly meritorious delivereth Bell. l. 5. de Justif c 17. Meritoria ex condigno ratione Pacti tantùm vel operis tantùm vel ratione utrâ—usque This may saith he be three waies varied or considered that works be called condignly meritorious In regard of the Covenant or promise only or in regard of the work only or in regard of both Opus multò inferius mercede promissâ In the first he supposeth the work or service far inferiour to the reward promised as if a hundred Crowns should be promised for one daies labour in the Vineyard Opus revera aequale mercedi Opus verè par mercedi In the second he supposeth the work equal to the reward but no covenant or promise intervening In the third he supposeth the work truly equal to the reward set out in the Covenant or promise and the example of this he makes the penny given to the Labourers in the vineyard Mat. 20. And this third way he declares for that Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of both the promise and the work it self Whereas it is plain that the promise makes but way for the Consecution or obtaining of the reward and is requisite to make works meritorious only according to the first and less proper importance of the word meriting for obtaining but as for deserving of the reward wherein the reason of Merit properly stands that is laid upon the worth of the work which is supposed as we see to be truly equal to the Reward promised Vasquez usually more free and open then the Cardinal plainly professeth and mamtains †Vasquez in Tho. 1.2 disp 214. c. 5. that good works without any promise or divine acceptation are condignly meritorious of eternal life and have of themselves a value or worth equal to it For he saw that the pretence of the Covenant or promise or divine acceptation was no ground but a prejudice to the reason of Merit truly so called and therefore a little after sets himself to prove Vesq c. 8. nullo msdâ— pertinere ad rationem meriti that the Covenant or promise does not at all belong to the reason of Merit and makes this his argument for the condign meriting of Good Works Sin saith he deserves a punishment equal to it without all Covenant or Commination therefore also the works of the Just do condignly merit the eternal Crown of glory Vasq ibid. cap. 10. absque ullo pacto vel comminatione without all Covenant or promise * siqui dem hoâ— praetrâ—â— aequale est for this reward is equal to the worth of the work without the promise But this is thwarted by the Bull of Pius V. and Greg. XIII two Popes condemning certain Propositions of which this is one Vasq ibid. cap. 13. â— Even as the evil of sin in its own nature deserves eternal death so a good work of its own nature deserves or merits eternal life What else did Vasquez say but he strives to clear himself by pretending this difference between his Assertion and the condemned Proposition that the Author of those Propositions held good works without Grace were so meritorious which Vasquez does not Now whether Jesuites little regard what their Popes define in their Bulls being
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
to the worth or dignity of the work This Argument also is inconsequent for admit that the reward is given according to works and in the giving it there is regard had to the dignity of them yet does not this conclude them meritorious as we saw above Nu. 3. Good works indeed may be different in worth and dignity yet all infinitely belwo the eternal reward And in the reward there is the substance and degrees considerable the essential beatitude or eternal life and the degrees of glory All that are saved have eternal life not all the same glory The Penny was given to all Mat. 20.10 To this purpose St. Ambr. l. 7. in Luc. 15. v. 17. aqualem mercedem Vita non gloriae Ambrose Thou hirest in Labourers at the eleventh hour and dost vouchsafe them an equal reward an equal reward of life not of glory The difference of reward upon the difference of good works is in the degrees of glory and if some proportion be observed in this yet nothing of Merit where God does but crown the greater gifts he bestowed here with the greater glory there If they will plead proportion our Saviour tels them Mat. 19.29 an hundred fold is received and that 's no fit proportion to ground Merit on If they plead reward given according to dignity of the works St. Paul tels them Rom. 8.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared with the glory excluding all proportion of worth between the sufferings and the glory Thirdly Such places of Scripture as speak works to be the cause or reason of giving eternal life as Mat. 25.35 For ye have fed cloathed Which places saith the Cardinal do witness eternal life so given Bel. l. 5. de Justif cap. 3. ut ipsam rationem cur detur vita aterna in operibus ponant that they put the very Reason wherefore it is given upon the works Those places do give a reason indeed why such and such obtain eternal life but not the very Reason or the chief Reason for there is a greater Reason a Reason wherefore such works are rewarded with eternal life and that destroyes the Merit of such works though not the certainty of their obtaining and that is Gods gracious bounty and liberality appointing such a reward to such small performances and therefore is it said in the 34. verse an Inheritance and Kingdom prepared for them and then dependently on that it is said Inherit the Kingdom for ye have done that which I required of you in order to inheriting the Kingdom ye are such as they for whom the Kingdom is prepared Fourthly Reward in Justice how Such places of Scripture as speak Gods Justice in giving the reward 2 Thess 1.6 2 Tim. 4.8 But this is still inconsequent as to the inferring of Works meritorious unless they can say God renders the reward to good works according to Commutative justice which gives one for one by equal proportion but such Justice is not found between God and Man for man returns nothing to God which he can call his own nothing but what he has received of God As for the destributive or remunerative justice it is true that God may be said in some sense to render the reward in justice yet not for the merit of the works but out of the bounty of his liberality and the faithfulness of his promise God was not bound in justice to prepare appoint or promise such a reward to such works but having appointed promised it it is just with him to render accordingly So the Apostle speaking of the Justifying of a sinner which the Romanists themselves say cannot be merited useth the same word that he might be just i. e. in keeping his promise to all that believe in Jesus So when the Fathers in their high language speak of Man making God his Debtor they mean it only in regard of his own promise whereby he has freely bound himself St. August Aug. in Psa 83. Debitorem Dominus ipse se fecit non accipiendo sed promittendo may answer for them all The Lord saith he made himself debtor not by receiving any thing but by promising Lastly Such places of Scripture Worthy of the Reward how as speak us worthy So Luc. 10.7 2 Thess 1.5 Rev. 3.4 This argument as the rest is inconsequent They are worthy therefore their Works are meritorious or therefore they have the reward for the worth of their works whereas this worthiness arises by divine acceptation by which they are accounted worthy Bernard may answer them once for all Bern. de dedic Eccl. ser 5. illius dignatione non nostra dignitate We are worthy saith he by his dignation not by our own dignity See also above Chap. V. nu 8 9. In the Testimonies alledged by them out of the Fathers they give us but words or bare sayings Their Testimonies out of Antiquity examined But we produce the Fathers witnessing for us against Merit and giving reason withall to overthrow it The Greek Fathers have not any word that fully answers the importance of the Latine word Merit but the Romanists usually translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which occurs frequently in these Fathers especially Chrysostome and signifies no more then recte facta Deeds rightly done or good works Merita Merits Such merits that is good works we acknowledge the Fathers do allow and the Cardinal acknowledges that St. Aug. Bel. de gra lib. arbitr l. 1. c. 14. Meritum appellat quemlibet actum bonum ratione cujus aliquid aliud accipimus in whose Books the word Merit is most frequently found uses it for every good work in regard of which we receive some other thing Well then we acknowledge holy men full of such Merits or good Deeds and that they shall obtain or be rewarded with eternal life And I dare say there is not any Father that affirms more as we may see by that Collection Bel. l. 5. de Justis c. 4. which the Cardinal has made He begins with the Greek Fathers but produces their sayings only in Latine and there he has as I noted above this gift usually to choose the worst translation so when he makes Ignatius say ut possim promereri Deum whereas the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to obtain or enjoy God although we need not be afraid of the phrase promereri Deum which we shall see St. Cyprian often using in an innocent sense according to the meaning of those ancient Times So the Cardinal makes Justin Martyr to say victuros cum eo suis meritis that they shall live with him God by their merits Justin Apolog 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas the Greek is to be accounted worthy of his conversation or of being with him In like manner that St. Basil should say speaking of the Forty Martyrs Basil in orat de 40. Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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 Now
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
with the doctrine of Inherent Righteousness and what they bring from Scripture or Fathers to make it seem Catholick Inherent Righteousness they distinguish into Habitual which is by infusion of Grace and Actual which is acquired by Works and here they are not agreed * Bel. l. 2. de Justif c. 15. An sit Habitualis an Actualis an utraque De hac re disputant Catholici Doctores Sed conveniunt in eo omnes ut sit in nobis ver a justitia inhaerens non autem Christi justitia imputata whether a sinner be made formally righteous by the Habitual or by the Actual righteousness or by both together for the Cardinal acknowledges their Doctors dispute it but saith he all agree that it is a true inhaerent righteousness by which we are made righteous formally not the imputed righteousness of Christ How their Catholick Doctors agree in this we shall examine presently But first see how the Cardinal declares He professeth in the same place that his judgement is for the * Solam habitualem esse per quam justi formaliter sâ—mus ibid. Habitual as infused and answers the places of Scripture which are alledged by those that plead for the Actual also where we may note that the places of Scripture here alledged for the Actual righteousness against the solam habitualem the habitual only are the very same which they usually bring for works against solam fidem Faith only and the Answers which the Cardinal returns to them may serve us to exclude works from the true Justification The places and answers briefly are these Rom. Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 16. 2.13 The doers of the Law shall be Justified The Cardinal answers out of S. Aug. They shal be adjudged or declared just in the Divine Judgment St. James c. 2.24 By works a man is justified The Cardinal answers out of the Council of Trent which interprets that place of the second justification in as much as by good and just works the increase of habitual justice is merited Lastly 1 Jo. 3.7 He that doth righteousness is righteous The Card. answers the Apostle doth not speak what makes a man formally just but that whereby a man may be known to be just By this it appears how the Cardinal removes the Actual righteousness of Works from that which they hold to be the first and true and proper Justification much more are they removable from the formality of that which we hold the true and proper Justification according to the doctrine of St. Paul Now let us examine whether they all agree Concessions of Romanists about Imputation as the Cardinal boasted upon the inhaerent righteousness against the imputed First see what Vasquez and Bellarmine two great Defenders of inhaerent Righteousness and the perfection of it are forced to grant about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness Vega had said as Vasquez notes and corrects him for it Divine providence ordered it so Vasq in 1.2 Disput 222. cap. 1. that the Fathers used not the word of Imputation lest they should seem to give occasion to the Hereticks of these daies for their Error of false Imputation He was not afraid it seems of the Apostles giving them occasion and warrant for the Doctrine of Imputation But Vasquez acknowledges the Fathers did use that word and other words aequivalent as Communication and Application And he grants Concedimus imputari nobis Merita obedientiam Christi acsi revera essent nostra ibid. that the merits and obedience of Christ are imputed to us as if indeed they were ours and he giveth a good Reason Because the merits of Christ are the Merits of our Head This is fair and enough for our purpose if he did not pull back what he had given out and restrain what he had freely and truly granted Therefore he subjoyns Dissentimus ab Haereticis in eo ad quod merita Christi existimamus nobis imputari Dicimus imputari ratione Effectus quo pacto loquitur Concil Trid. etiam ad aliquem effectum imputari ibid. VVe differ from the Hereticks in that to which or for which the Merits of Christ are imputed How is that VVe say they are imputed saith he by reason of the Effect as the Council of Trent speaks also that they are imputed as to some effect Now if we ask to what effect He tels us in the two next chapters They are imputed unto Justification and unto life eternal This is very true But how unto Justification In regard of the dispositions and in regard of the Form of Justification in as much as by or through the Merits of Christ grace pravenient and adjuvant is given to dispose us to Justification and Inhaerent Righteousness given formally to justifie us Thus he explains himself in the second chapter and as for remission of sins by the satisfaction of Christ imputed no mention of that We must look for it in that purgation of sin which he supposes to be made by Infused Righteousness for they usually consound Remission and Deletion or purgation of sin as above noted nu 1. The Cardinal in his Concessions speaks a little clearer for Remission of our sins by the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ imputed reserving himself still for his inhaerent Righteousness and having nothing to keep him off from the protestant Doctrine which allows the being and necessity of Inhaerent righteousness but only the nicety of a Term Formaliter For * Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 7. Si solâ—m vellent imputari nobis Christi merita quia nobis donata sunt possumus ea Deo patri offerre pro peccaâ—is nostris quoniâ—m Christus suscrpit onus satisfaciendi pro nobis recta esset corum sententia speaking of Protestants If they would saith he have only Christs merits imputed to us because they are given to us and we may offer them to God the Father for our sins because he undertook the burden of satissying for us their doctrine were right and sound But so to have Christs righteousness imputed to us as if by it we were formally just is repugnant to right reason Well we say the first which he cannot but approve we do not say the other for that formally just or justified is their expression not ours Again Although by inhaerent Righteousness saith he Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 10. Etiamsi per justitiam inhaer tamen per eam non saâ—isfacimus Deo pro peccatis poena aeterna Non absurdum c. we are truly denominated and made righteous yet do we not by that satisfie God for our sins and eternal punishment therefore it is not absurd to say Christs merits and righteousness is imputed to us as if we our selves had satisfied so that it be not denied there is besides an inhaerent righteousness in us we do not deny there is but affirm they ascribe too much unto it and may observe how careful the Cardinal is for this
inhaerent Righteousness but as for the imputed a Non absurdum will serve that It is no absurdity to grant it There is one place more where the Cardinal admits the Imputation of Christs Righteousness and that the similitude of a garment used by the Protestants may agree to it in as much as Christs satisfaction for our sins is applied to us Bel. de Justif lib. 2. c. 11. Nobis donatùr applicatur nostra reputatur and reputed ours This is fair but then he adds in behalf of the formality of his inhaerent Righteousness That one man should satisfie for another is reasonable not that one should be formally just because another is so True a man cannot be therefore formally just that is inhaerently just or as by an inhaerent qualification but why may he not be therefore that is for Christs satisfaction and righteousness imputed accepted of God as just and righteous in the notion of Justification that is one to whose charge nothing can be laid one reconciled restored to favour accepted to life eternal And as Bel. said Christs satisfaction is reputed ours he means really so why may not we thereupon be also reputed really just and righteous as to the notion or importance of Justification and if by that satisfaction and righteousness of our Saviour imputed we are acquitted in our Justification from our sins and eternal death as the Cardinal granted and so doth their Trent Council why should not a sinner so acquitted be also accepted to eternal life purchased for us by that satisfaction and righteousness imputed accepted I say to eternal life as to the first Right This may be inferred also from the words of that Council when it tels us as we had it * Num. 2. above what Justification is A translation from the state of the Sons of Adam into the Adoption of the Sons of God through Jesus Christ Which though no good definition yet implies there is in Justification a remission of sins and the condemnation due to them under which all men lye while they are in the state of the Sons of Adam Again it implies such persons acquitted of their sins are received into favour as sons by Adoption and that gives Right in the same moment to the heavenly inheritance Lastly that all this through Jesus Christ which implies the satisfaction and merits of Christ applyed imputed Now albeit Inherent Righteousness be given Other purposes of inhaerent Righteousness then that we should be justified by it in Justifying of a sinner as often said before yet it is not given for the formalizing of Justification it self properly taken but as consequential to it for qualifying the subject answerably to that which is received in Justification For there is Remission of sin as to the offence and condemnation therefore grace also put into the Soul for doing away by degrees the stain and corruption and for breaking the dominion of Sin There is also Adoption and receiving the person as a son of God therefore Grace infused for the New-birth and as a Principle of New life and obedience There is acceptation and Right to eternal life or heavenly inheritance therefore grace and inherent Righteousness given for the fitting and preparing of the Person to the pursuit obtaining and enjoying of it We see other purposes of Inhaerent Righteousness given us then that we should be Justified by it Furthermore that the accepting of us as righteous in our Justification follows immediately and is intrinsecally joyned with Remission of sins is plain by the Apostle Ro. 4.6 7 8. telling us who are those blessed ones to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness even Those to whom he will not impute sin And the similitude of a Garment or of Jacobs wearing his elder brothers cloathes to get the blessing and the birth-right which the Cardinal granted appliable to the imputation of Christs righteousness to us does imply more then remission of sins Even the accepting of their Persons and receiving of them as Sons unto the blessing Also that the Imputation of Christs righteousness should not be confined as the Romanists would have it or delight to express it to the bare importance of satisfaction they might think it reasonable by that which they yield to the satisfactions of Saints appliable and imputable to others For when we urge against that Treasure of their Church and the applying of it that common judgment of the School Meritum non excedit Personam Merit exceeds not the Person Christ only excepted They distinguish and consider the good works and sufferings of the Saints as Satisfactory and as Meritorious and say as they are Meritorious they exceed not the Person but as Satisfactory they are imputable appliable to others Which albeit said without ground or warrant might keep them from restraining thus the imputation of Christs righteousness to the point of satisfaction and allow it to be not only as satisfactory in the Justification of a Sinner but as Meritorious also to all effects and purposes for compleating the act of Justification in the accepting of the Person as Righteous to whom it is imputed or applied We have seen what concessions are made of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness by those that are most for the inhaerent I mean the Jesuites and how they lay too much upon the inhaerent righteousness in the point of Justification when the Imputed would bear it better Now see what Vasquez who has handled this doctrine of Inhaerent Righteousness most copiously and diligently acknowledgeth touching their dissenting Authors Romish writers dissenting in the point of Justification by Inhaerent Righteousness to the great prejudice of this their supposed Catholick Doctrine First * Vasq in Thom. 1.2 disput 205. c. 1. he acknowledges of Durand and other Schoolmen that they held We are pleasing and accepted of God before he infuseth Grace or inhaerent Righteousness And that this gift of inhaerent Grace or habitual righteousness does not necessarily arise from that acceptation of God but from the will of God appointing that every one who is to be brought to eternal life should have it This is that which we say that albeit inherent grace or habitual righteousness doth accompany and follow immediately upon Divine Acceptation yet it does not necessarily accompany or arise from it as to justification but for other purposes as noted above one whereof and the main one is here mentioned viz. the bringing preparing fitting us to eternal life and is there approved by Vasquez himself But for the former part of their Sentence that pronounces us pleasing unto God and accepted of him unto Justification by the imputation of Christs righteousness antecedently to infusion of habitual righteousness * Non parum favere Haereticis nostri tempori Vasquez disp 205. c. 2. He saith it doth not a little favour the Hereticks of our daies And in another place speaking of the Imputation of Christs righteousness and merits which the Protestants assert in Justification he
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have merited promeriti sunt crowns of glory and what oration or speech can sufficiently set forth or reach their Merits where the same word is used they were accounted worthy or did obtain such Crowns and that which he renders their Merits is in the Greek their worthiness or vertue He cites Chrysostom saying in his hom on Lazarus rendred according to their Merits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek sounds according to their desert and speaks of both wicked and good and is no more then what the Scripture often saith according to their works Dispunctio utriusque meriti Tertul in Apolog c. 18. and what Tertullian cals the discrimination or severing of both merits of the one to punishment and of the other to reward as we see set forth in Mat. 25.32 and in the different end of the rich glutton and of Lazarus Luc. 16.25 they were dealt with according to their different lives and thus Clemens in his Strom. doth more then once use this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is according to their works or desert It speaks the difference of desert in the one and the other does not speak the worth or proportion of the work to the reward of eternal life To this purpose it was spoken * Nu. 3. above upon their alledging Ecclus. 16. according to their Merits for according to their Works That which he alledges out of Irenaeus and some other Fathers speaks only to this purpose that eternal life is acquired and obtained by good works which was the second thing we acknowledged to be asserted by the Ancients and by us admitted as a Truth which makes nothing to condign Merit truly so called The Latine Fathers cited by the Cardinal Bel. l. 5. de Justific c. 4. albeit they have the word Merit more frequently yet do they indeed speak no more then the former St. Cyprian we grant does often use the phrase promereri Deum but according to the innocent meaning as I said above of those Times promeneri Deum for obtaining or procuring Gods Favour by doing that which is pleasing to him or for enjoying God or his presence in bliss and glory That which the Cardinal cites out of Greg. Mor. 4. c. 42. out of Celestines Epist and out of Bernard in Cantic contributes no more to the Romish cause then the word Merit put for good Deeds only Greg. implies there that the glory will be proportionably the greater and answerable to the measure of good Deeds which we deny not but we deny that this advancement of the reward and increase of the glory which does so much more set out the divine bounty and free liberality should be made an argument for condignity of mans merit as the Romanists do and the Cardinal did above nu 3 urging those Scriptures for Merit which speak the Reward given in proportion to the works But that which the Cardinal brings out of Celestine who was also Bishop of Rome and is here cited for the Names-sake of Merit speaks indeed against them So great saith he is the goodness of God towards all men Tanta erga omnes homines est bonitas Dei ut nostra velit esse Merita quae sunt ipsius dona pro his quae largitus est aeterna praemia sit donaturus Celest in Ep. that he is pleased they should be our Merits which are his Gifts and that he will give us the eternal rewards for those things which he had bestowed freely upon us before which destroyes the very reason of their Merit properly taken That which is cited out of Ambrose de Offic. l. 1. c. 15. saith no more then according to their works whether they be good or bad as above in the Testimony drawn out of Chrysostome The sayings of Hierome and Hilary speak but the second thing we acknowledged viz that good deeds will obtain or be so rewarded Indeed St. Aug. cited by the Cardinal here may seem to speak more then the former Aug. ep 105. ad Sixtum Sicut merito peccati tanquam stipendium redditur mors ità merito justitiae tanquam stipendium vita aeterna As unto the merit of sin death is rendred as the stipend and wages so is life eternal rendred as a stipend to the merit of righteousness Where the stipend or wages is no more then Reward This is clear by what he saith in relation to the Apostles saying Rom 6. ult A stipend is rendred as due for the labour of the warfare Aug. Enchirid. c. 107. Stipendium pro opere militiae debitum redditur non donatur Id eo dixit stipendium pecsati mors gratia verò nisi gratis sit gratia non est is not freely given therefore the Apostle said The wages of sin is death and therefore eternal life cannot be thus called a stipend but grace or the gift of God except it be free is not grace and St. Aug. adds immediately as consequent to it Intelligendum est igitur ipsa hominis bona merita esse Dei munera quibus cùm vita aeterna redditur quid nisi gratia pro gratia reddi tur Aug. ibid. Therefore we must understand that the Merits or good Deeds of Man are the gifts of God to which when aeternal life is given what is there else given but grace for grace And by this we may see how St. Aug. meant what he speaks elswhere upon that of Rom. 6. ult a saying that the Romanists still oppose to the argument we make against Merit from the Text of the Apostle St. Aug. saying is this Aug. de Gra. lib. arb c. 9. Cum posset dicere recte dicere stipendium justitiae vita aeterna maluit dicere The Apostle might have said and said it truly that the wages or stipend of Righteousness is life eternal he chose rather to say the Gift of God He might have said it in a true sense taking the word stipend as above for a reward or recompence not in an equal or answerable sense to the other the wages or stipend of sin is death for then it would not have consisted with the Truth of that which the Apostle did say but the gift of God is life eternal nor with the end and purpose wherefore the Apostle did choose to say the gift rather then the stipend viz. to exclude all thought of merit of condignity as it follows there in St. Maluit dicere Gratia Dei vita aeterna ut intelligeremus non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam sed pro sua miseratione perducere Aug. 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 Mercy sake There is scarce any of the Ancients that has either commented on that Text of the Apostle or occasionally faln upon it but observes the apparent distinction which the
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
albeit what this Doctor asserted was most false yet does it plainly follow upon the Romish Doctrine of truly meritorious which the Doctor saw plainly must be deserted or this must be maintained he saw plainly that if good works were truly meritorious they would be so whether there were promise made or no for as I noted above The promise makes not for the merit of the work but for the consecution or obtaining of the reward also he saw that if eternal life were by a gracious and free promise it could not be due to the work of Justice Lastly the Cardinal in the same place acknowledges Bel. l. 5. de Just c. 14. sect Tertia Omnes conditione servi Mancipia Dei operibus nostris alioqui debitis We are all by our Creation servants yea bond servants of God and that there cannot be justice between us God unless he had been pleased of himself by a free Convention to appoint a reward to our works which were otherwise due Due antecedently to all promise due from our being and Creation and if all the justice that can be found 'twixt God Almighty and us men be in regard of his promise only as indeed it is it cannot be in regard of any obligation the work it self casts upon God to make him our Debtor as the Cardinal above did not fear to assert Truth and the Conviction of Gods free and bountiful dealing with man extorts such Concessions from them as do sufficiently contradict their bold Assertions and might put end to the Controversie if some unjustifiable ends did not still engage them SECT VI. Of Purgatory THat Purgatory is conceived to be a Place of pain or punishment What Purgatory is that for Souls of just Persons departed out of this life is plain by the * Sess 6. Can. 30. Council of Trent and by the Reason or ground of it according to the Romish conceit because it is for those to whom the sin and the eternal punishment is forgiven but the temporal not fully satisfied by them here and therefore must be payed or born hereafter This appeared above chap. VI. nu 1.5.6 The Cardinal is bold to affirm Bel. li. 1. de Purgat c. 15. that Purgatory is an Article of the Catholick faith and may be proved all the four waies that points of Faith use to be proved by viz. by express Testimony of Scripture with the Declaration of the Church So is the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father proved or by evident deduction from that which is express in Scripture So is the Article of two Wills in Christ proved c. and so is Purgatory proved saith the Cardinal and he boasts that he has so proved it by giving us many places of Scripture mistaken as to that sense and many sayings of Fathers misapplied as to that purpose which will appear upon the Trial following It will appear that this Doctrine of Purgatory is not Catholick but the invention of later Times taking Rise from that which St. Aug. hinted as probable touching pains after death and then having an Advancement by fabulous reports of Visions and deluding apparitions in St. Gregories time and after at last receiving a Definition and establishment in the Church of Rome And for the countenancing of it They force many places of Scripture and whatever they finde in the Fathers concerning prayer for the Dead or touching a purging Fire though spoken to other purpose doing therein as those Hereticks of whom St. Hilary said that they drew Scripture to that ad id quod praesumpserunt credendum which they had of themselves presumed or before conceived to be proposed and held as matter of Belief For better proceeding We will reduce all to these Heads The Place or state of Souls after death The Prayers that were made for the Dead The Remission of sins after death The pains or punishment after death What the Romanists bring from Scripture or Fathers touching any of these we shall meet with As for the Texts of Scripture alledged by them we may say this in General They have no consent of Fathers for such a sense as they would fasten upon the Texts they cite in behalf of Purgatory First for the Place or state of souls departed Of the Place or state of Souls departed Scriptures alledged by the Romanists There are two Scriptures especially which they alledge for such a place of Souls as they phansie Purgatory to be The one is Zach. 9.11 I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the Pit where no water is which text in the first and immediate sense speaks the deliverance of that people out of the Babylonish captivity but is by many of the Ancients applied to our Saviours bringing forth the Souls of the Fathers of the old Testament out of their Receptacle or Limbus And the Cardinal acknowledges Bel. l. 1. de Purgat c. 3. Non est aqua Conâ— solationis it has been usually taken in that sense but thinks it as proper for Purgatory and the rather because in this there is not the Water of consolation as there was in the other And this is to be noted here because we shall finde the Cardinal below put to devise how prayers for the Dead made by the Ancient Church for those that rested in peace Bel. l. 2. de Purgat c. 4. admixtam cum cruciatibus incredibilem consolationem propter certam spem salutis could concern Souls in purgatory that is in Torment and cannot invent any expedient for it but by referring that rest and peace to the Comfort and satisfaction they have there together with their Torment by reason of their hope and assurance of coming out of those pains into eternal bliss That which the Cardinal for proof of his interpreting that text of Zach. in behalf of Purgatory fastens upon St. August is not that Fathers expression or intention but the Cardinals misapplication St. August in the places cited by the Cardinal Epist 49. ad Euod lib. 12. in Genes c. 33. speaks of our Saviours descending into Hell and delivering some that were there but i. e. in Purgatorio is the Cardinals addition The other Text is Mat. 5.25 where we read of a prison and a payment to be made there but what proof is there more then a strong phansie that this must signifie Purgatory The Cardinal indeed alledges some Fathers using those words of our Saviour as a Commination against Sinners but that they should thereby intend a Romish Purgatory is still the Cardinals misapplication One and the chief of those Fathers cited by him is St. Cyprian in his Epist 52. ad Antonian where He plainly as we shall see below applies that of the prison and the paying of the utmost farthing to the Severity of Ecclesiastick Pennances and Satisfactions under which the Lapsi or those that fell in time of persecution were held Now when the Fathers give any direct interpretation of that
AN APPEAL TO Scripture Antiquity In the Questions of 1. The Worship and Invocation of Saints and Angels 2. The Worship of Images 3. Justification by and Merit of good Works 4. Purgatory 5. Real presence and Half-Communion Against the ROMANISTS By H. FERNE D.D. late Bishop of CHESTER LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to His most Sacred MAJESTY 1665. THE PREFACE BEing both provoked and invited to make some Answer to Mr. Spencer's Book of Scriptures Mistaken I assayed to do it as briefly as I could and it was needful I should confine my self to the Order he observed and to the places of Scripture he examined as urged by Protestants against the Romish Doctrine and Practise and to those he alledges as witnessing for it But seeing he boasts in his Preface that he will deal with the Protestants and beat them at their own Weapon Scripture and so comes not to the trial of Antiquity which he pretends and with too much confidence presumes to be their own therefore I shall add A Brief Survey of the Ancient Doctrine and Practise of the Catholick Church as to the points here Controverted that it may appear how they are worsted there what brags soever they make of Antiquity But it may be said There are Bocks enough and too many which do but continue the Controversie and keep the breach open More need there is to endeavour some closing and to make offers of Agreement True if we could conceive any hope of condescention on their parts or perceive any intent of Peace in them whom we still finde lying at the catch and laying hold upon all advantages which may promote their cause with all sorts of people into whose hands they thrust such Books as may render it more plausible and into whose ears they are continually whispering what may represent the Protestant as guilty of Schism and Heresie thereby enforcing us to break silence and to inform our People if we will not have them seduced of the cunning of our Adversaries to discover their Dawbings and vain Pretences such as Mr. Spencer and others sent over to the same purpose do use for deceiving of the Unwary Peace among Christians surely is the most beseeming the most desirable Thing in the world and would be considering how it now stands with the too much divided Catholick Church the greatest blessing and we have been sufficiently taught how to value it by the past and present distractions and differences amongst us But when we talk of Peace to them of Rome they are ready to reproach us with Physician heal thy self make up your own breaches and Divisions before you speak of being received into the Unity of the Catholick Church Let them alone a while with their so much pretended unity our first care certainly is to make peace at home and in the mean time as we see it the care and prudence of all States to guard the Borders against the Forrein and Common Enemy to fortifie those Doctrines wherein the Parties dissenting do agree and are as within common bounds enclosed And blessed be God we have a great expedient for the restoring of our Peace by the return of our gracious Soveraign unto us who is the true Defender of the Faith the great Example of Constancy in Religion and of Clemency in fogiving and forgetting injuries And when we his Subjects being assured of the Truth and Religion which he defends have also learned to obey by His Example and with mutual condescentions and endeavours of peace to entertain and embrace one another then shall our hearts be better prepared with a charitable compliance for the Adversary abroad when soever he shall think it convenient to admit thoughts of Peace and shall seriously consider how we are all bound to profess and believe One not Roman but Christian Catholick Church We cannot but be sensible what hand they that stile themselves Catholicks have had in kindling this fire among us and bringing fuel to it and we would have them being so oft convinced and told of it sensible how unchristian uncatholick a part it is how contrary to the Peace of the Church But could they that are sent over amongst us to blow the coals forget their Instructions and Vow of Obedience and they that send them learn to value the Peace of Christendome yet what hope may some ask could there be of an Accord in Doctrine If we consider what passed in the Germain Colloquies during the Time of the Trent Council and observe what condescention and moderation appeared then notwithstanding the intervention of so many Nuncio's from Rome and the so much boasted pretence of Infallibility in that Church If also we carefully look into their Controversie-Writers and note what concessions they sometimes make in the point what mincings of the Romish doctrine when they are put to it there may appear a possibility in the thing it self if peaceable men had the handling of it But when we consider on the other hand how all those endeavours for Peace became Fruitless and all the offers made at Truth by moderate Men in that Council were silenced and rejected and notwithstanding all their mincings and concessions in those points the Doctrine and Practise of that Church goes as high as ever We may imagine there are some over-ruling points of State-doctrine of the Court rather then Church of Rome which command the Rest and forbid all condescention and moderation such at least as may give us any hope of a tolerable agreement And thus it will be what ever we endeavour till order be taken with him that pretends to the Infallibility and exorbitant Power of whom we may say in this particular as the Apostle doth of that lawless person 2 Thess 2.7 He who now letteth will let until he be taken out of the way that is until he be reduced within the bounds of the Canons of the Catholick Church A glorious work for Christian Princes a work of greatest concernment to the Peace of Christendome But till that be done I would commend those considerations following to All that delight or are inclined to be in the Communion of that Church and in subjection to that pretended infallible and all-powerful Head I. Why should they desire to be under a lawless boundless Power under a Head so notoriously perjured If this seem harsh let them seriously consider what they in reason and conscience finde to excuse him from that charge who bindes himself by Oath in the Conclave and then in the Papal Chair holds himself loose from what he sware to observe who also swears to observe the Canons of the Ancient General Councils yet will not keep within the bounds they have set Him but challenges and exercises an Universal Jurisdiction to the overthrow of that Government which those Canons have fixed in the Way of the Church II. Why they should so much desire to be of the Communion of that Church which while the Court of Rome is suffered to desine all to
and disposed by the motion of his will It implies that which I said and that such preparatory works are not excluded by every meaning of Justification by faith alone for it condemns him that saith a wicked man to be justified by faith alone so that he means there is none of these required II. These works or workings of the soul are preparatory and dispositive to Justification for there are many acts and motions of the will that go before desire fear love sorrow purposes which may be call'd Initials upon the ministry of the word the threatnings and the promises as before child-bearing many throws so in the travail of the soul for the second birth Faith it self rises by degrees of persuasions for there are divers acts and persuasions of faith till it come to that last act that believing with the whole heart immediately requisite to Justification Now faith in all those preparatory motions has the preeminence for it gives beginning to them for by the persuasions that faith has of those threats and promises in the Gospel Preeminence of faith in them and of all the truths of Christs performances and merits arise desires and fears sorrow love the motions of the heart or will and these Initials advance and gather strength according to the advance that faith has in its apprehensions and perswasions for this the Trent Council acknowledges Faith to be the beginning of mans salvation the foundation and root of Justification Chap. 8. this is well said in regard of faith's preeminence and efficacy in the preparatory works had they but given to it its due in the act of Justification that singular efficacy and property it has above all other graces in the apprehending and receiving of the meritorious cause of our Justification Christ and his righteousness Now let not any think these preparatory acts or workings to be without grace preventing as if a man did of himself and by the proper motion of his own will dispose himself to justification the Trent Council condemns such doctrine Can. 3. III. There are other acts and works also besides faith Conditions and qualifications in Justification which according to their measure are required in Justification as conditions of receiving remission of sins so repentance and the act of charity in forgiving others But Faith here also has the preeminence no other act or work of the soul having the capacity or efficacy to apprehend the meritorious cause and so notwithstanding that other workings of the soul as those of Repentance and Charity according to their measure be required as conditions of receiving the benefit Preeminence of faith which is remission of sins or as qualifications of the subject that receives it yet not as Instrument of receiving and apprehending the meritorious cause of justification and remission as faith is for which justification is specially ascribed to Faith IIII. As for that infused inherent Righteousness Inherent Righteousness which the Church of Rome laies so much upon in the point of our Justification seeing it is the Work of God as they acknowledge it is no proof of their doctrine of justification by works and they might forbear to make it the formal cause of our justification when we acknowledge the presence of it in and with justification as a necessary qualification of the person Justified A needless dispute it is what should be the formal cause of our Justification seeing the meritorious cause is acknowledged on both sides But if they will talk of a Formal cause it can be no other then Christs righteousness as imputed Formal Cause and by faith apprehended and made ours for that phrase of the Apostle he is made unto us righteousness 1 Cor. 1.30 and we made the righteousness of God in him sounds something to a formal cause not inherent but by way of imputation and account not that God imputes his righteousness as if we had done it but that for his righteousness performed for us he not only forgives sin to them that apprehend it duly by faith but accounts of them receives them as righteous Therefore instead of asking after the formal cause in us more proper it is to enquire according to the Apostles expression Ro. 4.13 it was counted to him for righteousnes v. 23. it shall be imputed to us what is that which is imputed to us for righteousness i. e. upon which being performed on our part God receives accounts of us as righteous We finde by the Apostle it is our believing for it was so with Abraham He believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness not the Tò Credere the very act of believing but more concretely considered with that which it apprehends the receiving of what is offered in the promise Christ and his righteousness V. Lastly as for those that are commonly call'd good works which being done in the state of grace are more perfect then the former such as were preparatory and dispositive to justification or according to their measure required in Justification as Conditional to the remission of sins given in it Those good works I say are the only works concerned in their doctrine of Justification by works yet is not the first justification by these works for they follow it Our Adversaries when put to it do grant it and draw the whole dispute as we see by this Author to that which they call the second Justification of which if they will make no more then as I hinted above their Council makes of it we might here sit down having the cause yeilded up to us but that they think themselves concerned to propound the doctrine in gross to the people Justified by works and in their disputes for it to confound the first and second Justification using places of Scripture which treat of the first or true and proper Justification as we shall see in examining of them This Author begins with S. James 2.24 which he brings as a confirmation of the Romish Position that Faith only does not Justify where it is our turn now to observe his mistakes Should we therefore demand what justification is this that S. James treats of first or second he must confess his impertinency for the Apostle here treats of the first the true and proper Justification and that both he and his Trent Council acknowledge most free and not by works now this Author acknowledges it is the same Justification which S. James and S. Paul treats of and its evident by S. James citing the same Scripture for his Justification v. 23. whic S. Paul does Rom. 4.3 Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness But it is plain that S. Paul every where treats of the first and proper Justification The other example also that S. James makes use of viz. of Rahab plainly speaks the first Justification And therefore this Author spending his whole discourse against that distinction of being Justified before God and before men to prove that S. James speaks
of true internal Justification before God does but prove what we allow and what makes against himself who must acknowledge a man is truly justified before God before he does such works Seeing then this is the first Justification which S. James intends and that as both they and we say is not by works this cannot without gross mistake and impertinency be objected as it is by them against us but they and we are both of us concerned to reconcile the seeming contrariety between the two Apostles As for the distinction of Justification before God and before men albeit there may be a several consideration of Justification to that purpose and good works do declare a man Justified and as I may say do justify his faith yet we need not here make use of it but the purpose of S. Iames in writing this Epistle does direct us rather to a several consideration of Faith or believing for when he denies a man to be justified by faith alone he speaks not of a lively working faith to which S. Paul attributes justification but of a bare and seeming faith in profession only and as to good works dead and barren such as they rested in against whom he writes This is plain by S. James his subjoyning v. 23. and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed c. how could the Apostle bring this Scripture the same that S. Paul does for justifying faith Rom. 4.3 in confirmation of what he saith of works but to shew that Abrahams faith which justified him was a working faith Now if the Romanists conceive themselves less concerned for fear of the former truth to labour in the clearing of the contrariety which seems to be between the Apostles Romanists confound their First and Second Justification and think it more popular and for their advantage to cry up S. James his bare words of justification by works we cannot help it but must only note their wilfull mistake and impertinency in so eagerly urging S. Iames who speaks of the first justification Mr. Spencer indeed promises pa. 148. to reconcile the two Apostles but does it so as neither of them will be reconciled to his second justification as we shall see by examining the places of S. Paul which he insists on to shew the Protestants mistaken but first take notice of what he saith here upon occasion of the former Text of S. Iames. Iustified by good works working with faith and perfecting it informing and vivificating it as S. James describes them here p. 148. This is not only impertinent but guilty of falshood belying the Apostle for first he said not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ja. 2.22 that works wrought with faith but that his faith wrought with his works Secondly Albeit the Apostle saith by works was faith made perfect yet does he not therefore describe works as informing and vivificating it for here is no other perfection meant then what the effect brings to the Agent fruit to the tree operation to the power or virtue from which it is as every thing that is made for use ordained to practice and operation is then said to be made perfect and consummate when it comes to working but this is far from informing or vivificating it he may as well say the breath which proceeds from the life of the body its S. Iames his similitude v. 26. does inform and vivisicate it In like manner good works do not inform or give life to faith but receive from it proceeding from it as effects and fruits the whole chapter Heb. 11. shews it speaking the effects of faith even of Abrahams here mentioned And that which this Author pa. 143. gathers from his Trent Council speaks plainly as we noted above that men are freely justified and then do good works And this shews his impertinency for they require fidem formatam faith informed for the first justification how then by works that follow and his inadvertency in again crossing their own doctrine for they say Faith is informed by charity infused in the first justification how then by works that come after Now for the Places out of S. Paul which he insists on to shew the Protestants mistaken The first is Rom. 3.28 Without the works of the Law Here and in all such places which exclude the works of the Law he will have Protestants mistaken in the undestanding of the works of the Law Because by the Law is understood that which is written in the books of Moses both Moral and Ceremonial and by works of the Law Saint Paul understands such works as are done by force and knowledge of the Law before the faith of Christ is infused into the soul or that it is enlightned and assisted by his grace pa. 149 c. It is true that the Law is often so taken but when the Apostle excluds works of the Law in relation to Abrahams justification it cannot refer to Moses Law after given and written But the speech by faith and not by works comes to this issue no man can be justified by doing or working according to the Law he is under Not Abraham by the works of the Law then Not Jews by the works of the Law then the Law of Moses Not Christians by works or by doing what they are bound to do by the Law and Commandements which they are under But by reason of their many failings in those works and doings they must stand by faith apprehending Christs obedience and satisfaction to bear them out against the sentence of the Law or Gods judgment And it is true also that the Apostle sometimes takes the works of the Law for such as are done by force and knowledge of the Law before the faith of Christ c. as when he speaks of such as sought righteousness by the works of the Law without Christ but we cannot think the Apostle excludes works of the Law i. e. such as are done before grace as this Author saith from justifying to admit works done in grace into their stead for justification nor think that as Pharisees sought it by the former works and mist of it Rom. 9.31 so the Romanists may seek it by the latter sort of works and finde it for Rom. 10.3 4 5 6 9. he sets the righteousness of the Law and of faith simply one against the other neither can the righteousness of faith be imagined to be any righteousness of our working Observe farther what this Author saith pa. 150. that Rom. 3. v. 20. is added By the law is the knowledge of sin which is a reason wherefore such works as are done by the knowledge of the Law only cannot justify from whence we likewise infer If by the Law is the knowledge of sin and the Law still convinces those that are under grace of sin they cannot be justified by their works before God David and holy men in his time had the same way of justification as we notwithstanding they were under Moses Law who when they were
follow with them The text saith not they rest presently after death that 's his first exception The present blessedness of them that dy in the Lord. and he pretends for it Mat. 5.3 where the poor in spirit are called Blessed and and yet in their misery but blessed because the kingdome of heaven belonged to them pa 181. It is true that hope in this life makes blessed but the blessedness of the next life stands in fruition according to the measures God has appointed But the force of the Argument stands not on the Term Blessed but the reason their dying in the Lord and resting from their Labours for dying in the Lord and sleeping in Christ are all one and that sleeping does necessarily infer that the Rest begins at death as the sleep doth and little comfort would it be if they went not presently to Rest for what joy is it to be taken from the Labours of this life to go to worse again that which enforces this presently is their works following them that they follow them for reward he grants pa. 182. that they follow them not at a distance but presently if the reason of giving the reward after Labours cease do not evince it the expression here may for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow them which might be at some distance but more then the translation expresses it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow with them that is immediately As Rev. 6.8 Death is described sitting on a horse going out to destroy and Hades followed with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is immediately as Hades or the invisible state to which the soul goes follows immediately upon death More to confirm this presently going to rest or some blessed condition after death in the next place of Scripture His second exception is like the talking of a man in his dream that we mistake the word Labours which here is not taken saith he for all labours but the labours and persecutions of this life or that they cease from their good works pa. 182. But if the endeavours of good works were here meant by labours then reason and the comfort intended by this Text would infer that those labours being at an end the service performed the reward should immediately follow the warfare and combate being ended some Prize or Crown should be received and so indeed their works following them or with them does imply but here instead of receiving reward or rest the Combatant that has laboured and conquered is carried to the house of Correction delivered up to certain torments And take the labours here for sufferings of this life as they must and to the excluding of sufferings and torments after then is the Romish Purgatory excluded which wholly perverts the intent and scope of the Scripture spoken for their comfort and allows them no more in this Rest then the wicked have when they dy a freedome from the labours of this life leaving them only hope of coming out after some time The next place is 2 Cor. 5.1 For we know that if the earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God a house not made with hands eternal in heaven Here again he tels us we are mistaken for the words say not they go presenly after death into that heavenly house The same again proved pa. 183. But surely the Apostles argument here for comfort against the dissolution of this house must imply a present entring into the other or into some part of it also the word uncloathing which is in death must imply a cloathing with that house v. 2. The Apostle desired to be cloathed upon without uncloathing which shall be the condition of all just persons of the last age that are taken alive at the last day no Romish Purgatory can be for them but if that cloathing upon were denied to them of the Apostles age as it was so that it came to an uncloathing the Apostle had said little to their comfort in telling them of their house from heaven if he had not implied that upon their uncloathing they should be received into it but that contrarily they should first go to a house below and there suffer in the next region to hell exquisit torments for many years Also the opposition he makes between at home in the body absent from the Lord v. 6. and absent from the body and present with the Lord v. 8. plainly shews the denial of the one inferrs the other if absent from the body then present with the Lord and so the application which our Saviour makes of the wisdome of the unjust Steward Luc. 16.8 that when ye fail there is this dissolving or going out of the body they may receive you into everlasting habitations ther 's the heavenly house a present reception is necessarily implied even as the Steward meant to be provided of a place to receive him as soon as he should be turned out of his Lords house The next place is Wisd 3.1 The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them The word Torment here is misunderstood saith he Why so Righteoâ—â— souls aâ—â—â—â— Death 〈◊〉 from Tâ—â—ment because it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a torment that malefactors or suspected to be so are put to to make them confess the truth Now no such torment shall touch the righteous for God has sufficiently tried them and proved them and found them worthy of God v. 5. which is a plain place for merits pa. 184. If he loose one thing by this Text he will catch at another If it make against Purgatory he will have it make for merits Well if it be so plain for merits he must wring them out of the word worthy which being * cap. 5. num 8. objected above in the point of merits was answered too But as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which concerns Purgatory let the original use or strict importance of the word be it what it will the Text excludes all pains by saying no torment and what matters it if they that go to Purgatory suffer not the pain upon the like account of question and examination as suspected persons so that indeed they suffer the like as Malefactors do It would be mockery and not comfort to tell them they shall suffer not under that name but as much And to suffer this now that they are come from under the hands and volence of their enemies against which this is their comfort into the hands of God which the Text puts as the reason why no torment can touch them and thus to be handled there and that after God had proved and found them worthy of himself as this chapter v. 5. hath it how can this stand with the goodness of God or the intent of this Text which is spoken for their comfort But he will demonstrate Purgatory to be expressed in Scripture as much as Trinity 〈◊〉
Ps 96. By such expressions St. Aug. truly speaks the inhaerent righteousness given us of God and when he cals this Justifying a sinner he uses the word Justifie according to the Latin origination and importance of it for thereby a man is made truly righteous by that grace received righteous I say for its measure and proportion not to exclude Justification by an imputed righteousness through faith which is the primer and more proper meaning of the word Iustifie If therefore we finde St. August acknowledge another Righteousness and Iustification differing from that which he seems to ascribe to Inhaerent Righteousness then have we our intent and purpose and the Cardinal is impertinent in his allegations out of St. Aug. as also in those other which he pretends from other Fathers which we may let passe as speaking but the being of Inhaerent righteousness not proving justification by it Ambr. in Hexam l. 6. c. 8. Justitia unde justificatio derivata est in any proper sense as for example St. Ambrose who is one of those Fathers cited by the Card. speaks of it according to the Grammatical origination of the word Justice saith he from whence Instification is derived Now for St. Aug. his allowing of the imputed righteousness and our Justification by it Aug. Enchir. cap. 41. Ipse ergo peecatum ut nos justitia nec nostra sed Dei simus nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis constitutum See his Enchirid where he thus explains that of the Apost 2 Cor. 5. ult He therefore was made sin that we might be righteousness and that not ours but of God and not in our selves but in him even as he was Sin not his own but ours and not in himself but in us This admits none of their exceptions as that we are made righteous in him because we have our righteousness by his Merit and the righteousness of God because we have it of his gift and by the infusion of his Grace This is all they can say and this though true of our inhaerent righteousness yet comes not home to the purpose of St Augustine who saith plainly As our Sauiour was made Sin not in himself but in us and manifestly acknowledges we are so also made righteousness in him that is righteousness is imputed to us See also how this is asserted by the Greek Fathers Chrys on that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1.30 He doth not say he hath made us wise and just and holy but he is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification which is as if he had said He hath given himself unto us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And upon that of 2 Cor. 5. ult Made him sin for us the same Father thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in locum He suffered him to be condemned as a sinner And here also he observes as above The Apostle did not say we are made righteous but righteousness and that of God for it is the righteousness of God when it is not of Works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that we are justified by the Grace of God and he gives this as a reason of the need we have of such a righteousness because there must be found no blot or stain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he observes the Apostle said not made him a sinner but sin for he named not the habit as if sin had been inhaerent in him but the bare quality as in the Abstract 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in locum Which shewes that when he said righteousness rather then righteous there is a righteousness made ours beside the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or inhaerent quality With Chrysostom agree Oecumenius and Theophylact upon the places cited So St. Cyril Glaphyr 5. cap. ult Cyril sets out our Saviour under the name of Iosedeck which signifies the righteousness of God because we are justified in him through the mercy of God and unto this he applies that of Ierem. 23.6 The Lord our Righteousness Oecumenius upon Psal Oecum in Phil 3. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3.9 not having my own righteousness but the righteousness which is of God by faith gives us a distinction of Righteousness not properly or properly taken That is our Righteousness or the righteousness of Works This is the Righteousness which is by Grace and the faith of Christ And needful it is in this Question and the Testimonies of Fathers concerned in it to hold to the Justification properly taken To this imputed righteousness belongs that of the ancient Father Iustin Martyr Justin ad Diogen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What thing else can cover our sins but his righteousness and that which he adds to be justified in him only Which is a stronger expression then to be justifiedby him and then he cries out O sweet and happy exchange wherein that because as the Apostle He made sin for us we righteousness in him or as Iustin subjoyns because one mans righteousness justifies many unrighteous men To this also belongs what Chrysost hath who with reference to Isa 43.26 that thou mayst be justified Chrys homil 3. de poenitenti◠Eximens poenae donat justitiam facit enim peccatorem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus expresseth himself as to this point Freeing us from punishment he gives righteousness for he makes a sinner to be alike or in the like condition to him that had not sinned which must needs be by not imputing sin and imputing righteousness upon his faith and repentance This imputing of Righteousness to him that believes will also appear by the Fathers using the expression of sola fide by faith only There is scarce any Father but so expresses himself I promised at the beginning to speak something of Faith only and of Works Of Sola Fides in this point of Justification as to that which Antiquity yields unto them in the business of our Justification What this Faith is which justifies was sufficiently debated * Chap. IV. nu 3 4 9. above and also why and in what respect Faith alone is said to justifie The expression is exclusive yet did not as appeared above in the fourth chapter exclude the praeparatory workings of the soul dispositive to Justification did not exclude Repentance and charity but admitted them as conditions to Remission did not exclude inhaerent Righteousness but only from being the formal cause of Justification properly taken else it was admitted as a Concomitant and necessary qualification of the subject or person justified Lastly it did not so exclude good works as if justifying faith could be without them but did infer them as necessary consequents engaging the soul to do them and till so it is not a believing to justification and unless it continue so doing that is still to engage the Soul to well doing or good works the state of