A Treatise of Justification

CHAP. VIII. Whether good Works do justify. Bellarmine's proof, but especially that Testimony of Saint James, Chapter 2. fully discussed, and clared.

§. I.

A Fter so many wanderings, Bellarmine at length cometh to make good his fifth Argument, which he propounded to prove, that faith alone doth not justify, because good works do also justify; though here, as I have noted, this Argument is brought in to prove the truth of actual righteousness. The Title of this Chapter is, that good works are not only just, but that also they do justify. Instead whereof he presently propoundeth this assertion to be proved, that by good works a just man is more justified, and made more just. But this is not the Question. For we do confess, that a man already justified before God, by the practice of good works increaseth in righteousness inherent, and is made more holy and just. The thing which we deny is this, that good works do not concur with faith unto the act of justification before God, as any cause thereof. Against this assertion he ought to have disputed, if he would seem to contradict us. But he hath altered the question, because he is not able to maintain the contradictory of our assertion; and maketh the question to be this, whether by good works men are justified, that is to say, made more just, viz. in respect of righteousness inherent. But we deny, that there are any degrees of justification, or that a man may be more justified, or that justification doth ever signify increase of righteousness: we reject their new▪ found distinction of justification into the first and second, and acknowledge no other justification, but that, which in the Scriptures and Fathers is called the justification of a sinner: and thereby we understand a continued act of God: who, as when we being sinners did first believe, did justify us; so remaining sinners in ourselves he doth still justify us, by imputation of Christ's righteousness, acquitting us from our sins, and accepting of us as righteous in Christ. And this justification, which is only acknowledged by the Scriptures and Fathers, is everywhere ascribed to faith. Whereas the first justification of the Papists is ascribed to charity as the only form; the second to works, as to the merit thereof. But all this ariseth from their erroneous and willful confounding of justification and sanctification. For their first justification is that, which the Scriptures call regeneration, and is the first act of Sanctification, by which we are habitually sanctified, for they make it to be nothing else, but the infusion of the habits of grace: Their second justification, is their actual fanctification, or exercise of good works, whereby their inherent righteousness or sanctification is increased. But the question is not of sanctification, but of justification; which the Papists by their wicked doctrine, confounding it with sanctification, have wholly abolished, it being the main benefit of the Messias, by which we are both freed from hell, and entitled to heaven. Neither is the question understood of justification before men, but before God. For before men we do confess •… that by good works men are justified, that is declared and known •… to be just, as by the fruits, effects, consequents, and signs of justification by faith: but before God we are not justified, that is, made or constituted just by work •… s, as any cause thereof, for good works go not before justification, but follow after, which is a plain evidence that they are no cause of it.

§. II. But let us examine his proofs; the first and principal is out of James 2. which being the only place of Scripture, whereupon with any show of probability they ground their doctrine of justification by works: I will not content myself to answer Bellarmine's cavils alone: but I will endeavor to stop the mouths of all the Papists, who use to vaunt of this place, especially of the 24. verse; where they brag, that their assertion is expressed, and ours confuted in plain terms: ye see then that a man is justified by works, and not by saith only. Which words are a consectary or conclusion deduced from the example of Abraham: who though he were justified by faith without works as Saint Paul teacheth; yet was he also justified by works and not by faith only, as Saint James affirmeth. A conclusion therefore in show of words contradictory to that of the Apostle Paul, Rom. 3. 28. we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law, and Gal. 2. 16. we know, that a man is not justified by the works of the Law▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, but only by faith: which no doubt was the Apostles meaning. For as I have shown heretofore, if this be a good disjunction, that we are justified either by faith, or by works; (that is, either by the righteousness of Christ which is out of us in him apprehended by faith or by the works of the Law, that is, by righteousness inherent in ourselves all which is prescribed in the Law) as undoubtedly it is; for a third thing cannot be named, whereby we might be justified, and by both we cannot; (for if by faith, then of grace; and if of grace, then not of works, and contrary wise Rom. 4. 4, 5. 11. 6.) then it followeth necessarily, that if we are not justified by works, we are justified by faith alone. Hence ariseth this great controversy between the true Catholics and the Papists: we affirming, that we are justified by faith without works, or by faith alone; The Papists contending, that we are justified by works and not by faith only: we alleging the authority of Saint Paul in his Epistles, to the •… omanes, Galatians, Ephesians; the Papists this Testimony of Saint James.

§. III. The way to determine this weighty Controversy is to reconcile the seeming difference between the two Apostles. Some, a when they were not able to untie this Gordian knot, have sought, with Alexander, to cut it, by questioning without just cause the authority of that Epistle of Saint James. But the Papists and we are thus far agreed. First, as they do not deny those Epistles of S. Paul, which were never questioned; so we acknowledge this of Saint James, though it hath been questioned, to be canonical. Secondly, that the two Apostles, acted by the same Spirit of truth in penning their Epistles, could not possibly deliver contrary assertions: and consequently, that they only are to be esteemed to hold the truth, who fitly reconciling the seeming variance between the two Apostles, do teach that doctrine, which is agreeable to both. Here then I am to demonstrate, both against the Papists, and for ourselves: against the Papists three things. First, that the doctrine which they ground upon this place of Saint James, is contrary to that of Saint Paul. Secondly, that their exposition of Saint James they make him contradict the Apostle Paul. Thirdly, that their doctrine cannot be grounded upon this Text. For ourselves two things. First, that by our exposition the two Apostles are easily reconciled. Secondly, that the assertion of the two Apostles, according to our doctrine, not only may well stand together, but also of necessity must go together. For the first: we have the same controversy with the Papists, as I have noted before, which the Apostle maintained against the justiciaryes of his time. And their opposite doctrine to Saint Paul, which they would gladly father upon Saint James, standeth in those six main errors, which I have plainly and fully confuted in this treatise. And namely in this particular; they affirming, that men are justified by works, which the Apostle every were constantly denieth. To the second, whiles they understand the two Apostles to speak in the same sense, of faith, of works, of justifying; as namely, that both speak of a true justifying faith; of works, as causes of justification; of justifying, as making just by righteousness inherent: they make the one directly to contradict the other. For if Paul affirm, that men are justified by a true faith without works, and James deny it: If Paul deny, that we are justified by works, as the causes of justification, and James affirm it: If Paul deny, that we are made just before God by works, and James affirm it; how do they not contradict one another?

§. IV. Bellarm. hopeth to salve the matter with his new-found distinction of the first and second justification: that Paul speaking of the justification, wherein a man of a sinner is made just, excludeth works done by the strength of nature without faith and without grace: and that James speaking of the second justification, wherein a just man is made more just, saith, that by the works of grace proceeding from faith a man is justified.

Answ. Such a distinction might be applied to sanctification, which is partly habitual, the which they call their first justi •… cation, consisting chiefly in charity: and partly actual, which is their second justfication, consisting in good works: but being applied to justification, it hath no ground, either in the Scriptures or in the ancient fathers. Neither can any such distinction possibly be applied to that justification, which the Scriptures teach, as I have showed heretofore. Secondly, if there could be such a distinction, I would say, that Paul, when he denieth Abraham to have been justified by works did speak of the second justification, wich Bellarmine himself confesseth. For Abraham, when he was said to be justified by faith without works, did abound which works, as Bellarmine confesseth, and yet was not justified by them. And that James when he speaketh of Rahab the harlot, whom he affirmeth to have been justified by works, speaketh of the first justification, as Bellarmine also affirmeth. If therefore Paul say, that in the first justification none are justified by works, and James affirm that some are, as namely Rahab: If the Apostle James say, that Abraham in his second j •… stification was justified by works, and Paul do as planiely deny it, how are they reconciled? Again saith Bellarmine, Paul from justification only excludeth the works done without grace; James includeth only the works of grace. I answer, that Paul excludeth from justification Abraham's works, which as else where he testifieth, he wrought by faith: And James includeth the works of Rahab the harlot, which was done, as Bellarmine saith, without grace going before. Where I desire the reader to observe what Bellarmine answereth. As Paul, saith he, when he did speak of the first justification, brought the example of Abraham, which was indeed of the second, that he might prove, as it were à majori, from the greater, that a sinner cannot be justified by works done without faith, if righteous Abraham was not made more just by his works done without faith: even so James, when he did speak of the second justification, brought the example of Rahab, which is of the first justification, that he might prove à majori, (he should say à minori, if my logic fail me not) from the less, that a just man is made more just by his works and not only by faith, if Rahab of an harlot was made just by works and not only by faith. Answ. Thus then he maketh the Apostles to argue. If Abraham's works would not have justified him without faith, much less would the good works of the wicked. And if Rahab by her work of mercy was of an harlot made just: how much more shall the good works of the righteous make them more just?

§. V. Where by the way you may note diverse absurdities, which I have partly touched before. First, that the Apostle forsooth bringeth Abraham as an example of justification by works: when it is most evident, that he bringeth him as an example of justification by imputation of righteousness without works, and maketh his example the exemplar or pattern of all others, who in like manner are justified by faith without works, or by imputation of righteousness without works.

Secondly, That Paul produceth Abraham as an example to prove, that a just man is more justified by his works; for which there is no color praeter impudentiam asseverandi, the contrary is proved, that Paul speaking of the justification of a sinner applieth, what he saith, to Abraham. For he proveth that Abraham was not justified by works, because the Scripture saith, Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly (which was Abraham's case) his faith is counted for righteousness.

Thirdly, the Apostle when he excludeth Abraham's works from justification, doth not exclude his good and gracious works, but such as he did, or might have done without grace, that is to say, graceless works. But no doubt the Apostles intent in producing the example of Abraham, which Chrysostom also hath observed; was this: If Abraham who did abound with so many notable works, which he wrought by faith, was not justified by them but only by faith: then it is certain, that none are justified by works, though their works be never so gracious.

Fourthly, He supposeth, that gracious Abraham might have done good works without grace, and that the Apostle denieth him to have been justified by such works, as he might have done, but did not.

Fifthly, By an impudent devise, whereof there is no color, he maketh the Apostle from the example of Abraham to argue à majori. If Abraham's works would not have justified him, unless they had proceeded from faith: then much less can the works of sinners and unregenerate men done without faith justify them.

Sixthly, He shamefally inverteth the Apostles question, and perverteth his whole disputation; As if the Apostle disputed this question, whether works do justify without faith (which he doth never so much as mention;) and not, whether faith doth justify without works, which is indeed the question.

Seventhly, Where he saith; that the Apostle excludeth works only from their imaginary first justification, which is merely habitual; he conceiveth, that the Apostle took all these pains, to prove, that works are no part of habitual righteousness.

Eighthly, Where he saith, that the Apostle excludeth from justification works of nature and not of grace, it is as much as if he should have said, that the Apostle doth so seriously labor to prove, that men are not justified by such works as are not good, but evil.

To conclude, it is evident, that the Apostle Paul excludeth from the act of justification all works in ge •… all, whether done before grace or after; of all men, whether unregenerate, or regenerate, even of Abraham himself. Yea more specially the works of the faithful and regenerate. First, Because he speaketh of good works, even the works of righteousness which we (the faithful) have done Tit. 3. 5. Secondly, The question being, whether faith doth justify without works, or whether faith and works together; the Apostle must be understood to exclude those works from the act of justification, which with faith concur in the party justified. Even as Abraham, though his faith was accompanied with store of good works yet he was justified, and so are all the faithful, by faith without works.

If therefore St. James do affirm, that men are justified in the same sense that Paul denieth the same; and that Abraham was justified by his works, which Paul denieth; he is made to contradict the Apostle Paul.

§. VI. But as the Popish doctrine is repugnant to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, so neither can it be grounded upon this text, which may appear by a brief Analysis thereof. Where first, you are to consider the occasion of this discourse, and thereupon the scope of the Apostle therein. The occasion was the dissolute life of many Christians, who, as Jude speaketh verse. 4. did turn the grace of God into wantonness, vain men, as S ^t . James calleth them verse. 20. who, when they had learned, that a man is justified by faith without works, hereby took occasion to cast of all care of good works. As if it were sufficient for them howsoever they lived, to profess them selves to believe.

The scope therefore and intendment of the Apostle is, not to confute the doctrine of Paul concerning justification by faith alone, but according to Paul's direction Tit. 3. 8. to persuade all those, who profess themselves to believe, to be studious of good works. And that he doth by this argument: because, howsoever faith doth justify alone, yet the profession of faith alone without good works will not justify nor save a man; but is altogether vain and unprofitable. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or state of the question, which he propoundeth to argue, manifestly appeareth by the proposition, wherein the question is propounded, and by the conclusion wherein the question is concluded, the proposition, verse. 14. What profit my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, and hath not works, will 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that faith save him? Mark the words: if a man shall say, he hath faith, that is, if a man shall profess himself to believe, and hath not works, that is a conversation answerable in some measure to his profession; will that faith, which is in profession only justify or save him? this interrogation implieth a most Emphaticall negation: wherein he doth not only deny that faith, which is only in profession, and doth not work by love, doth justify or save a man; but also, for the truth of his denial, he doth appeal, as it were, to their conscience; sor so much is meant by the interrogation. The question then is not, whether true faith do justify alone, as Bellarmine would have it; but whether that faith, which is alone, and by it self; verse. 17. without works, without a Christian conversation, be a true justifying or saving saith. This the Apostle denieth, and so do we. In the rest of the discourse he proveth this negative assertion by an argument from the contrary, namely that this fruitless faith is not a true faith, because it is dead. Where the Apostle argueth to this effect: That faith, which is dead, doth not justify or save a man: The faith which is profession only, and is alone without works is dead. Therefore that faith which is in profession only, and is alone without works, doth not justify or save a man.

The assumption he proveth in this whole discourse, where the con •… lusion is always this, that the faith which is alone and without works is dead, and therefore that is the question wich is disputed and concluded.

§. VII. Now that the faith which is alone and without works is dead, he proveth by five arguments.

1. The first à par •… : That charity which is only in word and not in deed is vain and unprofitable verse. 15. 16. Even so pariratione, that faith which is in profession only having no works to accompany it, is dead, verse. 17.

2. The second argument is taken from the effects. For a true lively faith may be demonstrated by good works: and that which cannot be demonstrated by good works, is but a dead faith. And this he proveth verse. 18. against the carnal Gospeller, as it were, by the parties own testimony, or forced confession, provoking him to make experience, which kind of proof is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Thou professest the faith having no works: I also profess the faith and have works, come now to the trial, he that hath a true faith may approve it by the fruits: show then they faith, if thou canst, by thy works (which thou knowest thou canst not do) and I by my works will approve my faith.

3. The third argument is from the subject. For a true justifying faith is not common to all men. 2. Thes. 3. 2. and much less to Devils, but is proper to the Elect, Tit. 1. 1. But that faith, which men profess without charity and without good works is common to Devils. verse. 19. Thou professest, that thou believest that there is one God, thou doest well: but if this thy belief be not accompanied with charity and good works; know this, that the devils themselves who hate God, do, though with horror, know and perforce believe the same.

4. The fourth argument to prove, that faith only professed, or which is in profession only, is not a true and a lively, but a conterfeit and a dead faith; is a twofold example, of Abraham, and of Rahab, who were justified, that is, declared and known to be just by their works. For in this sense, as the word is often used in the Scriptures as M •… t. 11. 19. Luk 7. 29. R •… . 3. 4. 1. Tim. 3. 16: so of necessity it must be taken in this place. For by good works, which always follow, and never go before justification, we are not made just: but being already justified, we are by them declared and known to be just. For he is a righteous man that worketh righteousness. And this the Schoolmen themselves do teach, that works do •… justifi •… •… clarative Th •… s Aquinas saith, Opera n •… n sunt ca •… sa quod aliqui •… sit i •… tus apud Deum, &c. works are not the cause why any man is just before God, but rather they are the executions and manifestations of justice. Nam nullus per opera iustificatur apud Deum sed per habitum fidei. For no man is justified before God by works, but by the habit of faith. And whereas it might be objected out of I am. 2. that Abraham was justified by works: he answereth, the word to be justified many be taken two ways: whereof the one is, quantum ad executionem iustitiae, & manifestationem in respect of execution and manifestation of justice, & hoc m •… do iustificatur homo, i. iustus ostenditur ex operib. operatis, and thus a man is justified, that is declared be just by the works which he hath done. And thus the ordinary gloss expoundeth the word in this place. But let us come to the words. verse. 20.

§. VIII. But wilt thou know O vain man, that faith, that is, that faith professed or in profession only without works is dead, or that the faith which is without works is known to be dead. For the life of faith itself doth not depend upon works as the cause, but is thereby known as by the effects. You see again what the question is which he will conclude: namely that the faith which is without works, or which is in profession only without works, is not a lively but a dead faith, and consequently not a justifying faith. For a justifying faith is like the faith of Abraham and of Rahab: but that faith which is in profession only and wanteth works is not like the faith of Abraham and of Raba •… . For though Abraham was justified by faith without works as the Apostle Paul proveth, yea by faith alone as the Papists themselves confess; yet the faith by which he was justified was not alone, but was fruitful of good works, by which both he and his faith were justified, that is known to be just and upright.

§. IX. Vers. 21. was not Abraham our Father, saith he, justified by works, when he had offered his son Isaac upon the Altar? Of which words the meaning is not, that Abraham by that work was justified before God, or made just, for long before, the holy Ghost gave him this testimony Gen. 15. Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: not, that then he first believed, or was then first justified: for when he first left his country, which he left by faith Heb. 11. 8. he had believed, and his faith no doubt was imputed to him for righteousness: but that by that special work after he was proved, he was approved and known to be a righteous man. For upon Abraham's approbation of his faith and obedience, when he was tried, the Lord gave him this testimony, Gen. 22. 12. Now I know, that thou fearest God &c. Did not God know it before? Yea no doubt, but he speaketh after the manner of men. He had tempted Abraham, that is, by a commandment of trial he had proved his faith and obedience; not that he did not know, but that he would make it known to Abraham and others. As on the contrary, God is said 2. Chron. 32. 31. to have left Hezekiah to try him, that he might know, that is, that he might make known all that was in his heart, when as therefore Abraham being tried, had by that act of offering his son approved his faith and obedience, the Lord saith, Now I know, that is, now by this trial it is made known, that thou art a just man and one that feareth God. And in this sense, as it is most manifest, he is said by his works to have been justified, that is, known, declared, approved to be a just man.

§. X. Hereupon St. James inferreth verse. 22. Do you not see, how faith did co-operate to or with his works? The verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be understood two ways, either that faith with other graces did co-operate to the bringing forth of this work, as namely with the fear of God, and love of God, Gen. 22. 12. though faith was the principal, Heb. 11. 17. Or else, that faith did co-operate with his works, not to justify him before God, but to manifest, declare and approve his righteousness. In which sense we must understand the word Faith, as in the proposition ( verse. 24.) for faith professed: or the profession of faith which doth concur together with works to make a man, truly justified, to be known. And in this sense faith doth co-operate with works, and may be said to justify by declaring a man to be just, though Bellarmine holdeth the contrary. For that a man may be acknowledged to be a man truly justified before God by faith, two things must concur; the profession of the true faith, and a Christian conversation, neither of which alone is sufficient.

It followeth in the same verse: and by works was faith made perfect. Which words saith Bellarmine cannot signify any other, but that his righteousness, which was begun by faith, was perfected by good works. Answ. But James doth not say, that his righteousness, but his faith was perfected, and whereas he saith the words cannot signify otherwise, I say they may be understood two other ways. First, that faith by works is perfected, because by works it is manifested, and perfectly known, in which sense God's strength is perfected in our weakness 2. Cor. 12. 9. Secondly, because works bring the fruits and effects of faith to be perfected, when it bringeth forth good fruits according to his kind. For when anything hath attained to the end (as it hath when it doth effectually produce those uses or fruits, for which it was ordained) it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be perfect. Now the end of our justification by faith is our sanctification. For when faith was wrought in us (that is to say, in our regeneration) we were the workmanship of God created unto good works, which God hath preordayned that we should walk in them. Eph. 2. 10. Faith therefore may then be said to be perfected, when it doth effectually bring forth the fruit of good works: whereby a man is not made, but declared to be just.

§. XI. Vers. 23. And this appeareth yet more plainly by that which followeth. And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. This Scripture was fulfilled Gen. 15. 6. above 30. years before his offering of Isaac: and here again it is said to have been fulfilled in this act, that is, the truth of that testimony, which was given him so long before was then manifested, when by this work he evidently declared, that he was endued with a true lively justifying faith. And to the like purpose the same sentence might, as Bellarmine confesseth, be applied to Abraham in respect of any other notable fruit of his faith: that then also that sentence was verified, Abraham believed God &c. For then it was declared and manifested, that he was endued with a true justifying faith. As for that conceit of Bellarmine, that if the Hebrew word be well scanned, it will appear, that the meaning of the words is, that Abraham's believing God was a •… ust work, it is but a poor shift. For Paul understandeth it of Abraham's person, and maketh that text his principal ground of the justification of the faithful by imputation of righteousness without works. And James likewise understandeth it of Abraham's person: showing that by this act of offering his son the truth of that testimony was manifested, that he was endued with a true faith, by which he was justified.

It followeth in the same verse, and he was called the friend of God. 2. Chron. 20. 7. Isaiah. 41. 8. that is, by this act he approved himself to be such a one.

§. XII. Hereupon Saint James, Verse 24. inferreth this consectary or conclusion: you see then by this example of Abraham, that a man who is justified before God by faith alone, as Abraham was, and that by imputation of righteousness without works; is also justified by works, as Abraham was, that is, by them, as by fruits and effects he is declared and approved to be just, and not by faith professed only. He doth not say, a man is justified by works as causes, but as the effects. For that, and not the other is deduced from the example of Abraham.

§. XIII. The other example is of Rahab, Verse 25. For though you may think, that you need not compare with Abraham, and yet have a true justifying faith; yet you will be ashamed to be behind Rahab the harlot; who was no sooner justified before God by faith, but she was also justified, that is, declared and known to be just by her work of charity towards the Espyes, which she wrought by faith, Heb. 11. 31.

Concerning this example of Rahab, Bellarmine hath four Assertions: of which never an one agreeth with another. First, That Rahab was not declared to be just, because she was an harlot: which is false. For though she had been an harlot, yet now she believed, and by her faith was justified before God, and by her work which she wrought by faith, was justified, as Saint James saith, that is, declared to be just. Secondly, That James bri •… geth the example of Rahab to prove, that by good works a righteous person is made more righteous: which also is false, and contrary to his former Assertion. Thirdly, That by this work of mercy she was truly justified, and of a sinner made just. But Rahab, as Bellar •… ine saith, was an example of the first justification; and therefore of a sinner not made just by her work, but by the habit of grace infused. The truth is, by faith she was justified before God, and by her work she was declared to be just before men. Fourthly, That by that work, as a disposition, she was prepared unto justifica •… ion. Which agreeth neither with his third, where he said, that by this work she was truly justified, and of a sinner made just, nor with Saint •… mes, whose meaning plainly is, not that she was prepared unto justification by this work, no more than Abraham was by his; but that she was declared by this work, as a fruit of her faith and a consequent of her justification, as Abraham was by his works to be justified before God. And thus much of the two examples.

§. XIV. There rema •… eth his fifth Argument, which is a similitude, Verse 26. For as the body without the Spirit is dead, so faith without works, or that faith which is without works is dead, which words also may be two ways expounded. For either the Apostle James speaketh of the habit of faith, or of the profession of it. If of the habit, then the comparison standeth thus: As the body of man without the Spirit, that is, without breath (which is the prime signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to breathe, in which sense it is called the spirit of the mouth, and spirit of the nostrils) I say, as the body without breath is dead: so that saith, which is without works, which are as it were the breathing of a lively faith, is judged to be dead. For as Bern •… rd also saith, As we discern the life of this body by its motion, so the life of faith by works. If therefore faith it self be here meant, we must by Spirit understand breath and not the soul. For although the Papists absurdly make charity, which is a fruit of faith, 1 Tim. 1. 5. to be the form of it; yet me thinks they cannot be so absurd, as to compare faith to the body, and works to the soul: as though works, which are the fruits and effects both of faith and of charity, were the form, and as it were, the soul of faith.

If by faith we understand faith professed or the profession of faith, as in this discouse hitherto it hath been used, and as it is used elsewhere, as Act. 14. 22. R •… m. 1. 8. then you may understand the simili •… de thus: As the body of man without the Spirit, that is, the •… oule is dead: so the profession of faith without a godly life, which is as it were the life and •… oule of our proof •… on, is also dead. For hypocrites whose life is not conformable to their profession, though they have a •… ame, that they live, yet they are dead. Ap •… c. 3. 1.

Thus by five arguments Saint I •… mes hath proved, that the faith, which is alone, and without works, is not a true and a lively, but a dead and counterfeit faith, and yet 〈◊〉 , both here and Lib. 1. d •… justif. cap. 15. will needs have Saint •… ames to speak of a true faith, as if he supposed, that a true faith might be without works.

Therefore the Popish Doctrine of justification by works as causes thereof cannot be grounded on this T •… xt of Saint James.

§. XV. Yea, but will some say, the contradiction is not yet salved. For Saint Paul affirmeth, as you say, that faith alone doth justify, and Saint James in plain terms denieth, that a man is justified by faith only. I answer, when we say, that faith only doth justify, we do not mean absolutely, that nothing doth justify but faith in no sense whatsoever. For many things may truly be said to justify ali •… atque ali •… sensu, in divers senses, as I have shown heretofore. God the Father as the prime efficient, Christ as the meritorious cause, God as the Judge, Christ, as the Advocate. God, as the Creditor, Christ, as the Surety. The grace of God as the moving cause, the righteousness of Christ as the matter, the imputation thereof as the form, the holy Ghost as the applying cause, the Word and Sacraments as the instruments of the holy Ghost, Faith as the hand of the receiver, works as testimonies and signs, &c. but our meaning is, that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ only, which is apprehended by faith alone, and that in us nothing doth concur to the act of justification, but faith alone, it being the only instrument whereby we receive Christ.

And thus have you heard what is to be alleged against the Papists. First, that their doctrine concerning justification by works which they would build upon this Text, is repugnant to the Scriptures. Secondly, that by their exposition they make Saint I •… mes to contradict Saint Paul. Thirdly, that their doctrine cannot be grounded on this Text.

§. XVI. Now for ourselves, I will show, that by our exposition the seeming difference between the two Apostles is manifestly reconciled: and that by our Doctrine their Assertions, not o •… ely may well stand together, but also must necessarily go together. The reconciliation is easily made, if we consider two things, first, the diversity of the Parties, with whom the two Apostles had to deal. For the Apostle Paul having to deal with Pharisaical Iustitiaries, who sought to be justified by a righteousness inherent in themselves, and by an obedience performed by themselves, proveth by invincible arguments, that a man is justified by faith without works. Saint James having to deal with carnal Gospellers, vain men, turning the grace of God into wantonness, who having heard, that faith doth justify without works, did cast off all care of good works, thinking it sufficient to profess themselves to believe, though their life were dissolute. Against these Saint James proveth, that vain is the profession of faith without good works •… that the faith, which is without works, is not a true, lively justifying faith, but a dead and counterfeit faith: that whosoever is justified before God by faith, must also be justified, that is, declared and approved to be just, not only by profession of his faith, but also by the practice of good works. Wherefore in this respect there is no more difference between the two Apostles Paul and James, than between L •… there, and us, who are Preachers of the Gospel at this day. For as Luther having to deal with Popish justitia •… ies who taught justification by works, urgeth most zealously justification by faith alone, and in the question of justification, after the example of Saint Paul, speaketh contemptuously of works: so we, having to d •… le with Libertines and carnal gospellers, insisting in the steppes of Saint James, urge the necessity of good works.

§. XVII. Secondly, we are to consider the divers acceptions of the words, faith works justify, in the writings of the two Apostles. Paul speaking of a true lively faith, which worketh by love, saith (in effect) that faith alone doth justify. James, speaking of the faith of hypocrites, which is in profession only, s •… vered from the grace of sanctification, and destitute of good works; •… aith, that such a faith doth neither justify alone nor at all, as being not a true, but a dead and counterfeit faith.

Paul, speaking of the c •… uses of justification before God, denieth works to concur to the act of justification, as any cause thereof▪ James speaking of the effects and •… ignes of justificati •… n, whereby it may be •… known, affirmeth, that works must concur in the parties justified, that by them our faith may be demonstrated, •… nd our justification manifested. Paul therefore rejecteth works obtruded, as causes of justification; James urgeth th •… m, as effects and signs thereof.

Paul, speaking of Justification in the proper sense, as it signifieth that gracio •… s action of God, whereby we are made or constituted just; affirmeth, that we are justified by faith without works. James, speaking of th •… t justify •… tion, whereby we are (not m •… de just before God, but) declared and 〈◊〉 , to God, our 〈◊〉 , and our conscience to be just, and endued with a true faith; 〈◊〉 , that we are so justified, not only by the profession of faith, but also by good works.

Now these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very well stand together. For although it be most true, which Saint Paul affirmeth, that true faith doth just fie alone: yet it is 〈◊〉 true, which Saint James faith, that the faith, which is alone, doth not justify neither •… lone nor at all, because it is not 〈◊〉 true and a lively, but a 〈◊〉 , and dead faith. For 〈◊〉 the living eye, though it see alone, yet is not alone, so a lively f •… ith, though it justify alone, yet never i •… alone, though it justify without works, yet it is not without work •… s. Though good works do not 〈◊〉 to the act of justification, a •… any cause there •… of, according to Saint Paul's doctrine •… : yet they must concur in the same subject, that is the party justified, as necessary fruit •… and 〈◊〉 of •… true justifying •… aith, 〈◊〉 Saint Ia •… es •… cheth. Though we be justified before God, that is, both absolved from our 〈◊〉 , and accepted in Christ as righteous by faith alone without respect of work •… as Saint Paul teacheth: yet, according to the doctrine of •… aint James, we •… are to be justified, that is, declared and approved to be just not only by faith professed, but also by good works. Finally, though good works n •… n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , yet, 〈◊〉 justifica •… , as Augustine •… useth to speak, or as he also saith, non pr •… edunt iustifi •… andum, sed justificat •… 〈◊〉 , though they do not go •… before justification, as caus •… s, 〈◊〉 P •… l teacheth; yet they must follow in the parties justified, as effects, according to Saint James his doctrine.

§. XVIII. But the assertions of the 2. Apostles not only may well stand toge •… her; but also according to our doctrine they must necessarily go together. For if we shall be altogether conversant in setting forth the commendation of good works, and in urging the necessity thereof, not informing the people in the doctrine of justification by faith alone: they will be ready to place the matter of their justification, and the merit of their salvation in themselves, as the Papists do. And so being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they do not submit themselves to the righteousness of God. But we must so urge the necessity of good works in the doctrine of sanctification, that we remember, that in the question of justification they are of no value. On the other side, if we shall be wholly taken up in the doctrine of justification by faith alone, teaching, that in the question of justification they are of no worth, and do not withal inform the people of the profit and necessity of good works in other respects; how ready will they be to cast off all care of good works, and content themselves with a bare profession of faith? But we join these assertions together, after the doctrine and practice of the Apostles in their Epistles. We teach that justification and sanctification are inseparable companions. And theresore, as they who are sanctified, may be assured of their justification; so without sanctification none can be assured of their justification. It is true, that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, but who are they? that live not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, R •… . 8. 1. that are new creatures 2 Cor. 5. 17. that crucify the flesh with the lusts thereof, Gal. 5. 24. It is true, that a true lively faith doth justify alone, but what manner of saith is that? that purifieth the heart, Act. 15. 9. and worketh by love, Gal. 5. 6. and may be demonstrated by good works. I am. 2. 18. It is true, that we are not justified by our works, nor saved for them, yet those are neither justified, nor saved, that are without them, for as they are necessary consequents of justification, so they are necessary antecedents of salvation. For though they be not the cause of our salvation; yet they are the way by which we are to come to salvation: though they be not causa reg •… andi, as Bernard saith, yet they are via regni. Though they be not the merit of salvation; yet they are the evidence, according to which God will judge us. By faith we have our inheritance, and our title to God's Kingdom, but it is to be inherited among those that are sanctified. A godly conversation, though it be not properly a cause of our glorification; yet it is causa si •… e q •… n •… n. For as the Apostle saith, without holiness no man shall see God. Heb. 12. 14. And for this cause we seriously exh •… rtall men, who profess themselves to believe, and to be justified by faith, to be careful, that they may be precedents of good works, for these are good, and profitable, and necessary, as I shown before, when I propounded those arguments which we do use to move men unto good works. So much of his first testimony.

§. XIX. To that place of Saint James he addeth six other testimonies, to which a short answer will suffice. To the first out of Eccles. 18. 21: I have fully answered in the first controversy.

2. His second testimony is Rom. 6. 19. As you have exhibited your members to serve uncleanness •… and iniquity unto iniquity: so now exhibit your members to serve justice unto sanctification. Where, unto sanctification, doth not signify to get the first holiness, sor he speaketh to them who were holy and just, but to increase sanctification. But that by sanctification is meant justification: and by sanctity, justice, it is plain by the antithesis, for he opposeth sanctification to iniquity. His argument is thus framed: Sanctification may and must be increased by good works, which is proved by this text, and not denied by us.

Justification is sanctification. And that he proveth, because what is opposed to iniquity is justification: sanctification is here opposed to iniquity. Therefore here sanctification signifieth justification. Ans. That justification and sanctification are by no means to be confounded. I proved at large in the first question, for this is the source of all their errors in the doctrine of justification. The Apostle doth carefully distinguish them. For having in the former chapters treated of justification by faith without works; that men should not abuse that doctrine to licentiousness of life; in this, and the next chapter, he treateth of sanctification showing in this chapter that sanctification is a necessary companion of justification. And therefore exhorteth those that are justifi •… to the duties of sanctification. The abuse he preventeth verse. 1. and 15. for whereas he had taught in the doctrine of justification, that where sin abounded grace did superabound; he maketh this objection, what then? shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid! So again, by Justification we are freed from the curse of the Law, and from the rigor and terror or dominion it? what then? shall we sin, because we are not under the Law, but under Grace? God forbid!

The inseparable conjunction of these two benefits is shown by the Sacrament of Baptism for as it is a seal of that righteousness, which is by faith, unto us being baptized into the remission of sins: so it is the laver of regeneration, wherein, as the Apostle saith, we are baptized into Christ's death and resurrection; that as he died, so we should die unto sin: and as he rose again never to die anymore: so we should arise from the grave of sin never to die anymore: for how should they that are dead to sin live anymore therein? And hereupon followeth his exhortation, that we should not let sin reign in us, nor give our members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin, &c. And as he doth dehort us from suffering sin to relgne in us: so he assureth the faithful, that sin shall no more have dominion over them, because they are not under the Law but under grace, and having prevented the abuse of that doctrine, verse. 15. he reneweth both his dehortation from suffering sin to reign in them, because if it did reign in them, they must needs be the servants of it: when as in their redemption they were freed from the bondage of sin, that they might become the servants of righteousness; and also his exhortation verse. 19. that they would yield their members, as servants to holiness, &c.

To his reason, that by sanctification here is meant justification, because it is opposed to iniquity: I answer, that both justification and sanctification are opposed to sin and iniquity; but with this difference. In sin there are two things, the guilt, and the corruption or pollution. By justification, which is opposed to accusing and condemning Rom. 8. 33. we are freed from the guilt of sin and damnation: by our sanctification, which is opposed to pollution, we are freed in some measure from the corruption, that it is to say, from the dominion of sin.

§. XX. His third testimony is 2 Cor. 7. 1. where the Apostle exhorteth that having these promises (of our justification and adoption, chap. 6. 16, 28) we should cleanse ourselves from all pollution of the flesh and spirit, perfecting or accomplishing our sanctification in the fear of God. The Apostle doth not exhort us unto justification, (for that is never done in all the Scriptures) but being justified and adopted, we are exhorted with our justification and adoption to join the duties of sanctification, and therein to grow and increase, until we come to a perfect man in Christ.

§. XXI. His fourth testimony, 2 Cor. 9. 10. he will multiply your seed and will augment the increases of the fruits of our justice. Where we are taught saith he, that by alm •… s-giving our wealth is diminished, but our j •… stice is increased. Answ. We answer, that by the Christian practice of virtues our justice, (but not our justification) is increased. Howbeit, the Apostle doth not speak of justice it self to be increased, but of the fruits of justice; by justice in this place meaning, as verse. 9. and Matth. 6. 1. liberality in alms-giving: and by the fruits of righteousness, alms. Unto which, that they might be more and more enabled, the Apostle prayeth, that their seed may be multiplied, meaning thereby their store (which in the faithful is as it were the seed of alms) that having always all sufficiency in all things, they might abound to every good work, being enriched in everything to all bountifulness, ve •… s. 8, 11. so far is the Apostle from signifying that by their almesgiving their wealth should be diminished

§. XXII. His fifth testimony, John. 14. 23. If any love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him. This new living after the fulfilling of the Commandments, what is it, saith he, but the increase of love, and thereby of righteousness, which by observing the Law of God is required. Answ. We confess, that by the observance of the Law of God, our love of God is exercised and our righteousness increased, though it be not proved out of this place. For this love, after the keeping of Christ's word here mentioned, is God's love to us, not ours to him.

§. XXIII. His sixth testimony is Apoc. 22. 11. he that is just, let him be justified yet. Answ. The word yet or still doth not signify increase but continuance: or if increase were meant, it could not be understood of the righteousness of justification but of sanctification. But to this allegation I have answered twice before.

To conclude, in these six places we have seen scarce any color of proof either of justification by works, or of increase of justification; and yet these, besides I am. 2. are all the testimonies which he hath alleged out of the Scriptures: which being compared with those plentiful and pregnant Testimonies that plainly deny justification by works, do manifestly show the cause of the Papists to be most desperate.

But it may be you will say, that although the Scriptures fail him, yet he hath store of testimonies of the Fathers, and plenty of reasons. Out of the Fathers, he produceth not one testimony: Neither doth he give any reason, but such as have been already confuted.

§. XXIV. To these testimonies, saith he, two reasons may be added out of those things, which have been proved in the former Chapters concerning the possibility of the Law, and the truth of actual righteousness: for, saith he, if a just man can fulfill the Law, as before it hath been demonstrated, then •… ay he also without doubt be justified by works. Again, If a just man can perform works truly good, which are polluted with no vice, as we have shown before, then he may work righteousness, and consequently may by multiplying of just works increase his justice. Answ. He should say his justification. But in both he disputeth a posse ad esse: it is possible for a man to fulfill the Law and consequently to be justified by works it is possible, that a righteous man may perform some works truly and purely good by multiplying whereof he may increase his justice. But the question is not, whether some choice man one of a million, can fulfill the Law, and bring forth works purely good; but whether everyone that is justified doth fulfill the Law, that is, doth continue in all the things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them. Whether the works, yea all the works of everyone, that is justified, be purely good. For if he should transgress in any one particular, though it were but by omission, he hath not fulfilled the Law. If any of his works were not truly and purely good, or if all his works be not pure, then he cannot be justified by works. But he is so far from proving these things as it were the esse, that he is not able to prove the posse, that any one mortal man is able to fulfill the Law; or that any one action of any one regenerate man is purely and perfectly good. The contraries of both which I have plentifully proved before.

CHAP. I. Setting down the state of the Controversy, and propounding our arguments against the merit of good Works.

§. I.

T Here remaineth the last, though not the least error of the Papists in this controversy, which is concerning the efficacy of good works. For the Papists not contented to affirm, that good works do justify; do also teach that at the hands of God they do merit or deserve the reward of eternal life. And this, in effect, is the same with that, which Bellarmine labored to prove, when he disputed of the necessity of good works unto salvation, not only necessitate praesentiae, as the way to God's kingdom, which we confess; but also necessitate efficientiae, as causes thereof. For by the Efficiencie which they ascribe to works, they mean no other but moral, which is, as they say, by way of meriting. Howbeit the former assertion of the necessity of efficiency seemeth to contain a further degree of damnable error; viz. that not only good works do merit or deserve salvation; but also, that none can be saved without their own merits: for so much is implied in the term of the necessity of efficiency.

§. II. But first we are to set down the state of the controversy, in setting down whereof the Papists are very sparing, because in this point they differ much among themselves. But yet in this they do agree, that all the good works of the regenerate are truly meritorious of eternal life. Now for the explacation of the terms: by good works, which they say are meritorious, they mean all such works, as are qualified according to those seven conditions, which Bellarmine requireth. First, that they be material •… y good, or good in their kind. Secondly, that they be done in obedience to God. Thirdly, by such as are viatores way-faring men in this life. Fourthly, that they be free, that is, as they expound it, voluntary, proceeding from their freewill. Fifthly, persormed by men who are in the state of grace. Sixthly, having the promise of eternal reward. Seventhly, proceeding from the virtue of Charity.

Secondly, by all such works they do not only mean all jointly, but everyone in particular: affirming, omne opus bonum that every good work proceeding from Charity is meritorious of eternal life. Thirdly, by truly meritorious, the word used by the Council of Trent, we understand, that which properly and absolutely and for it self de •… erveth the reward: thereby excluding first, merita ex congruo, merits of congruity, which indeed do not deserve, and therefore are not veri nominis merita, truly and properly merits. Notwithstanding Bellarmine and others retain the name, giving it chiefly to those dispositions and preparations going before justification, according to which grace is given: wherein they have rewarded the old assertion of Pelagius, gratiam secundum merita dari. For if those dispositions be merits, and if according to them grace is given, as the Council of Trent in plain terms defineth, do they not hold that grace is given to men according to their merits? Secondly, by this phrase truly and properly meritorious, are excluded these works which ar •… said to merit only, ex pacto, which ever happeneth when there is a great disproportion between the work and the promised reward. As if a man should for a days labor, which in commutative justice deserveth but denarium diurnum the day-penny, promise an hundred pound; this reward were due ex pacto, but yet not deserved by the laborer. The half of Herod's Kingdom was due to the daughter of Her •… dias, ex pacto if she had asked so much, but no way deserved by her. By truly and properly meritorious therefore is meant that, which is condign merit, or merit of condignity, that which is absolutely meritorious and not only ex pacto by reason of the promise (which happeneth when there is an equal proportion between the work and the promised reward) sed ration •… peris ipsius, for the works sake and for the worthiness thereof.

§. III. This point is duly to be observed. For there are some tergiversators, that dare not professedly take upon them the defense of condign merit, who notwithstanding would seem as stiff defenders of merits as the best of them. As for that qnestion whether works deserve heaven •… x cond •… gno or not, and such like, they say they are but school points, which not being yet determined by the Church may freely be disputed of pro & con. Yea, but thus much your Church hath determined, that the faithful, who are the members of Christ, do by their works truly merit or deserve eternal life, and denounceth a curse against those, who shall deny that a justified man doth by his good works truly merit eternal life. But there is nothing which can truly and properly be called merit, but that which is of condignity, and doth for it self, and for its own worth absolutely deserve the reward. That which is said to merit by way of congruity is not truly and properly meritorious, nor that which is said merely to merit ex pacto, as where is no proportion between the merit and the wages. For neither of these doth truly deserve that which it is said to merit. Wherefore the most, and the most learned of the Papists hold, that there is a due proportion between the works of the faithful proceeding from charity: and the heavenly reward, and that they condignly merit eternal life, not only in respect of God's promise, but also for the worthiness of the works, which are so dignified, they say, by the merit of Christ, that they become truly meritorious, and do in Justice, according to their worth, deserve the heavenly reward, even as justly, as the sins of the wicked deserve the punishment of hell. In so much that our Rhemists say, good works be meritorious, and the very cause of salvation, so far, that God should be unjust, if he rendered not heaven for the same, unjust (they mean) for not rendering a just and equal reward. Where fore howsoever some like snailes, when they are touched, do pull in their horns: yet this undoubtedly is the Tenet of the learned Papists at this day: Opera bona justorum meritoria esse ex condigno, non solum ration pacti sed etiam ration operum, that the good works of the righteous are condignly meritorious, not only in regard of the covenant, but also in respect of the works themselves. As for those, who heretofore have denied the absolute merit of condignity, and have held either merits of congruity only, or only ex pacto, they are censured by some of the learned among them to have differed from us in words, but in deed to have agreed with us.

But as for us we acknowledge no merits of eternal life, but the merits of Christ only: and we do constantly hold, and confidently profess, that no mere man can merit, that is, deserve at the hands of God the reward of eternal life, by anything, or by all the things which he can do or suffer in this world.

§. IV. For the handling of this controversy I will observe this order: first I will propound our arguments and maintain them, and then I will answer the objections of the Papists.

And first, I will speak of the name, and then of the thing: neither of which hath any ground in the Scriptures: and therefore both the name and the thing, of all true Christians, who desire not in matters of such moment as concern our eternal inheritance, to be wis •… above that which is written are to be rejected. The word mereri properly signifieth to deserve, and meritum desert, or that which deserveth a reward: and that which doth not deserve, is not properly and truly called merit. Now there is neither in the canonical Scriptures, nor in the Greek Fathers, any word or phrase truly and properly translated, which being ascribed to good works, doth signify or import the deserving of eternal life at the hands of God. There are words and phrases importing the reward of works both good and bad; but with this difference, that the eternal reward of good works, as it was according to the purpose of grace given unto us in Christ before all secular times, and freely intended and preordained: and according to the Covenant of grace to them for whom Christ hath merited the same, freely promised; so it is freely bestowed as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the free gift of God. But the eternal reward of sin, as it is justly deserved, so it is in justice rendered, as the just stipend or wages of sin. Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sin is death; but eternal life is the free gif •… of God.

§. V. The Latin Fathers indeed do often use the words mereri and meritum both in the better sense, and in the worse, but with this difference, that in the worse sense they use it properly for deserving and desert. For sins duly and in justice deserve punishment. But in the better sense, they do not use the word properly for deserving and desert (which every man knoweth to be the proper signification,) but in other significations, and therefore improperly, if not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

The verb is used by them sometimes, and indeed very often in the general sense, either of obtaining, joined commonly with the accusative case, or of finding favor to have or to get anything, joined with the infinitive, without respect of merit and worth, or relation to wages. Vocabulum merendi saith Cassander, the word meriting among the ancient Ecclesiastical writers for the most part signifieth to obtain or to be made fit to obtain. The which among others appear •… th by that one place of Cyprian. For where Paul saith, 1 Tim. 1. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but I obtained mercy, as the vulgar Latin and Erasmus, Cyprian readeth misericordiam merui. And so doth Augustine also. Thus you see, how joined with an a accusative it signifieth to obtain.

First, So Ambrose, Minus autem mirari debe •… us, quod tantam Johannes gratiam in nascendo meruerit.

Secondly, Ipsa etiam post usum vota fastidio, sunt & quae mereri optavimus, postquam meruimus abdi •… amus.

Thirdly, Iniqueus Cain, longaevam d •… xit aetatem, duxit uxorem, & •… c meruit promissione divina.

Fourthly, •… ratiam •… um ordinareris (Episcopus) non suscepisti, quia gratuito •… am non meruisti.

Jerome, Quanto magis eg •… —mereri debeo veniam.

1. Aug. confugerunt ad fidem, qua misericordiam indulgentia mererentur▪

2. Talem se (Apost.) confitetur fuisse peccatorem, ut omnis peccator propterea dese non desperet, quia Paulus (peccatorum scil. primus) meruit indulgentiam.

Primasius, Magna beatitudo est, sine labor legis vel poenitentia, fidem per solam gratiam promereri.

But oyned with an infinitive, it signifieth for the most part to find favor.

Ambrose, O aqu •… quae Sacramentum esse Christi meruisti, qu •… lavas omn •… a, 〈◊〉 lavaris.

1. Aug •… stine, 〈◊〉 •… vix in illo populo—qui de servitute decem miraculis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 .

2. And in the sam •… book sp •… aking of Saint Paul, pr •… persecutionibus & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meruit app •… llari.

3. Of D •… vid 〈◊〉 saith▪ Qui & R •… & Prophet •… divin •… munere fieri me •… ▪

4. And of the woe •… an which washed ou •… Savior's feet with her tears, &c. id •… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod •… i 〈◊〉 fuerunt peccata 〈◊〉 .

5. Hae •… & alia 〈◊〉 vitae 〈◊〉 vel munera vel solatia, quidam etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accipere 〈◊〉 .

6. And in anot •… r pl •… he saith, Apostoli à suis civibus occidi meruerunt.

1. Gregory, Quid? quod Paul •… cum Redemptoris nomen in terra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 •… erba de coelo meruit audire.

2. But most pregnant to this pu •… pose is that speech, which is cited out of him concerning Adams fall, which at this day is chanted in the Church of Rome.

O felix •… ulya quae talem & tantum meruit habere redemptorem▪ O happy fault, which diddest find the favor to have such and so great a redeemer.

§. VI. Sometimes they use th •… word in a more special sense, and and that two ways.

First, for imp •… tration and obtaining by request. And thus the Fathers say▪ that men ha •… e me •… ited remission of sin, justification and reconciliation wit •… God, which the Papists themselves do confess cannot be merited, Se •… 〈◊〉 ipsa remissio 〈◊〉 saith Augustine, sine aliquo merit •… est, si fides 〈◊〉 impetrat. Where, to merit is to impetrate, and to imp •… is to •… rit: but not in the proper sense of deserving. For between impetrati •… g and meriting in the proper sense there is great difference, as you 〈◊〉 before out of Thomas Aquinas and Bellarmine himself. Thus Orig •… 〈◊〉 pecca •… um, remissionem peccati meretur Jerome, qui peccat •… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , merentur humilitate clementiam salvat •… ris. Of 〈◊〉 that notorious sinner, Augustine saith, tha •… when he humbled 〈◊〉 before God, ita gratiam Dei •… btinuit, ut mereretur i •… ter Dei a •… icos post •… dum numer ari.

Sometim •… it signifieth to do good works, either with relation to the reward, or without. The former, is, as I suppose, •… he most that can be truly gathered out of the Fathers as seeming to favor the popish sense, And yet even so it signifieth but to do •… rewardeable works, or to do such works by God's grace as he hath promised graciously to reward.

But in the proper sense of deserving Bellarmine was not able, as after we shall see, when we •… come to his restimonies out of the Fathers, to produce any one testimony out of any one of them, testifying, that the good works of the faithful in and for themselves deserve eternal life, or that they are truly that is, condignly, and absolutely meritorious of salvation.

§. VII. So much of the Verbe mereri, to 〈◊〉 . The Noúne meritum, or name merit taken in the better part, if referred to God, it signifieth his beneficia; if to men, our officia. For those actions which the Grecians call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the Authors of the Latin tongue officia, the Latin Father •… commonly call merit •… , m •… ing also officia or good works: and that either simply and without relation to reward (which sense is most usual) or implying relation to reward. I am not ignorant saith Vega that the name merit is used of the Fathers where is no respect of merit, either of congruity, or of condignity. And as for Augustine, he is won •… saith Bellarmine meritum appellare quemlibet bonum actum &c. to call merit any good act in regard where of we receive some other thing. Where it is used as the relative of reward, it signifieth no more but a rewardeable work, or a work which God is pleased to reward. But we must remember withal, that God's reward of eternal life is his free gift, and not deserved by us; freely intended unto us in our election, freely promised unto us, as the inheritance purchased by Christ; freely given unto us as the gracious reward of our obedience, by which he doth most graciously crown his gifts, and not our merits in us, as I have shown before at large.

§. VIII. Now as touching the thing it self: Merit is best defined to be a good work deserving the reward of eternal life. Some define it to be a work, to which that reward is due. But that definition is too large, unless it be added, that to it the reward is d •… e absolutely for the works sake. For the reward may be due •… ither by dese •… , or by promise or covenant only, as namely where there is a great disproportion between the work and the promised reward. But that properly is not merited, which is due only by promise, and is not deserved: when an hundred pounds is promised for a days labor in the Vineyard where in commutative justice, the day-penny only were sufficient; the reward indeed is due, when the labor is ended, in regard of the promise; but yet it is not deserved by the laborer. Whatsoever the daughter of Herodias had lawfully asked of Her •… d, though it had been to the half of his kingdom, it had been due to her by promise, but not deserved by her, for there was no proportion between her work, or play rather, and his promised reward. No more is there, or rather not so much, between the b •… st works of the faithful, and the eternal reward.

§. IX. Now I proceed to our arguments proving that the good works of the faithful are not truly meritorious of eternal life. My proofs shall be either demonstrative reasons drawn from the very nature and conditions of merit, or authorities of holy Scripture, or testimonies of the Fathers.

Unto merit, so properly called, divers conditions are required, in respect of those relations which are considerable in merits; And those are either. between the

• Parties, viz.
  • who would merit▪
  • of whom he would merit.
• things
  • Meriting, which is the merit i •… self,
  • Merited, which is the reward.

The Parties are God and man. But man cannot merit of God, for these reasons.

First, because between God and man there is no proportion Deus & homo distant in i •… finitum, for God is infi •… ite, man compared to God is as nothing, Isaiah. 40. 17. One man indeed by doing good offices may merit of another. But no man, that is but a man can deserve any good thing at the hands of God. Our goodness doth no •… reach unto him, Psal •… . 16. 2.

Secondly, because God is the absolute Lord, of all his creatures, to whom they owe themselves, and what •… oever they can do, though no reward were to be expected. In so much that not Adam in Paradise, nor the Angels in Heaven, nor Christ himself, if he had been but a man, could have mer •… ed any good thing at the hands of God. God deserveth of all men more than they are able to render, and the better they are, the more they are beholding to him. He is thy Creator •… aith Bernard, thou his creature: thou the •… ervant, He the Lord: He the Potter, thou that which the Potter frameth. Tot •… m ergo q •… des 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , •… q •… o t •… tum habes. Thou doest therefore owe to him, all that thou ar •… , from whom thou hast all. Although, faith he, a man may perhaps seem to render more to his neighbor than he oweth: yet never any man re •… dreth to God all that he oweth. Aristotle said well, that to God and ou •… Parents we cannot render, as they deserve of us, especially to God. For as Pereri •… s, a learned Iesuire saith, Besides the deb •… s or duties of thankef •… lnesse, which none can sufficiently render unto God; those debts also, which by God's Commandments we are bound to discharge, no man perfectly dischargeth. We therefore being no way able to render what is due to God; but on the contrary by our •… inns making our •… elves debtors to him, owing unto him deserved punishment; is it any less, than antichristian insolency, or rather blasph •… my, for •… infull men to profess themselves a •… le to merit any good thing at the hands of God, and to make him their debtor? Neither can I •… ufficiently wonder, how men, whose conscience, (if it be not cauterized) doth tell them that they sin daily against God, and by sin provoke his judgments; can speak or think of meriting anything injustice at the hand of God, but punishment. For as Augustine faith, Si Deus velle •… pr •… meritis agere, non inveniret •… isi quos dam •… aret. i. If God would deal according to merits, he should find none but whom he should condemn.

§. X. If it be said, that the Lord by promising anything maketh himself a debtor for the performance of it. I answer first, with Augustine, he is become a debtor, not by receiving anything of us, but by promising what he pleased, and therefore no debtor to us. For God is not debtor to any, not so much as by covenant; for he covenanteth Non de debit •… sed de gratui •… ▪ not for rendering a due debt, but for freely bestowing his own free gift, nor according to debt, but according to grace. To whom •… hen should he be a debtor by his promise?

I answer, in the second place with Thomas: that the Lord, who is faithful and just in performing his promises, maketh himself a debtor, not to us, but to himself for the gracious performance of his free and undeserved reward, which he had freely and graciously promised. Thirdly, with Bonavent •… re, he hath made himself a debtor, not to men, to whom he could owe nothing; but to himself, that he might be faithful in his promises. For if God be a debtor to man, then Debet dare ei vitam aeternam, then he ought to give him eternal life. But Hoc verbum debet vene •… m h •… bet, saith the Master of the sentences, therefore saith he, Ratio debiti, secundùm quod obligationem dicit, proprie in Deo non cadi •… .

Some famous Writers (saith Cassa •… der ) among whom is Durandu •… , deny that God by his promise is bound to us.

Fourthly, God's fidelity and justice in giving, the reward according to his promise, that is to say, freely, doth not argue our merit, but God's truth, who •… annot lie nor deny himself.

Fifthly, that reward which is due only ration pacti, is not deserved •… x ration operis; and that which is rendered, Non redditur ex debito operis, sed ex promissione. And therefore as it was freely promised, so it is freely and undeservedly given.

§. XI▪ Secondly, in the party that is to merit, it is requisite, that he should be his own man, a •… d not the other parties man of whom he would merit. For if he be his •… ond-servant, all that he can do is duty, not merit. Nay, as he is not his own man, but his Lord's: so his works are not his own and for his own advantage, but for his Master. Et quicquid suo labor acquirit, saith Bellarmine, Domino suo acquirit, non sibi, and whatsoever he getteth by his labor, he getteth it for his Lord, not for himself. But we are all the serv •… nts of the Lord, not only by right of creation, but also of redemption, in regard whereof we are not our own men, but his that bought us. 1 Cor. 6. 19, 20.

And therefore a servant when he hath done his duty, deserveth not so much as thanks of his Lord, Luke 17. 9, 10. Even so, when we have done all that is commanded (which we are never able to do, but our Savior speaketh by way of supposition) we must confess that we are unprofitable servants, we have done but what our duty was to do, and indeed not so much.

§. XII. Thirdly, the thing by which a man should merit, ought to be thus qualified. First, that which meriteth, quatenus meretur it must be our own, and from ourselves, and not his, nor from him of whom we would merit. But all our good works as they are good, and 〈◊〉 , as the Papists hold them, and all those virtues and graces which we have with their uses, are not our own, as from ourselves; but they are the free gifts and graces of God.

Morito debetur merces, to merit, wages is due, saith Bellarmine, Debitum autem non oritur, nisi ex •… o quod unus dat alteri, quod su •… m era •… . Nam si rem non suam, sed alienam daret, nihil ei deberetu •… . Now debt arise •… h not, but from this, that one man giveth to another that which is his own, for if he should give anything which is not his own, but the other man's, nothing should be due unto him.

Origen, Vix mihi suadeo ullum opus esse posse, quod ex debito remunerationem Dei dep •… scat: cum etiam hoc ipsum, quod agere aliquid possumus, vel cogitare, vel proloqui, ipsius dono & largitione faciamus. I can hardly persuade myself that there can be any works which can require as debt a reward from God, seeing also even this that we can do or think or speak anything, we do it by his gift and bounty.

Dona Dei non merentur apud Deum, God's gifts do not merit of God. By them perhaps we may merit of others; but not of him who gave them, for it is against sense that the doer, should by the gift received from the doner, merit of him. All the good that a man hath is from God, and by consequent God cannot owe anything to man. God's gifts are his merits of us, not ours of him. It is strange that by his gifts he should be obliged to give more. As if by the receipt or use of an hundred pounds we should merit a thousand.

Non talia sunt hominum merita, saith Bernard, ut propter •… a vita •… erna debeatur ex jure—Nam merita omnia Dei dona sunt, & it a homo magis propter ipsa D •… o debi •… or est, quàm Deus homini. Anastatius Scinaita: for when we shall offer all the good things whatsoever we have, he doth not owe to us a reward, for all are his. But no man receiving his own things, is a debtor to give a reward to them, who offer unto him the same.

Whereunto I will add that of Durand, both that which w •… e are and that also which we have, whether they be good acts, or good habits or uses: all is in us from the liberality of God, freely giving and conserving. And because by a free gift none is bound to give more; but the receiver rather is more bound to the giver: wherefore by the good habits, good acts and uses given unto •… s of God, God is not obliged to us out of any debt of justice to give more; as if he did not give, he should be unjust; but we rather are obliged to God. And it is a rash or blasphemous thing to think or speak the contrary.

If it be said, that by the good use of God's gifts we may deserve greater: I answer, that as the good gift it self, so the good use of it is also the free gift of God; which if God reward, he doth not reward our merits, but crown his own gifts, as A •… gustine often speaketh.

§. XIII. Secondly, that which meriteth is free not only from the necessity of coaction (which condition the Papists acknowledge) but also of duty: for Quod est debitum non est meritum, that which is du •… ty is not merit. In rendering that which is due, we may satisfy perhaps our debt, but not merit reward. This is a certain truth, if the work be due, the reward is not due ration operis for the works sake. Quid meriti apud Deum poterimus obtrudere, qui debemus omnia? How can we plead merit before God who owe him all things? Of that which we do owe we are not owners, the money which is owed is Aes alienum nihil proprie nostrum est, nisi quod pro arbitrio possumus facere vel omittere, saith Bellarmine: Nothing is properly our own, but that which we can upon free choice do or omit.

All the good things which we can do are due from us to God, Luk. 17. 10. So that if we should do all that is commanded, we were but unprofitable servants, because we have but done that which was our duty to do. But indeed we do not, nor cannot perform all that is due, so far are we from merit.

Again, there is no good thing which we can do, but it is commanded of God, and therefore due. Not to do it is a sin; to do it, is not merit but duty.

Saint Bernard doth demonstrate for many causes, that all our good works are due unto God, saith Bellarmine •… , so that he may exact them all; though he would give no reward.

O if thou didst know, saith Bernard, how many things and to how many thou doest owe, thou shouldst see how they are nothing which thou doest, and how not to be reckoned among the least in comparison of thy debts.

All that thou art, thou owest to him, from whom thou hast all.

And after, who then will grumble anymore, saying, We labor too much, we fast too much, we watch too much, when he is not able to answer the thousand, yea not the least part of his debts.

Object. But it will be said, Doth not he well that payeth his debt? Answ. In not paying it he should sin, but in paying he satisfieth only his debt, he doth not merit a new reward.

§. XIV. Thirdly, that work which meriteth must be pure and perfect, and not stained with any corruptions and imperfections: for otherwise it will not so much as satisfy our debt, but rather make us obnoxious unto punishment, every defect and imperfection being a sin: and much less will it merit at the hands of God eternal life. But all our best obedience is imperfect and stained with the flesh, as I have heretofore proved at large, all our righteousnesses being as polluted cloths. Gregory saith, Omne virtutis nostrae meritum esse vitium.

Object. 1. Yea, but the imperfection is taken away by the blood of Christ.

Answ. Where is remission of sin, there can be no merit of condignity.

Object. 2. Veniall sins may stand with perfect righteousness.

Answ. True, in respect of imputed righteousness, by which sins are made venial; but in regard of inherent righteousness, it is absurd. Fourthly, that which meriteth is more than is due, for Debitum non est meritum, for debt is not merit; but all that we can perform is less than that which is due.

§. XV. The thing that we are to merit, that is to say, the reward: first, it must be proportionable to the merit. For justice standeth in equality.

But between the best works or sufferings of this life, yea, martyrdom it self, and eternal life, there is no proportion. For the one is finite, the other infinite; as being the everlasting fruition of God the infinite and chief good. Wherefore Bernard, Quid sunt, saith he, omnia merita ad tantam gloriam? What are all merits to so great glory? And Augustine, How great labor is that rest worthy of, which hath no end. If you will make a true comparison, and judge truly, Eternal rest is rightly bought with eternal labor: for eternal rest eternal labor should have been undertaken. Thou who art to receive eternal happiness, thou oughtest to bear eternal sufferings.—Though our labor and tribulations were for a thousand years, weigh a thousand years with eternity. Why doest thou weigh that which is infinite, with a thing that is finite, be it never so great.

Non valent vitae praesentis obsequia aeternae vit •… gaudiis comparari.

Tantum ubi gratiae divinae retributionis exuberat, ut incomparabiliter & ineffabiliter •… mne meritum q •… vis bon •… & ex Deo datae humanae voluntatis & operationis excedat.

Secondly, it should be due upon just desert, and not be given of grace, Rom. 4. 4.

The day-penny given to the work of one hour is from bounty. Matth. 20. 15.

But eternal life is given freely by God's grace, Rom. 6. 23.

Of the wicked, Chrysostom saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , these are justly punished: but of the godly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ and they are crowned according to grace. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For although they should perform ten thousand works, it is the munificence of grace that for such small and vile works such an heaven and kingdom, and so great an honor should be given them.

Thirdly, the rule by which rewardis rendered to condign merits, is not mere grace but justice, and that either commutative, which standeth in equality, or distributive, which respecteth dignity: the former▪ observing an arithmetical; the other, a geometricall proportion. But neither is their equality between •… he merit and the reward: neither are the things which we do or suffer condign, or any way comparable to the glory that shall be revealed. But the reward of eternal life is given of mere grace in respect of us, Rom. 6. 23. According to the good pleasure of God, Luke 12. 32. Who crown •… h us with mercies, Psal. 103. 4. For by grace we are saved and not by works, Ephes. 2. 8, 9. Now we must remember, that that grace is not grace any way, which is not gracious every way. Non enim gratia Dei gratia erit ullo modo, nisi fuerit gratuita omni modo.

§. XVI. These conditions of merit, whereof none agreeth to our works, as I have shown, all of them are found in Christ's meritorious obedience both active and passive. The three first, because our Savior was and is both God and man. The fourth with all the four branches thereof: for first, it was his own and from himself. Mereri •… jus est, saith Hilary qui sibi ipse meriti acquirendi author existat. For although what he had, he had from God, yet he had his power of meriting not from an external principle, but from himself as being God, not by grace, but by nature and by generation. Secondly, it was libera & non debita, free and not of duty because he is God. Esa. 53. 7. Oblatus est quia ipse voluit, John. 10. 17, 18. Thirdly, it was most perfect: absolute. The seventh, because it was more than he did owe. The eighth because his merits are of infinite value, and therefore condign to the glory which shall be revealed. Insomuch that Pope Clement, whom Bellarmine doth follow, did not stick to say, guttam unam sanguinis Christi propter infinitam personae dignitatem, ad totius mundi redemptionem sufficere p •… tuisse. The ninth, because by his sufferings the justice of God is fully satisfied, and by his obedience heaven is all-sufficiently merited for us, even according to the rule of justice.

But not one of the nine conditions agreeth to the obedience and sufferings of any mortal man. Therefore not the obedience of any mere man is truly and properly meritorious, but only the obedience of Christ: to whom alone merit is properly to be ascribed.

To these reasons we may add all those arguments which I produced, either to prove, that we are not justified by any righteousness inherent; or that we are not justified nor saved by works: which arguments for number were many, and for strength impregnable; but especially those which did prove, either that all our obedience is defective and stained with the flesh, or that we are not able perfectly to fulfill the Law of God. For if our obedience be imperfect and defective, then is it far from meriting anything, but punishment. And if we be not able to •… lfill the Law, then are we in ourselves subject to the Curse of the Law, so far are we from meriting heaven by our own obedience.

CHAP. VIII. Testimonies of Scripture disproving merits, vindicated from Bellarmine's cavils.

§. I.

N Ow I come to testimonies of Scriptures: and first those which Bellarmine by his sophistry seeketh to wring from us. And first we allege those testimonies, which ascribe the reward of good works to God's mercy, and not to our merits. As Exod. 20. 6. Psalm. 62. 12. & 103. 4, 17. Gal. 6. 16. Mat. 5. 7. But more specially Tit. 3. 5. Eph. 2. 8, 9. From whence we argue thus.

To the proposition Bellarmine seemeth to answer, or rather to the conclusion: that eternal life, though it be rendered to our merits, yet is given of God's free mercy. But the proposition is generally true. For to him that worketh, and by his work meriteth, the reward is given, not according to grace, but according to debt, Rom. 4. 4 And such is the opposition between merit and grace, that what is of grace, is not of works: and what is of works is not of grace, Rom. 11. 6. Omne meritum, saith Aquinas, repugnat gratiae. And Bellarmine himself Gratia inde n •… men accepit, quod gratis detur; opp •… nitur autem debito. Likewise Bernard: Non est quo gratia intret, ubi iam meritum occupavit. And again, Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas, So that grace and works, mercy and merit cannot stand together. If therefore eternal life be of works, it is not of grace and if of merit, then not of mercy.

§. II. Yea, but Bellarmine will prove, that eternal life is to be ascribed both to God's mercy and our merit, by two expositions which he saith Augustine giveth of the places alleged: the one, (wherein he joineth Gregory with him.) That eternal life, though it be the due reward of merits, yet it is called gratia, because the merits themselves, to which it is rendered, are the free gifts of grace. Whereunto I reply, that the assertions both of Augustine and also of Gregory, make strongly against the merit of condignity. For if eternal life be called grace, as he faith, because it is freely given; and the good works which he improperly calleth merits, be also the free gifts of God: how is it possible, that eternal life should be rendered to them as a deserved reward? •… f it be freely given, how is it rendered as a debt? If good works be God's free gifts, they m •… ke us debtors to God, not him to us. Augustine in that Epistle cited by Bellarmiue, saith, Debita redditur poena damnato, indebita gratia liberato: ut nec ill se indignum queratur, nec dignum se iste glorietur,—si autem gratia, nullis utique meritis reddita, sed gratuita bonitate donata. And again Ipsa vita aeterna—gratia nuncupatur, nec ob aliud, nisi quia gratis detur. And yet again. Quaerimus meritum misericordiae, nec invenimus, quia nullum est; ne gratia evacuetur, si non gratis donatur, sed meritis redditur. Augustine therefore speaketh of good works as the free gifts of God's grace: and therefore not merits properly, but only such works, as God will freely reward, Bellarmine himself being the Interpreter: and of eternal life he speaketh, as the free and undeserved reward of good works, quae gratia nuncupatur, non ob aliud, nisi quia gratis datur. Eternal life is called grace, for no other respect, but because it is freely given. The same Augustine writing on those words of Psalm. 63. 3. Melior est misericordia super vitas, saith; Multae sunc vitae humanae, sed Deus unam vitam promittis, & non illam dat nobis, quasi propter merita nostra, sed prop •… er misericordiam suam. Gregory writing on those words, Psal. 143. 8. Cause me to hear thy mercy in the morning: where, by morning he understandeth the future resurrection, wherein God's mercy shall be shown towards the faithful, he frameth this objection. If that felicity of the Saints be mercy; and is not acquired by merits, what shall become of that which is written; And thou shalt render to everyone according to his works? If it be rendered according to works, how shall it be accounted mercy? Whereunto he giveth two answers, both of them making against merit. The first, Sed aliud est secundum opera reddere, & aliud propter ipsa operareddere. It is one thing to render according to works; another to render for the works themselves: for in that which is said according to works, the quality of the works is meant, that whose works shall appear to be good, his retribution may be glorious: according to works therefore, is according to the quality of them whether good or evil. For if good, then he will reward them with bliss, if evil, then will he condemn them. For to that blessed life, saith he, wherein we live with God and of God, no labor can be matched, no works can be compared, especially seeing the Apo •… tle sai •… h, the sufferings of this life are not condign to the future glory which shall be revealed in us. His other answer: howbeit in this respect also it may be called mercy, because it is given for such works, as no man can attain unto without mercy. It is evident therefore (saith he) that to whom God in mercy giveth grace to work well in this life, to them in greater mercy he granteth that in eternal bliss they shall be rewarded with an hundred fold, this is that grace, which for grace the Apostle saith shall be given to the Saints of God: that unto whom in this life the grace of sanctification is given of God, to them the grace of eternal happiness is given in the life to come: which also maketh strongly against merits▪ both because eternal life is a free gift, and also because that righteousness to which it is given is a free gift: and because greater mercy is shown in giving glory; than in giving gracc.

§. III. The second exposition which he assigneth to Augustine is a fiction of his own brain, viz. that in the crowning of the Saints mercy is necessary for the remission of venial sins. Not that th •… s mercy, saith he, is the Crown of life, but because it doth accompany it; the Crown of life being given to their merits, and the remission granted to their venial offenses: which fiction, as it is falsely fathered upon Aug. so it is not agreeable to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, nor consonant to the truth itself. For seeing in the faithful, sin according to the truth, both in respect of the guilt, and also of the corruption is wholly taken away in the end of this life, or according to the Church of Rome's doctrine, is purged and taken away by the fire of Purgatory: it is a grea •… absurdity to imagine, that the faithful, whose souls before the resurrection enjoy (as they also teach) the beatifical vision, should after the resurrection need remission of venial sins.

§. IV. For our second argument Bellarmine propoundeth in our behalf two object. out of Esa. 55. 1. and Dan. 9. 18. which he saith might be made. The former whereof is available against the merit of grace, not only the first, which he confesseth▪ but the second also: and not only against merit of grace but of glory, for that also is promised without price, the later against affiance reposed in our own merits. For if we are not to trust in them for the obtaining of temporal benefits, whereof Bellar. understands the Prophet to speak, then much less eternal, between which and our supposed merits, there is a far g •… eater disproportion.

§. V. Our third argument is •… aken out of Luk. 17. 7, 8. 9. 10.

Which place affordeth three unanswerable arguments against the merit of condignity▪ taken from three of those conditions required in merits, which before were mentioned. The first in respect of God, who is our absolute Lord. The second in respect of us, who are his bondservants: the third in respect of our works, because all that we can do, though we should, do all that is commanded, is but our duty.

§. VI. For the first, if earthly Masters (who with their servants are fellow▪ servants to one heavenly Master) do not owe so much as thanks to their servants for doing that which they command; then much less our heavenly Master, who is our absolute •… Lord, doth owe the heavenly reward to his servants, when they do •… that which he commandeth; though they should do all that is commanded, which they are never able to do:

For the second: I •… bondservants who are not their own but their masters men (for a servant as the Philosopher saith,) is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and altogether his man, another man's man) do owe themselves and all that they can do to their master, and cannot deserve so much as thanks at his hands, for doing what he commandeth: (though they do all that is commanded, and although, their service be profitable to their master and finally though they receive not from him either the will or power of yielding obedience to him,) but all that they can desire or expect by their uttermost endeavor is to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , w •… ll pleasing to their master; when if their service be any way defective, are well apayed if they escape the whip, as Theophylact speaketh: how much les •… e we, who are the Lord's mancipia and bondservants, both by the right of creation and by the right of redemption (being in regard thereof servi quia servati ) and consequently not our own men, but his who hath made and redeemed us, and therefore do owe ourselves and all, yea more than all we can do: do we or can we deserve at the hands of God the reward of eternal life, by doing what he commandeth, though we should do all that is commanded, which we never do? Especially, seeing and also seeming that we do not all that is commanded, and lastly seeing that our service bring •… th him no profit, Job. 22. 2, 3. & 35. 7. for that which we do, we receive both the will and power from him. Wherefore all that in reason we can desire or expect in regard of our obedience is that we may be well pleasing unto him. Yea, forasmuch as our service is always defective and imperfect, we ought to think ourselves mercifully dealt with, if we escape the punishment, which by the Law of God is due unto us. But here it will be said, if the master shall be pleased to promise rewards unto the servant for his service well performed: may not the servant expect the promised reward? I answer, that what reward soever sh •… ll in this kind be either promised or given, it is wholly to be ascribed to the Masters bounty and not to the servants merit.

§. VII. For the third: That which is done of mere duty by a servant to his Lord, there belongeth no reward in justice, as deserved by him. But all that we, who are the servants of God, can do, though we should do all that is commanded, is done of mere bounden duty to our Lord. Therefore to all that we can do, though we should do all that is commanded, there belongeth no reward, as justly deserved by us. But when we have done all that is commanded (I speak by supposition, as our Savior doth) we must no less truly than humbly confess, that we are unprofitable servants: that is, as is manifestly gathered out of the parable, such as cannot deserve so much as thanks of our Lord. If therefore our gracious Lord shall be pleased out of his bounty freely to promise, and according to his promise graciously to reward our imperfect obedience, which he might justly punish: it is not our merit, but his great mercy that he doth not punish it: more that he doth accept of it as well pleasing unto him in his well-beloved; but most of all, that he doth most graciously and undeservedly reward it. From whence I reason thus:

All the faithful, though they should do all that is commanded, are unprofitable servants: Therefore none of the faithful, though they should do all that is commanded, do merit or deserve at the hands of God, (the reward of eternal life. And if they, who do all that is commanded, cannot merit; then much less they whose obedience is defective; as the obedience even of the best is. So saith Jerome si inutilis est qui fecit omnia: quid de illo dicendum, qui explerenon potuit?

§. VIII. The assumption is proved, first, because our Savior commandeth his Apostles to confess, as the truth is, that when they have done all that is commanded, they are unprofitable servants, and therefore they, who neither do, nor can do all, are impudent liars, when they profess themselves to be profitable servants. Secondly, by a comparison of earthly Lord's and servants. For if earthly Lord's and masters owe not so much as thanks to their servants (who are indeed their fellow servants) for all the service which they can do; though they do not give them the will and the power to do them acceptable service: how much less doth God, who being our absolute Lord doth also give us will and power to serve him, owe unto his servants the reward of the kingdom of heaven? And if servants by doing all possible service to their earthly masters, who are but their fellow servants, cannot deserve so much as thanks at their hands: how much less can we, who serve the Lord of Lord's, deserve the kingdom of heaven at his hands by our imperfect and defective service of him. Thirdly, from the antithesis or opposition that is between debitum and merit •… m, duty and merit. For he that doth but his duty, though he perform his whole duty, cannot merit a reward of his Master, but must confess himself to be an unprofitable servant: how much less can they merit an heavenly reward at the hands of God, who perform not their whole duty, but fail in many particulars, both by omission and commission, as the very best of us do.

§. IX. To avoid the force of this unavoidable argument, Bellarmine seeketh many eva •… ions, which he would gladly father upon the Fathers of the Church. For he saith there be four egregious expositions given by the Fathers; none whereof make against the merit of good works. The first, of Saint Ambrose that of ourselves and by nature we are unprofitable servants •… apt and unable to fulfill God's Commandments, which our Savior would have us humbly to acknowledge; though by grace we become profitable, and therefore as he saith, agnoscenda est gratia, sed non ignoranda natura. Reply, Ambrose doth not speak of our corrupt nature; neither is it his meaning that by nature we are unprofitable servants, by grace profitable, but that by nature we are servants, and by grace sons. For by nature corrupted we are not the servants of God, but of sin and Satan. But he understandeth the meaning of our Savior to be, that the children of God, who are in the state of grace, should not glory in their works, as if by them they did merit anything of God, quia jure Domino debemus obsequium. because by right we owe obedience to God. Neither should we think ourselves exempted from continued obedience, because we are sons: for as we are sons by the grace of adoption) which we are to acknowledge) so by nature and creation (whereof we are not to be ignorant) we are servants. As therefore thou, who art a master, dost not content thyself with one work of thy servant, and then biddest him sit down and eat, but having done one work thou exactest of him another, verse. 8. So God doth not require the use of one work in thee: but whiles we live we must always work. Secondly, our Savior doth not speak of natural men, as being unprofitable, because unapt to fulfill God's Commandments: but directeth his speech to the faithful, and namely, to his own Apostles and Disciples, who study and endeavor to keep all God's Commandments, (which without grace cannot be done) requiring them to make this humble and true confession, that even when they have done all that is commanded, they are but unprofitable servants, such as are described in the parable, who deserve nothing at the hands of their master: because in doing all that is commanded, they do but their bounden duty, and that excludeth merit. For debitum non est meritum.

Yea, but Bellarmine proveth out of 2 Tim. 2. 21. that by grace men become profitable to God. For he that purgeth himself shall become a vessel profitable unto the Lord. Answ. The Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , fit for the master of the house to use for the benefit of the household, and fitted for every good work. But that our piety or obedience bringeth no profit to God, I have shown before. And this is the very second exposition of this place, which though repugnant to this present assertion, Bellarmine himself doth commend in the second place. For so he saith,

§. X. We are commanded, as Bede expoundeth this Text, to acknowledge that we bring no profit to God: but that what good thing soever we do, is profitable to ourselves but not to God. Reply, Beda giveth two reasons (though Bellarmine conceal the better) why we doing that, which is commanded, are notwithstanding called unprofitable servants. The former, quia Dominus bonorum nostrorum non indiget, because the Lord hath no need of our good things. Which, though true yet doth neither so well fit the comparison, wherein the servant, though useful to his master both abroad and at home, could not by all his endeavor deserve to himself so much as thanks▪ neither agreeable to the reason which our Savior rendereth, because we have •… one what is our duty to do.

The latter: we are unprofitable servants, because saith he, Non sunt condignae &c. The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be reavealed, (that is, because we cannot deserve the reward of eternal life by our service.) But as it is elsewhere said (saith he) who crowneth thee in mercy and loving kindness: he doth not say in thy merits and works: because by whose mercy we are prevented that we may in humility serve God, by his gift we are crowned, that in sublimity we may reign with him. So Bede.

§. XI. The third exposition he saith is Augustine's: viz. That we may be called unprofitable servants, when we have kept all God's Commandments, because we do no more than our duty (which indeed is the reason which Christ himself doth render) neither can we from thence demand any just reward, unless God had made a liberal Covenant with us. For by our condition we are the bond-servants of God; and if he will, he may bind us to perform all manner of works, as it pleaseth him, without reward. This our condition Christ, for the preservation of humility, would have us to acknowledge. Howbeit by his gracious covenant we may expect reward, 2 Tim. 4. 7, 8. Matth. 20. 13. Which God in his great bounty hath promised to this end, that thereby he might draw us to performance of our duty, as Augustine teacheth.

Replpy, This answer of Bellaamine is worthy to be observed, or rather admired: first, for the impudency of it, in that he fathereth this exposition upon Augustine, who in the place by him quoted, doth not once mention this Text of Luk. 17. 10. nor hath one word to that purpose for which this exposition is alleged; excepting the clause of God's bounty, which, as it proveth this to be that very testimony of Augustine, which he quoteth, so doth it evidently exclude merit. Secondly, for the force of truth, which forceth him to contradict his own assertions, both here, and in other places. For first, he confesseth, that he which doth no more but his duty, doth not merit: and that we do no more but our duty. Whereupon it followeth, that we do not merit. Secondly, where he confesseth, that we can do no more than our duty, he renounceth all works of supererogation. And thirdly, in that he confesseth, that for the same cause we are unprofitable servants, he taketh away all merit of condignity. Fourthly, he confesseth, that without God's gracious promise we could expect no reward. Which proveth, that the reward is due only ration pacti, and not ration ipsius operis, which afterward he denieth. Fifthly, he confesseth, that such is the bounty and goodness of God, that to allure us to the performance of our duty, he doth freely promise a reward. Now what God doth freely promise to give, he giveth freely and without desert. For eternal life, which in his word he hath promised as a reward, in his eternal counsel he purposed freely without any respect of our worthiness to bestow upon us: and what in mercy he either purposed or promised, Christ by his merit hath purchased for us. So that we attain to heaven by a threefold right. By God's free donation electing us in Christ, as his free gift. Secondly, by Christ's merit, as our inheritance: Thirdly, by God's free promise, as his gracious reward, whereby he crowneth not our merits, but his own gifts and graces in us. God indeed hath promised freely to reward our works: but that our works should merit the reward, he hath nowhere promised, or taught.

§. XII. His fourth exposition is of Chrysostom: that the Lord doth not say, ye are unprofitable servants, but biddeth them say so: which is true. But what will Bellarmine infer therefrom, that therefore they were not so? God forbid! For then our Savior should have taught his Disciples to lie. Neither doth God allow of counterfeit humility. But the meaning of our Savior was, to teach his Disciples in humility to confess the truth: that because they had but done their duty, if they had done all that is commanded, they should not be lifted up with a proud conceit, that thereby they had merited: but should no less truly, than humbly confess, that they were unprofitable servants, who by doing no more than their duty, could not merit of God. And this objection is also answered by Bernard. Sed hoc inquies propter humilitatem monuit omne dicendum. Plane propter humilitatem: numquid contra veritatem? But you will say, that for humility sake he admonisheth them thus to say. No doubt for humility. But did he bid them speak against verity? And the same is taught by Chrysostom elsewhere. No man, saith he, doth show forth such a conversation, as to be worthy of the kingdom, but it is wholly of his gift, therefore he saith, when you shall do all that is commanded, say we are unprofitable servants, we have done what is our duty to do. And again in another place, where he showeth, that what the Son of God did for us he did not of duty: but what good we do, we do it of duty. Wherefore himself said, when you shall have done all, say ye are unprofitable servants, for we have done what was our duty to do. If therefore we show forth love, if we give our goods to the poor we perform our duty, &c.

Object. Yea, but the servants, which employed their Talents well, were commended, as profitable servants. Answ. They were commended as good servants and faithful to their master. And of him, because they profitably employed their Talents, were graciously rewarded. But of their merit nothing is said. If they had not employed their Talents well, they should have been punished. And in that they did employ them well, they did but their duty, and that also by assistance of God's grace, who both gave them the Talents, and grace to employ them well, and therefore though they had reward, yet they did not merit it.

§. XIII. Our fourth Testimony is Rom. 6. 23. For the stipend of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through JESUS CHRIST our LORD: where is an antithe •… is or opposition between death, meaning eternal death, the reward of sin, and eternal life the reward of righteousness: that death is the stipend of sin justly merited by it: but eternal life is not a stipend or wages merited by us, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . the free gift of God; which is a most pregnant place: for if the Apostle had supposed eternal life to be a stipend or wages, or merited reward, he would have said, that as death is the stipend of sin, so eternal life is the stipend of righteousness. But the Apostle making an opposition between the reward of sin and the reward of righteousness, saith, that the one is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a military stipend due to those who serve under Satan's colors; the other is not a stipend or wages deserved, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the free gift of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth a military stipend or wages due to soldiers. As when John the Baptist biddeth the soldiers to be content 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with their stipend, Luke 3. 14. So 1 Cor. 9. 7. For as Augustine saith, Quod est merces operanti hoc militanti stipendium, and worthily, saith he, is death called a Stipendium, Quia militiae diabolicae mors aeterna tanquam debitum redditur.

The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the vulgar Latin translateth Gratia, signifieth a free gift, not rendered as due to the merit of the receiver, but vouchsafed freely out of the free bounty and undeserved favor of the giver. For as Primasius saith, Non est gratia, si non gratis datur, si debita merentibus redditur, quod absit! And Augustine, Non erit Dei gratia ullo modo, nisi gratuita fuerit omni modo: wherefore it is called Gratia, that we may understand it is of grace, and not not of merits. The Verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whence it is derived, signifieth, freely to bestow, to gratify, or graciously to give. And therefore is eternal life called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth freely bestow it. The Argument standeth thus. A free gift, which is opposed to stipend or wages, is not merited by us. Eternal life is the free gift of God and is opposed to stipend or wages; therefore it is not merited by us.

§. XIV. Bellarmine answereth, that Augustine hath diligently answered this argument, Epist. 105. Enchirid. •… ap. 107. But chiefly In libro de gratia & lib. arb. cap. 8. & 9. From whence he gathereth two Assertions. First, That the Apostle might well have said, eternal life is the stipend of righteousness, even as he said, The stipend of sin is death; which confession of Augustine cutteth the thr •… at (he saith) of our Assertion. S •… condly, That the Apostle did not say, Eternal life is the stipend of righteousness, as he said, Death is the stipend of sin, least any man should think, that we so have righteousness of ourselves, as we have sin of ourselves: therefore eternal life is called grace, not because it is not the reward of merit, but that we have the merits themselves from grace.

To the former, I reply, that when Augustine saith, that eternal life might well be called a stipend, which he maketh to be all one with merces, he meaneth a stipend or reward freely given; as if there were stipendium grat •… itum, as well as merces gratuita. And that this was his meaning, I demonstrate out of the same places, which Bellarmine doth quote, and first out of Epist. 105. Debita redditur p •… na demnato, indebita gratia liberato, •… t nec ill se indignum queratur, n •… c dignum se iste glorietur. Si antem gratia, atque null is meritis reddits, sed gratuita b •… nitate donata;—ipsa (aterna vita) gratia nuncupatur, n •… n ob ali •… d nisi quia gratis datur.

Secondly, Enchirid. cap. 107. Ipsam vitam aeternam quae certa merces est operum bonorum, gratiam Dei appellate Apostolus: stipendium enim inquit, p •… ccatimors, gratia autem Dei vita aeterna in Christo Jesus Domin •… n •… stro▪ stipendium pro opere militiae debitum redditur, non donatur. Id •… o dixit, stipendium peccatimors, ut mortem peccato non immerito illatam, sed debitam demonstraret. Gratia vero nisi gratis sit, gratia non est.

Thirdly, Praefat. in Psal. 31. Merces nostra gratia vocatur: figrati •… est, gratis datur, quid est gratis datur? Gratis c •… nstat—Si reddatur tibi quod debetur, puniendus es, quid ergo fit? Non tibi Deus r •… ddit debitam poenam, sed donat indebitam gratiam.

Fourthly, Degratia & lib. arbitr. cap. 9. Cum Apostolus prius dixisset, stipendium peccatim •… rs: merit •… (inquit) stipendium quia militiae diabolicae mors aeterna tanquam debitum redditur. Vbi cum posset dicere, & recte dicere, stipendium autem justitiae vita aeterna: maluit dicere, Gratia autem Dei vita aetern •… : ut hinc intelligamus non meritis nostris Deum nos ad aeternam vitam, sed pro sua miseratione perducere. Whereby it appeareth, that although he saith, that eternal life may be called a stipend: yet he meaneth not a stipend or wages deserved, or merited by us, but a reward freely given us of God.

§. XV. And as the former Assertion maketh not against us, so the later maketh wholly for us against both the Pelagians and the Papists. The Pelagians held, that their good works were done not by the help of grace, but by the strength of their own free will, and so in that respect a reward was due unto them; whereas they who bring forth good works ex don •… gratiae, had neither commendation nor merit. Against them Augustine in many places disputeth, proving that eternal life, which is the reward of our good works, is called by the Apostle Gratia, not only because it self is freely given, but also because the good works, whereof it is the reward, are to be ascribed to God's grace. And that therefore the Lord when he rewardeth the godly life of the faithful with eternal life, he giveth them gratiam progratia, and that when he rewardeth our merits, thereby meaning our good works, he doth crown not our merits, but his own graces. Thus he writeth, Epist. 105. Omne meritum nostrum non in nobis facit nisi gratia: & cum Deus c •… ronat merit •… n •… stra, nihil aliud 〈◊〉 quàm muner •… su •… , Sic •… t enim ab initio fidei misericordiam consecuti sumus, non quia fideles eramus, sed ut esse •… us: sic in fin •… quod erit in vita aeterna, c •… ronabit nos sicut scriptum est, in miseratione & misericordia.—Vnde & ipsa vita aeterna, qu •… utique in fine sine fine habebitur, & ideo merit is praecedentibus redditur: tamen qui •… eadem merita quibus redditur, non à nobis parata sunt per n •… stram sufficientiam, sed in nobis facta per grati •… m, etiam ipsa gr •… tia nuncupatur, Non ob aliud ni •… i quia gratis datur; nec ideo qui •… meritis non datur, sed quia data sunt & ipsa merita quibus datur.

Stipendium peccati mors, recte stipendium quia debetur, quia digne retribuitur, quia merit •… redditur. Deinde, ne justiti •… de humanose extolleret 〈◊〉 ; sicut humanum meritum malum non dubitatur esse peccatum, non à contra •… retulit dicens, •… ipendium justitiae vita •… terna, & haec ne praeter Mediatorem aliqua alia via quaereretur, adjecit in Christo Jesus Domino nostro tanquam diceret, Audit •… , quod stip •… ndium pecca •… i sit mors, quid te disponis extollere? O humana non justitia, sed nomine justitiae plane superbi •… , quid te disponis extollere, ac contrariam morti vitam aeternam, tanquam d •… bitum stipendium flagitare?

Quapr •… pter O homo si accepturus es vitam aeternam, justitiae quidem stipendium est, sed tibi gratia est, cui gratia & ipsa justitia. Tibi enim tanquam d •… bita reddere •… ur, si ex tetibi esset justiti •… , cui debet •… r. Nunc igitur de plenitudine ejus accepimus, non s •… lum gratiam, qua nunc juste in laboribus usque in finem vivimus, sed etiam gratiam pro hac gratia, ut in requie postea sine fine vivamus.

Intelligendum est igitur etiam ipsa hominis b •… na merita esse Dei munera; quibus cum vita aeternae redditur, Quid •… isi gratia pro gratia redditur?

Vita bona nostra nihil aliud est, quam Dei gratia sine dubi •… & vita eteŕna, quae bonae vitae reàditur, Dei gratia est. Et ipsa enim gratis datur, quia gratis data est illa c •… i datur. Sed illa cui datur tantummod •… gratia est: haec autem quae illi datur qu •… niam premium ejus est, gr •… tia est pr •… gratia, tanquam merces pro justi •… ia.

That which Augustine speaketh of the grace of justification, is true of all grace. Quomod •… est gratia, si ex debito redditur? How is it grace if it be rendered of duty?

§. XI. The Papists, when th •… y are pressed with the authority of Saint Augustine, would seem to differ much from the Pelagians; but it is more in show, than in truth. For they do hold the merit of congruity, and that grace is given to men according to their own preparations and dispositions, and that the efficacy of grace, when it is offered, is so to be ascribed to our own free will, as that it is in our own power, either to accept or reject it. For this Alphonsus a Castro setteh down as a Catholic Assertion, that when God hath stirred up our will to that which is good, it is in the power of man's will either to assent to God's monition, or to dissent. Ex h •… c autem qu •… d nos monitioni illius consentimus, qui tamen dissentire p •… teramus, debetur nobis merces & precium, & inde meritum nostrum. And so our Rhemists, that those whom God pardoneth work by their own free will, and thereby deserve their own salvation. If therefore the grace of righteousness, or the grace of glory, be deserved by us, both which the Papists teach; the former, by merit of congruity, the latter by merit of condignity; then, contrary to Augustine's Assertion, neither the one nor the other is to be called grace. For that he denieth to be truly called grace, which is not omni •… odo gratuita. So much concerning Augustine's exposition; now let us search the judgments of some others of the Fathers.

§. XVII. Tertullian interpreteth this Text thus: Stipendi •… delinquentiae m •… rs, Donativum autem Dei vita aeterna in Christ •… Jesus Domino nostro.

Origen, Bene autem Metaph •… ram, i. Figuram militiae ex initio propositam servat, ut militantibus sub peccati rege—Stipendia debita mortem dicat exolvi. Deum vero non erat dignum militibus suis stipendia tanquam aliquod debitum dare, sed donum & gratiam, quae est vita aeterna in Christo Jesus Domino nostro. The same hath Sedulius.

Jerome, Stipendia peccati mors (qui peccato militat, remunerationem accipit mortem—Gratia autem Dei vita aeterna) non dixit similiter stipendia justitiae—N •… n enim nostro labor quaesita est, sed Dei munere condonata.

Chrysostom, the Apostle having spoken of the wages of sin, concerning the good he doth not observe the same order, for he did not say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the wages of your good deeds, but the free gift of God: showing that they were not delivered of themselves, nor received 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a due debt, nor retribution or remuneration of their labors, but that all things came to them by grace.

Theodoret, worthily he called death 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a military stipend, but here (saith he, upon those words, Gratia autem Dei ) he doth not say, wages, but grace: for eternal life is the gift of God. For although a man should perform very great and absolute righteousness: yet temporal labors are not equivalent to eternal blessings.

Pho •… ius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He said not, the wages of your good works, but the free gift of God.

Theophylact, Sin to its servants, for a reward of their service, rendereth death: but that which is to come from God, he calleth grace, and not reward: as if he should say, for you receive not the wages of your labors, but by grace all these things happen to you in Christ, who worketh these things.

Haymo, What is it, that speaking of the reward of sin, •… e calleth it stipend, but of the remuneration of the Elect, he calleth it the grace of God. For they that go to warfare receive their own wages; but whatsoever the Elect have, they receive it wholly from the grace of God, whether they have faith or charity, or any good work: and moreover for this grace of faith and good works, gratis accipiunt, they freely receive eternal life, &c. And the same hath Rhemigius.

And to these you may add two famous Cardinals, the one Cajetan, he doth not say, that the stipend of righteousness is eternal life, but the gift of God is eternal life, that we may understand, that not by our merits, but by the free gift of God we attain to eternal life for the end. The other Contarenus, it is here to be noted, saith he, that the Apostle signifieth that death is due to sin in justice, (for so much the name Stipend doth import) but that eternal life is of the free gift of God.

§. XIII. Our fifth Testimony is Rom. 8. 18. which our Rhemists according to the vulgar Latin read thus. For I think, that the passions of this time are not condign to the glory to come that shall be revealed in us: which words so translated, non condignae, or as Ambrose and Augustine in many places read indign •… , are a direct contradiction to the merit of condignity. Neither ought they to cavil at our former translations, which read they are not worthy. For what is their non condignae, or Ambrose and Augustine's indignae, but not worthy, or unworthy. And what is it not to be worthy, or to be unworthy, but not to deserve? Yea, Bellarmine himself both in his second and third chapters endeavoreth to prove merit from all those places, where the word worthy is used; for dignum esse praemio, saith he, & mereri pr aemium idem sunt, be worthy of reward and to deserve it are all one. Therefore according to this translation, which with the Papists is the only authentical text of Scripture, the Apostle teacheth, that the sufferings of this life deserve not the life of glory. Neither is it material, whether we read worthy of it, or worthy to it, that is equal in worth to it or worthy to be compared to it. For if they be not worthy to it, they are not worthy of it, neither can they merit or deserve it. The words in the original are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not worthy to the glory, or not worthy to be compared to it. Thus Prov. 3. 15. where the Greek readeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 no precious thing is worthy of wisdom, the Latin hath non valent comparari, they may not be compared with it; according to the hebrew. So Eccl. 26. 20. alias 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lat▪ omnis autem ponderatio non est digna continentis animae. No weight is worthy of her chaste mind, that is, nothing of worth is equal, ot to be compared in worth to it. The meaning then of the words is this. I resolve saith the Apostle (the Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth, that when a man hath cast his accounts, and well weighed the matter, he conclude •… h, resolveth, determineth, as Rom. 3. 28. & 6. 11. ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of this present time (that is, the sufferings, which the godly sustain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are not worthy of, (so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 throughout the New Testament doth fignifie) or not worthy to be compared, or comparable, or equal in worth to the glory which shall be revealed in us or upon us.

§. XIX. In the former sense these words are a direct and absolute denial of the merit of condignity. For if the passions of this life are not worthy of eternal life, then much less the actions of this life. For by the sufferings of this time Martyrdom is chiefly meant. Now the Papists teach, that the merit of a Martyr is greater than of a Confessor: that by it as Infants by Baptism, those which suffer though not before baptized are purged from their sin, and are immediately translated into heaven. And yet of them Saint Augustine saith nullo modo superbiant sancti Martyrs tanquam dignum aliquod pr •… illius patriae p •… rticipatione fecerint, ubi aeterna est & vera faelicitas. Let not the holy Martyrs by any means be lifted up with pride, as though they have done something for the participatio •… of that country where is eternal and true felicity.

Bellarmine who telleth us, that wheresoever in the New Testament there is mention of worthiness, there merit is meant, is fain to •… lee from the signification of unworthiness, to the second sense importing disproportion and inequality; signifying, (though he doth not very well expr •… sse himself, when he saith, that the Apostle speaketh of the substance of the works not of the absolute proportion) that howsoever they be unequal, yet they are not unworthy of eternal life. So that this inequality he understandeth not in respect of worth, but in respect of length and greatness. Whereto I reply; first, if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 everywhere in the New Testament signifieth worthy, and worthiness implieth merit as Bellarmine teacheth, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fignifieth non condigna, as their own authentic translation readeth, that is they are not worthy, which is all one, as, as if it were said, they deserve not nor merit the future glory. Oec •… menius upon the place saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Apostle showeth that we are not able, either to suffer or to confer anything worthy the remnueration that is there.

Ambrose, The Apostle, that he might exhort us unto suffering, addeth this reason, because all things which we suffer are less and unworthy, for the pains whereof there should be rendered so great a reward of future good things.

Eusebius Emissenus: Ergo totis licet & animae & corporis laboribus, desudemus, totis licet obedientiae viribus exerceamur, nihil •… amen condignum merito pro coelestibus compensare & afferre valebimus. Non valent vi •… ae pr •… sentis obsequia •… terna vitae gaudiis comparari. Lassescant licet membra vigiliis, pallescant licet ora jej •… niis non erunt tamen condignae passions hujus temporis ad futura •… gloriam, &c.

Athanasius, In vita Sancti Antonii cited by Bellarmine, ne •… 〈◊〉 orbi renunciantes dignum aliquod habitaculis possumus compensare c •… lestibus.

Augustine, Quanto labor dign •… est requies, quae non habet finem? Si verum vis comparare & verum judicare, aterna requies •… terno labor rect •… emitur. See the testimony of Gregory cited §. 2. of this chapter. Secondly, if they be unequal, if there be a great, or rather infinite disproportion between our short and light asflictions, and the eternal superexcellent weight of glory, then cannot our sufferings merit eternal life. For between the merit and the reward there must be some proportion of equality. Wherefore this text, as in the former sense it directly contradicteth the merit of condignity; so in the latter it doth disprove it by necessary consequence. For condign merits are equal to the •… ward: the sufferings of this life are not equal to the future glory, therefore they do not merit eternal life.

§. XX. Neither will it help our Rhemists, nor •… ellarmine himself, to salve their error with blasphemy. The note of the Rhemists upon the word condign is this. Our adversaries gro •… nd hereon, that the works or sufferings of this life be not meritorious or worthy of life ever lasting: where the Apostle saith no such thing: no more than he saith, that Christ's passions be not meritorious of his glory—he expresseth only, that the very afflictions of their own nature which •… e suffer with or for him, •… e but sh •… rt, momenta •… y, and of no account in comparison of the recompe •… ce which we shall have in •… even. No more indeed were Christ's pai •… es of their 〈◊〉 nature compared to his glory any whit comparable: yet they w •… re •… eritorious, 〈◊〉 worthy of heaven and so be ours. Where they seem to put no difference between •… the Head and his members. If Christ did merit his glory by his short fufferings, then do we: if we do not, then not he. But their wisdoms should have considered the obedience of Christ was the obedience of God, that is, of him who was and is God; that the sufferings which he did sustain were the sufferings of God, the blood which he shed for us was the blood of God, Act. 20. 28. and therefore of infinite and all sufficient value and merit, both to satisfy for our sins, and to merit for us eternal life. Whereas our obedience and our sufferings, are the sufferings and obedience of sinful men. And therefore if they will not still be Antichristians, they must acknowledge, that to satisf •… e sor the punishment of hell, and to merit heaven are privileges and prerogatives peculiar to Christ our head, whose sufferings and obedience, by reason of the dignity of his person, are of infinite value and worth, not to satisfy or merit for himself (sor that needed not, seeing the man Christ by reason of the hypostatical union was in the days of his flesh, as the Papists themselves teach, both Viator and Comprehensor, enjoying from the first instant of his conception the beatifical vision) but for the world, and for more worlds, if there were more. But here Bellarmine doth instance first, that as the passion of Christ was much shorter than the pains of hell, yet because of the dignity of the person which suffered, was most worthy to be esteemed a full satisfaction: so, though the passions of this time be short, and that glory be eternal, notwithstanding between these sufferings, and that glory, there is a proportion, by reason of the dignity of charity whence they proceed. And this seemeth to have been the meaning of Bellarmine's distinction, that the Apostle denieth the sufferings of this life to be equal to the future glory, in respect of the substance of the work, and considered in •… hemselves as they are human, as they are short and light, they are no way equal to the future glory: yet as they are, as it were, divine, proceeding from the divine grace of charity, they have an equal, and as he calleth it, an absolute proportion. Thus they make an idol of charity: as if it being not only finite, but also imperfect, and but begun, were of sufficient worth and dignity to merit an infinite reward. And yet the Apostle speaking of the sufferings of the faithful who as it was said in the verses going before are the sons and heirs of God, endued with the Spirit, yea, of Martyrs who are endued with a great measure of charity, denieth them to be condign to the glory which shall be revealed.

His second instance is by comparison taken from the delights of sin, which are incomparably less, than the torments of hell: yet because of the contempt of God, they are worthy to be punished with those torments. Reply. Whatsoever the delights of sin be, the guilt of sin is infinite, and cannot be taken away but by an infinite satisfaction.

The third instance is of an unlike s •… militude, of seed compared to the Tree (as though the tree were merited by the seed) between which though very unequal there is a proportion. Reply. Between all things that are finite there may be a proportion, though not an equal proportion, which must be between the merit and the reward: between that which is finite, and that which is infinite, there is no proportion at all.

§. XXI. But letting pass all other proofs, Bellarmine will needs make the Apostle contradict himself; as if elsewhere he did teach, that the sufferings of this present time are worthy or meritorious of eternal glory. Because he saith, 2 Cor. 4. 17.

Worketh, saith he, non physice sed moraliter, id est, non efficienter sed meritorie, not naturally, but morally, that is, not efficiently, but meritoriously, et per hoc dignas esse passions hujus temporis, quibus gloria illajusto judicio tribuatur, and consequently, that the sufferings of this time are worthy, that in just judgment that glory should be given unto them: which is the direct contradiction of this place. But this allegation I fully answered before, it being his fifth testimony, whereby he would prove good works to be necessary to salvation by the necessity of efficiency. Here it shall be sufficient to show, that merit cannot hence be proved. Yea but, saith he, afflictions are said to work this weight of glory: which must not be understood physically, that is efficiently; but morally that is meritoriously: whereto I reply, that a meritorious cause is an efficient cause: and that which worketh meritoriously worketh efficiently, though not contrariwise. And therefore although from hence sufficiency were proved, yet merit is not. For I pray, what is here said to work? Tribulation? But though tribulation work, as it and all things else do work together for the good of God's children, Rom. 8. 28. yet doth tribulation merit? Then is it a meritorious thing to be afflicted, and punished. For affliction is malum poenae the evil of punishment merited by sin. Doth affliction then work salvation? Surely no more then the afflicter, who is the instrument of our affliction, and seeketh our destruction. Doth not the afflicter merit? no more doth the affliction there may be some efficiency, both in the afflicter and in the affliction, but means there can be none in either. The efficiency may be shown thus. Affliction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 worketh patience, not meritoriously, but by another kind of efficiency, and that not of it self, and in it own nature, which being evil moveth rather to impatience: but by accident, and occasionally, the holy Ghost using it as a means to exercise our faith and to work patience in us, and therefore in this, and such like places, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify •… h no more than occasioneth. Patience worketh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 probation, viz. declarative: for bearing afflictions patiently a man is known to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I am. 1. 12. that is a sound and approved Christian: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or probation worketh efficiently or produceth hope; and in spe in hope, though not in re, we are saved. This working therefore is not by way of merit.

But what manner of thing is that, which is here said to work? and what manner of thing is that, which is here said to be wrought? that which worketh is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ the momentary lightness of our affliction, the thing wrought is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is more emphatical and hyperbolical to signify the infiniteness of that glory, than I am able to express. There being then no proportion betwixt the momentary lightness of affliction, and the more than hyperbolical exceedingly exceeding weight of glory eternal, how can th •… re be merit? To that which hath been said concerning this place, Rom. 8. 18. three other considerations may be added; the two former out of Jerome, id est, that a man could not suffer anything worthy the eternal glory, though it were such as this present life is. The other is that all he can suffer is not more, but a great deal less, than by his sin he hath deserved. And how then can he by the sufferings of this life, whereby he is not able to •… atisfie for his sin, deserve eternal life? The third out of Bernard, we do know, saith he, that the sufferings of this time, are not worthy to the future glory, nec si unas omnis sustineat, No, that they are not, though one man should sustain them all, which though it be a very great, yet is a very true amplification, that if one man should bear all the afflictions of all men in this world, yet his afflictions of this time would not be worthy of the glory that shall be revealed. Such amplifications are used no less truly by Chrysostom and Anselm. Chrysostom saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. If we should die ten thousand deaths, and if we should show forth all virtue, yet could we not recompense the least part of those honors that God hath already bestowed upon us. And if we cannot by all such means be answerable to God for his favors •… ouchsafed in this world, by what means might we hope to merit eternal life in the world to come? If a man should serve God most devoutly a thousand years, yet he should not condignly merit to be in the kingdom of heaven half a day, saith Anselm.

§. XXII. In the sixth place Bellarmine allegeth three testimonies as objected by us, viz. Phil. 3. 7, 8, 9. Ephes. 2. 8, 9. Tit. 3. 5, 7. The first we do not use to produce against merit of salvation, but against justification by inherent righteousness, and was the sixth Testimony of ours, which Bellarmine endeavored to answer, as he doth here. See Lib. 7. Cap. 3. §. 15. The second was the fourth Testimony, which he took upon him to answer. See my reply Lib. 7. Cap. 3. §. 13. The third was the fifth Testimony, of which see Lib. 7. Cap. 3. §. 14. But though we do not allege the first against merit of works; yet by by consequent it doth disprove it. For if works do not concur to justification as the matter thereof, then can they not be the merit of salvation, as hath been said. Secondly, if in the question of justification, which concerneth our title to Salvation, they are to be accounted as things of no worth, yea as loss, then are they not meritorious of eternal life. And whereas Bellarmine challengeth us to allege any one Father, that understandeth Paul to speak of works done after grace: I alleged before Saint Chrysostom upon the place, who understandeth the Apostle as speaking of all, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he said all, both old and new, both past and present, and that I confirmed by reason. And when he saith, that Augustine calleth the righteousness of the faithful Eminentissimam, it is apparent, that he speaketh not of that, which we have by our obedience performed to the Law, but of that most eminent righteousness, which we have by faith. The other two places exclude works from being any causes, as well of Salvation as of justification. And it is plain, that the Apostle speaketh of salvation, and of all the degrees thereof, that it is wholly to be ascribed to the grace of God, and not our worthiness. His words in the former, By grace you are saved through faith, no •… of works. The latter: not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Whence ariseth this argument. If by our merits we are saved, then by works: but not by our works, therefore not by merits. Or thus, If not by works we are saved, because we are saved by grace, then much less are we saved by our own merits.

CAP. III. A new supply of reasons produced against merits, and maintained against Bellarmine's cavils.

§. I.

O Vr first reason. The true Doctrine of justification and Salvation taketh from us all cause of boasting in ourselves, that he which glorieth may glory in the Lord: and contrariwise, that which doth not take away all cause of boasting in ourselves, is not the true Doctrine:

The Doctrine of justification by faith without works, and of salvation by God's free grace without our merit taketh from us all cause of our boasting in ourselves: but the Doctrine of justification by works, and of salvation by our own merits, doth not take away all cause of boasting in ourselves. Both proved Rom. 3. 27. & 4. 2. Ephes. 2. 8, 9.

The effect of Bellarmine's answer is; that they, who plead their own merits, as proceeding from grace, do •… not glory i •… themselves, but in the Lord.

Reply, First, so long as they be ours, though given of God, as all other good things are, we are apt to glory in them, as appeareth by the Pharisee, who boasteth of his merits, though he acknowledgeth, that he received them from God; and therefore rendereth thanks for them. Secondly, the pleading of merit, is it self a proud boasting, Matth. 20. 12. Thirdly, the Papists plead merit as proceeding from their own free will, which they require as a necessary condition of merit. Fourthly, If the good work proceed merely from God's grace, then can we not by it merit anything of God. But the Papists teach, that by it they merit of God: and consequently deny it, so far forth as it meriteth, to proceed f •… om the grace of God, and therefore when they plead merit, they glory in themselves, rather than in the Lord.

§. II. Our second reason: That doctrine, which derogateth from the infinite and all-sufficient merit of Christ, is to be renounced as false and Antichristian.

The Popish doctrine of merits, viz. that we are to be saved by our own merits, and that the faithful by their own works do truly and condignly merit eternal life, derogateth from the infinite and all-sufficient merit of Christ. Therefore it is false and Antichristian. The assumption they deny; yea, though indeed they do derogate from the merit of Christ, yet they denounce anathema against them that shall say so. But we not only say it, but prove it. For first; If Christ hath already most sufficiently and fully merited heaven for us, then our merits are needless: or if our merits be needful, as they teach, then are not Christ's sufficient for us; which is no better than blasphemy.

Secondly, they who teach, that Christ hath not merited for all that believe, and as soon as they truly believe, the right of eternal life, do greatly derogate from the merit of Christ. For the Scriptures do teach, that Christ hath so merited the right of eternal life to all the faithful, that by him they have already eternal life, being already translated from death to life.

But they who teach, that the faithful are to merit the right of eternal life by their own good Works, do in effect teach, that CHRIST hath not merited it to the faithful.

Therefore they who teach that the faithful are to merit the right of eternal life by their own good works, do greatly derogate from the merit of Christ.

This assumption may thus be demonstrated: That which a man hath already, he needeth not to merit. For to merit is to obtain by desert that right which a man hath not yet. Nullus meret •… r, saith Thomas, quod •… am habet, and again meritum non est nisi ejus quod nond •… m habetur. Therefore the faithful, if they have already right to God's kingdom, they need not merit it; or if they must merit, then have they not as yet that right by Christ, but must purchase it by their own deserts, which is greatly to derogate from the merits of Christ. But the faithful before they produce any good works have right to God's kingdom. N •… m hoc ips •… , saith Bellarmine, quod incipi •… esse fili •… Dei, 〈◊〉 jus habere ad hareditatem falicitatis •… ternae, Rom. 8. 17. G •… l. 4. 7. 〈◊〉 •… utem esse filii Dei, •… ntequam incipi •… mus been operari——Igitur jus habemu •… ad aternam bareditatem per gratiam 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 been operari. For in that very respect that we b •… gin to be the sons of God, we begin to have right to the inheritance of the eternàll felici •… y, Rom. 8. G •… l. 4. Now we begin to be the sons of God before we begin to bring forth good works. Mer •… it igitur Christus (saith he) Christ therefore merited the inheritance it self, whiles he merited the grace of adoption: and again, unto him who is the Son of God by grace, the inheritance is due by the right of adoption before all works. In which place Bellarmine teacheth another point of doctrine, whereby is excluded the merit of good works. Ex eo quod aliquis, saith he, est filius Dei per gratiam, meretur ex condigno haereditatem vitae aeternae, sine alio pacto, sed merito personae, non merito operis. By this that any man is the son of God by grace, he doth merit condignly the inheritance of everlasting life, without any other covenant (for if sons, then heirs) but he doth merit it by the merit of his person, not by the merit of his work, what needeth then the child of God bring forth good works with purpose to merit heaven by them, seeing before he produceth any good works, he hath right unto the kingdom of heaven by the merit of his person, in that he is the Son of God? Why forsoooth, as it is an inheritance, he meriteth it by the merit of his person; but as it is a mercenary reward or stipend or wages he must earn it by the merit of his works, which is absurd, for if it be a free gift intended in our election without any relation to our desert, a free inheritance purchased for us by Christ, and freely promised to all that believe, and free reward of our obedience, which is therefore by Augustine and others called Gratia, because it is freely given, it cannot without absurdity be made the mercenary reward or wages of hired servants.

Thirdly, to attribute that honor to every member of the body, which is peculiar to Christ alone the Head, is to derogate from the honor of Christ our Head.

Fourthly, that which taketh from Christ the glory of being the only meritorious cause of salvation, doth grea •… lie detract from the all-sufficiency of Christ's merits.

The Popish doctrine concerning the merit of works taketh from Christ the glory of being the only meritorious cause of our salvation: Therefore it doth greatly derogate from the all-sufficient merit of Christ.

Fifthly, they who ascribe the condign merit of heaven to their own good works, and to salve the matter do fain, that Christ hath merited for their good works, that they may condignly merit heaven: do indeed rob Christ of the honor of meriting for us eternal life, and do arrogate it unto themselves. Thus do the Papists, who ascribe the condign merit of heaven to their own works, and to blear the eyes of the simple, they fain, that Christ merited for our works, that they might be meritorious of eternal life: for neither by the Scriptures, nor Fathers, nor any sound reason, do they so much as go about to prove this fiction, this novelty. Christ did not save us to make us our own Savior's; but in his own person, and as the Apostle speaketh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by himself he performed the work of our redemption and the merit of our salvation.

Object. 1. But you will say, did Christ merit for us, that we should be idle? I answer, we are the Workemanship of God created unto good works, which God hath preordained that we should walk in them; not to merit by them, but to glorify God by them, to testify our thankfulness, and to make our calling and el •… ction sure, and for many other reasons, which I delivered, when I proved the necessity of good works.

Object. 2. It is not fit that Christ's merits should be applied to men without works.

Answ. The merits of Christ are applied to us, that is, we are justified by them without works, as the Apostle teacheth; howbeit in them that are justified good works do follow, but not as causes of justification, or as merits of salvation.

Object. 3. But it is necessary we should be like unto Christ.

Answ. We must be like to him in the graces of sanctification, which we receive from his fullness, even grace for grace, Rom. 8. 29. 1 Io •… n 3. 3. 1 Pet. 1. 16. But we cannot be like unto him in office of Mediation, or in the power of meriting, which is proper to the Head.

§. III. This argument, that the doctrine of merits is derogatory to the all-sufficient merits of our only Savior, is worthy to be insisted upon, and defended against all exceptions and cavils of the Papists; which indeed are many, but may be reduced to these three heads: for either they serve to show, that their doctrine doth not derogate from Christ's merits: or that their doctrine setteth forth the glory of Christ's merit, no less than ours: or that we by denying their doctrine do extenuate (such is their impudency) the merit of Christ.

To the first purpose, Bellarmine hath four evasions. The first, that The merits of just men are not opposite to the merits of Christ, but spring from them. And what commendation soever our merits have, that wholly redoundeth to the praise of Christ's merit. For he is the Vine, we are the branches. And as a branch ca •… not bring forth fruit, unless it abide in the vine; even so we without Christ can do nothing. And as never any man was so unwise as to say, that the fruitefulnesse of the branches detracteth from the glory of the Vine: so no man, that is not a very fool would say, that it is a derogation from the glory of Christ, if his servants by his Grace, by his Spirit, by faith and charity inspired from him, bring forth good works, which are so truly just, that unto them is due from the just Judge a crown of Justice.

Repl. To which answer I assent in some particulars. First, that it is indeed a great honor to Christ, if his members do bring forth much fruit, John 15. 8. As contrariwise, it is a great dishonor to him, when any of his members defile themselves with any crime, 1 Cor. 6. 15. Secondly, that having union with Christ, as his members, we have also communion with him, both in his merits to our justification and salvation; and also in the virtue of his death to mortify sin in us, and of his resurrection to raise us unto newness of life. By influence of which virtue from Christ our Head the holy Spirit enableth us to bring forth the fruits of good works. But that these good works, though wrought by the Spirit, though proceeding from faith and charity, though acceptable to God in Christ, though graciously rewarded by him, are so perfect and of such value, that they should be either satisfactory to God's justice, or meritorious of eternal life, that we utterly deny; these being prerogatives peculiar to our Head, who only hath both satisfied the justice of God, and also merited heaven for us: and that to this end, that neither satisfaction should be required of us for our sins (for which we cannot satisfy, but by eternal punishment) nor merit of eternal life expected from us, which cannot be merited but by a price of infinite value. For if there be need of either, then either Christ hath not fully satisfied, or not sufficiently merited for us. And as it is a certain truth, that Christ did not to this end satisfy for us, that we should satisfy, which to us is impossible, but that we should be freed from the necessity of satisfying God's justice, as being already satisfied: so it is no less true, that Christ did not to that end merit heaven for us, that we should merit it, which to us is impossible; but that we should be freed from the necessity of meriting it, which Christ hath all-sufficiently merited, and should rely wholly and only on the satisfaction and merit of Christ.

If they say, that Christ hath merited for us those graces and works by which we are to merit heaven: I demand, whether Christ himself did merit heaven for us or not? If so, then need not our merits. If not, then do they not only part stakes with Christ, but assume the greater merit, which is of glory, to themselves and leave the less, which is of grace, to Christ; and that not entire neither. For the obtaininig of righteousness, as they do not wholly ascribe to their own free will, so neither to God's grace; but partly to God offering grace, and partly to their own free will, which willingly accepteth of grace, when it might refuse it. And this willingness (whatsoever they pretend to the contrary) is in mine opinion the very root from whence their conceipted merit doth spring.

§. IV. His second evasion, That merit of men are required, not beca •… se