Defense of Perkins Book Called a Reformed Catholic, Point 5 · Section 3
Our reasons.
The first shall be taken from the properties and conditions that must be in a worke meritorious, and they are foure. I. A man must doe it of himselfe, and by himselfe: for if it bee done by an other, the merit doth not properly belong to the doer. II. A man must doe it of his owne free-will and pleasure, not of due debt: for when wee doe that which wee are bound to doe, wee doe no more but our dutie. III. The worke must be done to the profit of an other, who thereupon must bee bound to repay the like. IV. The reward and the worke must be in proportion equall, for if the reward bee more then the worke, it is not a reward of desert, but a gift of good will. Hence followes a notable conclusion: That Christs manhood considered apart from his Godhead, cannot merit at Gods hand: though it be more excellent eueryevery way then all men and Angels. For being thus considered, it doth nothing of it selfe, but by grace receiued from the godhead: though it also bee without measure. Secondly Christs manhood is a creature, and in that regarde bounde to doe whatsoeuer it doth. Thirdly, Christ as man cannot giuegive any thing to God, but that which hee receiued from God: therefore cannot the manhood properly by it selfe merit, but onelyonly as it is personally vnited vntounto the godhead of the Sonne. And if this be so, then much lesse can any meere man, or any angell merit: yea it is a madnes to thinke, that either our actions or persons should be capable of any merit whereby wee might attaine to life eternall.
speaker D. B. P. But M. Perkins, vvill neuerthelesse proue, and that by sundry reasons, that their doctrine is the truth it selfe, and ours falshood.
First, by a sorry short syllogisme containing more then one vvhole It is said aftervvard to be nakedly proposed.page. It is taken out of the properties of a meritorious vvorke: Which must be (saith he) foure. First, That the worke be done of our selues, without the helpe of another. Secondly, That it be not othervvise due debte. Thirdly, That it be done to the benefit of another. Fourthly, That the worke and revvard be equall in proportion. These proprieties he sets dovvne pithagorically vvithout any proofe. But inferreth thereon, as though he had proued them inuincibly, that Christs man-hood seperated from the God-head cannot merit: because vvhatsoeuer he doth, he doth it by grace receiued, and should be othervvise due. He might in like manner as truly say, that Christs manhood vnited to the Godhead could not merit neither: for he receiued his Godhead from his Father, and vvhatsoeuer he doth is therefore his Fathers by due debte. And so the good man, if he vvere let alone, vvould disappoint vsus vvholy of all merits, as vvell the imputed of Christs, as of all ours done by vertue of his grace.
speaker A. W. The syllogisme that troubles you so with the length of it, is this:
EueryEvery worke that merits euerlasting life, must be done of and by the worker himselfe, not of debt, to the profit of God, with proportion to the reward.
No worke of man can be so done.
Therefore no worke of man can merit euerlasting life.
Is not this a perilous long syllogisme (trow you) to take vp more than a whole page? If this great scholler, that so often blames Master Perkins ignorance, would (for I wil not doubt but he could) hauehave distinguished the syllogisme from the explication of the proposition, he would not hauehave been so much offended with it. Sure there was small cause hee should be, if he say truly afterward, that Master Perkins reason was nakedly proposed; or trie whether himselfe can make it any shorter; or compare it with his owne tedious answer, containing three whole pages in quarto in a smaller letter. But what if there be another syllogisme also implied in this reason? as there is this.
If the manhood of Christ, properly by it selfe, could not merit, then can no man merit:
But the manhood of Christ, properly by it selfe, could not merit.
Therefore no man can.
The consequence of the proposition is prooued: because the manhood of Christ is more excellent eueryevery way, than all both men and Angels.
The assumption is made manifest; because eueryevery worke of Christs manhood, considered apart from the Godhead, would be defectiue in three points concerning merit.
To the two former you answer, that whereas Master Perkins saith, Christs manhood could not merit, because he did nothing of himselfe, but by grace receiued, and that that he did was due; that he might as truly say, that his manhood could not merit vnited to the Godhead. Your reason is; for that he receiued his Godhead from his Father, and whatsoeuer he doth, is therefore his Fathers by due debt. But your reason is false: for bSee 12. Art. par. 1. art. 4. …Christ had his Sonship (as I may speake) of his Father (for the propertie of the Godhead is to be of it selfe) yet there is not any thing due from the Sonne to the Father, more than from the Father to the Sonne, if they be of equall nature and dignitie. So that this latter point disproues the former, because it inferres a superioritie of the Father ouer the Sonne, and so an inequalitie: which at no hand may be granted.
speaker D. B. P. Wherefore vve must a little …ist his foure forged proprieties of merit: and touching the first. I say that one may by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift, merit and deserue much euen at his hands that gaue it. For example the Father bestovves a farme vponupon his Son freely: Who may by often presenting his Father of the pleasing fruits growing on the same, deserue his further fauour: Yea, he may by the commodities, reaped out of that farme, buy any thing that it shall please his father to set to sale, as vvell as if he had neuer receiued the farme from his fathers gift. Which is so common a case, and so sensible, that eueryevery man of meane vvitte, may casily reach vntounto it: euen so by good manuring the gifts vvhichwhich God freely bestovveth vponupon vsus, vve may both merit the increase of them, and according to his ovvne order and promise, purchase thereby the Kingdome of heauen, vvhichwhich is plainly proued in that parable, Of the talents giuen by a King to his seruants; the vvhichwhich they imploying Matth. 25.vvell, and multiplying, vvere therefore esteemed vvorthie of far greater, and vvithall to be made partakers of their Lords ioyes.
M. Perkins then vvas not a little ouerseene, to put for the first proprietie of merit, that it must be done by a man, and of a man himselfe.
speaker A. W. The first of the foure properties is, that a man must doe it of himselfe, and by himselfe. You answere, that one may merit by the good vse of a thing receiued by free gift. But not if the vse of it also be of him, of whom he should merit. The Sonne that receiues the farme, receiues not withall continually from his Father the power to vse the farme in that sort, and much lesse the will and the vse it selfe. But a man that hath receiued grace from God, hath continually from him cPhil. 2. 13.both to will and to doe, and therefore cannot properly merit of him.
The parable hath not one word of any merit; onelyonly it is said, that the King commended his seruants for imploying their talents well, and gaue them authoritie ouer much, because they had been faithfull in a little; and further, receiued them into his ioy. But that he dealt thus with them vponupon due debt, or that they did truly merit, is your glosse, besides the text.
speaker D. B. P. The second, That a man must doe it of his ovvne free will and pleasure, and not of due debt: carrieth in shevv an opposition. But indeed there is no contradiction in it: for a man may, and eueryevery honest man doth, of his ovvne free vvill and pleasure, pay his due debt: but let vsus pardon the Show it first to be a fault.disorder of vvords: his meaning being nothing else, but that the payment of that vvhichwhich is othervvise due debt, cannot be any meritorious vvorke.
speaker A. W. Is there not a contradiction in the meaning? your selfe confesse it by and by, where you expound it. Disorder in words is, when they are not set in such order as they should be: here is no such fault. If there bee any, it is that he might hauehave spoken plainer. But any man know his meaning by his words well enough.
speaker D. B. P. To vvhichwhich S. Augustine doth ansvvere in these vvords. O great goodnes of God, to vvhom vvhen vve did ovve seruice by condition of our estate, as Serm. 3. de verb. Apost.bond men do to their Lord, yet hath he promised againe and againe, the reward of friends.
speaker A. W. S. Austin answers nothing against vsus, or for you. It is free for God to promise a reward, as wee gladly acknowledge he doth, euen to those workes that are due. But an action of dutie cannot be made to put on the true and whole nature of merit, which is the question.
speaker D. B. P. In vvhichwhich there is couched a comparison, vvhichwhich being laide in the light, vvill much helpe to the vnderstanding of this matter. He that hath a slaue, or a bond-man, may lavvfully exact of him all kind of seruice, vvithout any vvages: Bread and a vvhippe (saith a Philosopher) serue for a slaue: Novv suppose the Master to be soueraigne gouernour of a state: then if it please him to make his manfree, and vvithall a member of his common vveale, the same man by performing many good offices to the state, may iustly deserue of his Prince as great revvard and promotion, as any other of his subiects: and yet may his Lord and old Master say truly to him, all this that thou hast done, or couldest do, is but due debt vsus to me, considering that thou vvast my bond-man. So fareth it vvith vsus in respect of God: all that vve can do, is due debt vntounto him, because he hath made vsus, and endovved vsus, vvith all that vve either be, or hauehave: yet it hath pleased him, as a most kind Lord, to set vsus at liberty through Christ, and to make vsus Citizens of the Saints, and as capable of his heauenlie riches, as the Angels, if vve vvill do our endeuour to deserue them: and vvhereas he might hauehave exacted all that euer vve could do, vvithout any kind of recompence: yet he of his inestimable goodnes tovvard vsus, doth neither bind vsus to do all vve can do, and yet for doing that little vvhichwhich he commandeth, hath by promise bound himselfe to repay vsus a large recompence.
The cōparison you shew vsus is fained by you, not intended by Austin: and, if it be granted you, makes nothing to the purpose. No more indeede doth the conclusion of your whole discourse; for it saith no more than wee yeeld, that God wil recompence those seruices, which are debt, on our part, and that exceeding bountifully; but not vponupon their desert.
speaker D. B. P. By which we may well vnderstand those words of our Sauiour: VVhen Luke 17.you hauehave done all these things that are commanded you, say that you are vnprofitable seruants: vve hauehave done that vve ought to doo. True. By our natiue condition we were bound to performe, not only all these things, that be now commaunded, but whatsoeuer else it should hauehave pleased God to command: and this we must alwaies confesse, to preserue true humility in vsus: yet God hath bettered our estate through Christ, and so …ighly aduaunced vsus, that we not only be Citizens or Saints, but his sonnes and heires, and thereby in case to deserue of him a heauenlie crowne.
speaker A. W. It hath no shew of reason in it, that our Sauiour should teach his Apostles, whom hee had truly freed, that they should say, they are vnprofitable seruants, because they doe that which they were once bound to doe, but now are not: as if a man that was once bound to pay double custome, because he was a stranger, should count himselfe vnprofitable to the King, though being absolutely freed, he pay the same custome still, because once forsooth he was by dutie to pay so much. I would faine know what dutie we were bound to doe in our naturall estate, from which wee are freed in our spirituall: for (to my seeming) our bond is doubled; both in equitie, because we hauehave receiued so vndeserued kindnes, and in Gods intent, who hath giuen vsus his grace that wee might doe him better seruice.
speaker A. W. And this is S. Ambrose exposition vponupon the place.D. B. P.
That Ambrose giueth no such exposition, his own words shall testifie: Therefore (saith dAmbros. ad Luc. 17.Ambrose) as thou doest not onelyonly not say to thy seruant, sit downe, but requirest further seruice of him: so neither doth God content himselfe with one work or labour of thine; because while we liue we must alwaies work. Therefore acknowledge thy selfe to be a seruant, ePlurimis obsequijs defoenerarum.bound to very many seruices; fNon te praeferas.doe not extoll thy selfe, because thou art called the sonne of God; his fauour is to be acknowledged, but thy nature not to be vnknowne; neither bragge if thou hast serued well, which thou wert bound to doe. These are his words; out of which no man can wring any such interpretation. We owe seruice though we be sonnes: for it is plaine Ambrose speaks of our seruice after we are regenerate. First, because he saith, we must worke alwaies. Secondly, because he mentions, hauing serued well, which befalles no man in his naturall estate before grace.
speaker D. B. P. Saint Chrysostome pondering these words let vsus say, taketh it for a holsome counsaile for vsus to say, that we be vnprofitable seruants, least pride It is as true as holsome. Matth. 25. 21.destroy our good workes: and then God will say, that we be good and faithfull seruants, as it is recorded.
Againe, we may truly say, when we hauehave done all things commaunded, that we are vnprofitable seruants, as venerable Bede our most learned countriman interpreteth: Because of all that vve doe, no cammoditie riseth vntounto God our Lord in himselfe: vvho is such an infinite ocean of all In Luc. 17. Psalm. 15.goodnesses, that he vvanteth nothing: Whereupon Dauid saith, That thou art my God, because thou standest in need of no good that I can doe.
speaker A. W. You should hauehave quoted the place: gChrysost. ad Luc. 17.Chrysostome in his homily vponupon that chapter saith no such thing. But wheresoeuer he saith it (if he say it at all) it cannot prooue that we are not bound to doe good seruice in the state of grace; nor that wee can merit at Gods hands; nor that you interpret S. Luke aright: wherefore then is it alleaged? hTheophyl. ad Luc. 17.Theophylact, who followes Chrysostome eueryevery where, expounds it of our seruice after grace; and concludes vponupon it, that we may not for the doing of any worke, necessarily require reward or honour. For it shall be of the Lords bountie if he bestow any thing vponupon vsus for it: and woe be to vsus if we doe not our dutie. And iCyril apud Thomam in caten. ad Luc. 17.Cyrill is wholy of the same opinion, who also denies that which before you affirmed; that subiects can deserue any thing of their Soueraigne: Consider (saith he) that they which rule amongst vsus, doe not thanke any of their subiects, if they doe any of those things that are enioyned them; but oftentimes by their bountie stirring their subiects affections, they breed in them a greater desire to serue; so God requires seruice of vsus by right: Now, because he is mercifull and good, he promiseth honours to them that labour; and the greatnes of his bountie ouerpasseth the paines of his subiects. Your kGlossa Interlin. ad Luc. 17.glosse saith, that we are seruants, because we are bought with a price; vnprofitable, because God hath no neede of our good workes, or because our present sufferings are not worthie of the glorie that shall be reueiled in vsus. Which reasons of our vnprofitablenes, lBeda apud Thomam.Thomas also brings out of Bede: so doe your mGlossa ordin▪ & Lyra.ordinarie glosse, and Lyra expound it, making vsus seruants euen after regeneration; as nAugust. in Psalm. 124.Austin truly saith, that Christ did not make vsus free men of seruants, but of euill seruants good seruants.
speaker D. B. P. And thus we fall vponupon the third property of M. Perkins meritorious worke. Which is, That it be done to the profit of another: and say that albeit God in himselfe receiue no profit, by our workes: yet doth he in the administration of his holy common weale the Church, wherein good And bad mens too. 2. Tim. 2. Matth. 5. Ioh. 15. v. 8.mens seruices do much pleasure him. And in this sense is it said of Saint Paul, That by cleansing our selues from vvicked vvorkes, vve shall become vessels sanctified, and profitable vntounto our Lord. Againe, God is glorified by our good vvorkes, That seeing your good vvorkes, they may glorifie your Father vvhichwhich is in heauen. Finally, God doth reioyce at the recouery of his lost children.
speaker A. W. Not onelyonly good, but also oEzra 6. 3. & 7. 11. Dan. 3. 29. 30▪ & 6. 26.bad mens seruices may be said to profit God, if eueryevery thing that benefits his Church must be held to be of profit to him. But we neither can profit nor pleasure him, nor glorifie him truly and properly, but onelyonly in his acceptation. And so whatsoeuer reward shall be giuen for these seruices, it proceedes from Gods gratious bountie, not from our desert.
speaker D. B. P. If then good men trauailing painfully in Gods Vine-yard, do yeeld Luk. 15.him outwardly both honor, ioy, and commoditie: that may suffice to make their worke meritorious.
speaker A. W. To the conclusion you inferre hereupon; which is the proposition of a syllogisme, to proue the maine point that our works are meritorious: I answere, by denying the consequence thereof, and say, that it doth not follow, that our workes merit euerlasting life, because our trauaile doth yeeld him outwardly honour, ioy, and glorie. The reason of my deniall is this; that a slaue may by his paines and seruice procure all these things to his master, and that out of his louelove to him, and yet deserue nothing at his hands. The assumption that should be added, I denied, and refuted in the former part of my answere.
speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins fourth property is, That the vvorke and revvard, be equall in proportion.
speaker A. W. If you pleaded for nothing but reward, the sute were ended. For we (as I hauehave said before) grant, yt God will reward the least good worke of any of his children. But the question is, whether he doe this of his bountie onelyonly, or of necessitie, being bound to it by the law of iustice. This we denie, you affirme; viz. that the good workes of a man iustified, doe pVere prome…eri.truly or of right deserue increase of grace, euerlasting life, and qConsecutionem.the fruition of it (if he depart in grace) and also increase of glorie: and further, rConcil. Trident. sess. 6 can. 32.you accurse all them to hell that say otherwise.
speaker D. B. P. If he vnderstand Arithmeticall proportion, that is, that they be equal in quantitie, to wit, the one to be as great, or of as long continuance as the other: then we deny this kind of equality to be requisite to merit: there is another sort of proportion, called by the Philosopher 5. Ethic. Geometricall: and the equality of that is taken by a reasonable correspondence of the one vntounto the other: as when a good office is giuen to a Citizen of desert, it may be, that the honour and commoditie of the office is farre greater, then was the merit of the man: yet he being as well able to discharge it as another, and hauing better deserued it, is holden in true iustice worthie of it.
speaker A. W. It is no true merit (such as you auow it to be, in sVera & integra ration… meriti.the true and whole nature of merit) vnlesse it be fully answerable in value to the reward. Therefore to speake properly, and truly, the citizen you name doth not simply deserue the office, but (as your selfe confesse) in comparison of other his fellow subiects. So that though there were more in him than in other, why the Prince should bestow that place vponupon him; yet it is rather a gift than a debt, else should the King offend against iustice, if he did not giuegive it him.
speaker D. B. P. In like manner in a game where masteries are tried, the prize is giuen vntounto him that doth best not because the value of the reward, is iust as much worth, as that act of the man who winneth it: but for that such actiuity is esteemed worthy of such a recompence. Now the crowne of heauenly …lorie, is likened by S. Paul, vntounto a Garland in a game: where he …a…th, That vve all runne, but one carrieth avvay the prize. And He that 1. Cor. 9. 2. Tim. 2.striueth for the masterie, is not crovvned, vnlesse he striue lavvfully. It is also resembled vntounto places of honour. I vvill place thee ouer much. And Matth 25. Ioh. 14. Matth. 13. 1. Ioh. 3.I goe to prouide you places.
speaker A. W. Grace is also in many places of Scripture, compared to seede: For the seede of God tarrieth in him. But a little …eede cast into good ground, and well manured, bringeth forth abundance of corne. Briefely, then such equality as there is betweene the well deseruing subiect, and the office, betweene him that striueth lawfully, and the crowne, betweene the seed, and the corne, is between the reward of heauen, and the me…t of a true seruant of God.If it be nakedly proposed, there vvas small cause to blame the length of i….
And thus much of M. Perkins first Argument, more indeed to expl… cate the nature and condition of merit, then that his reason nakedly proposed, did require it.
What shall I need to answer to your similitude of games, since your selfe denie, that it is truly and properly desert? But to make the matter more plaine, let vsus a little consider it in this sort; where there is an agreement (as in these games) though there be not properly any merit: yet there may be somewhat that shal come neere to the nature of merit. That there is no merit you yeeld, in granting, that the reward is more in value than the act of him that winneth. Notwithstanding, if the prize (be it what it will) be propounded to them, that shall not onelyonly passe other men in the race, but also runne home to the goale, in such a space of time, with such, or such a carriage of the bodie, without any kinde of stay or treading a haires breadth out of a path appointed, with other like circumstances: I grant that hee which obserues all these conditions exactly, may bee said, in some good sense, to hauehave deserued the hire that he laboured for, though it were farre greater than such a race could truly and properly merit. But if this man should faile, in many, or any of these circumstances, though he came neerer the performance of the whole than any other man did, might he in iustice claime the prize, as due to him vponupon desert? This is our case in the point of merit. There is no man but he failes very much, and often, in his best workes, some lesse, some more; but eueryevery one more or lesse. So that no man had any cause to accuse God of iniustice, though he should denie all men the reward, due to the keepers of his Commandements.
speaker W. P. Reason II. Exod. 20. 8. And shew merciemercy vponupon thousands in them that louelove me, and keepe my commaundements. Hence I reason thus: where reward is giuen vponupon merciemercy, there is no merit; but reward is giuen of merciemercy to them that fulfill the law: therefore no merit. What can we any way deserue, when our full recompence must be of merciemercy?
speaker D. B. P. In that text is nothing, touching the reward of heauen, which is now in question: God doth for his louing seruants sake, shew mercy vntounto their children or friends, either in temporall things, or in calling them to repentance, and such like: but doth neuer for one mans sake, bestow the kingdome vponupon another, vnlesse the partie himselfe be first made worthy of it.
speaker A. W. What though he doe not? and yet it must needes be implied in the text, if your interpretation be true. For to whomsoeuer God giues true repentance, which is neuer without faith, to him he will certainly giuegive the kingdome of heauen. But the reason is strong, by a comparison from the lesse to the greater. For if these outward fauours, which God bestowes vponupon them that keepe his Commandements, be of merciemercy, how should heauen be of debt?
speaker W. P. And this appeares further by Adam: if hee had stood to this day, he could not by his continuall and perfect obedience, hauehave procured a further increase of fauour at Gods hand, but should only hauehave continued that happy estate in which he was first created.
speaker A. W. That confirmation of his, that Adam by his continuall and perfect obedience, could not hauehave procured a further increase of Gods fauour, is both besides the purpose, and most false: for as well he, as eueryevery good man sithence, by good vse of Gods giftes, might day by day, encrease them: And that no man thinke that in Paradise it should hauehave been otherwise. S. Augustine saith expresly, That in the felicity of Paradise, righteousnes preserued, should hauehave ascended into better. And Adam finally, and In Inchir. Cap. 25.all his posterity (if he had not fallen) should hauehave been from Paradise translated aliue into the kingdome of heauen: this by the way.
speaker A. W. It is not beside the purpose; because it prooues the question thus: If Adams continuall and perfect obedience could not deserue increase of fauour; then our interrupted and imperfect obedience cannot. But his could not, therefore ours cannot.
Your answere is little to the purpose. For Master Perkins speakes not of Adams increasing his owne righteousnes, but of procuring, or rather deseruing a more happie estate: whereof the testimonie alleaged out of Austin saith nothing. And surely, vnlesse men will needes be wiser in this point than the Scripture can make them, it is not possible for them to know any such thing touching Adam. For the tGe…. 2. 17Scripture only sets down a penalty that should ensue vponupon the breach of the commandement that was giuen him, and neither makes mention, nor giues signification of any reward at all; much lesse vponupon desert.
speaker W. P. Reason III. Scripture directly condemneth merit of workes. Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sinne is death: but the gift of God is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. The proportion of the argument required that S. Paul should hauehave said: The reward of good works is eternall life, if life euerlasting could bee deserued, which cannot: because it is a free gift.
speaker D. B. P. True. But wee speake of good workes, and not of bad, which the Astle calleth sinne: where were the mans wits? but it followeth there, That eternall life, is the grace or gift of God.
speaker A. W. Nay, where was your conscience when you cauild so against your knowledge? Master Perkins reciteth the former part of that text, to shew what the proportion of the argument required: namely, that the wages of good workes is euerlasting life, as the wages of sinne is death. And thus, without question, would the Apostle hauehave spoken, to make his exhortation to holines of life more effectuall, if euerlasting life could be deserued.
speaker D. B. P. This is to purpose: but answered 1200. yeares past, by that famous Father S. Augustine, in diuers places of his most learned workes. I will note one or two of them.
First, thus here ariseth no small doubt, which by Gods helpe I will De gra. & lib. arb. c. 8.now discusse. For if eternall life be rendred vntounto good workes, as the holy Scripture doth most clearely teach (note) how then can it be called grace: when grace is giuen freely, and not repaid for workes: and so pursuing the points of the difficulty at large, in the end resolueth: that eternall life is most truly rendred vntounto good workes, as the due reward of them: but because those good workes could not hauehave been done, vnlesse God had before freely through Christ, bestowed his grace vponupon vsus, therefore the same eternall life, is also truly called grace: because the first roote of it, was Gods free gift.
The very same answere doth he giuegive, where he hath these words. Eternall Epist. 106.life is called grace, not because it is not rendred vntounto merits: but for that those merits to which it is rendred, vvere giuen.
speaker A. W. S. Austin, uAug. de gra. & lib. arb. ca. 8.in the places alleaged by you, neither expounds that text, nor speakes of any proportion, betwixt the desert of death by sinne, and life by good workes. But, because I am not ignorant, xAug. de gra. & lib. arb. ca. 9. De correp. & grat. cap. 13.that it is his opinion, that euerlasting life is due to good workes, if you will giuegive me leaue, I will salue the matter by fetching this due from the promise of God, not from the dignitie of the worke, which I thinke to hauehave been his meaning; because he speakes so often, and so much, of the imperfection of our workes. If, to countenance your owne error, you will needes hauehave Austin thought to hauehave erred (which is not impossible) at the least shew some good reason why yRom. 6. 23.the holie Apostle should forbeare to say, Euerlasting life is the wages of good works, when it would so fitly hauehave serued his turne for exhortation, and when the nature of the sentence required it. zChrysost & Theoph ad Rom. 6. 23.Chrysostome and Theophylact denie all recompence and reward of labours past, and referre all to grace. He doth not say, that the wages of righteousnes is euerlasting life (saith aCa…tan. ad Rom. 6.Caietan) but the gift of God is euerlasting life; that we may vnderstand, that we attaine to euerlasting life for our end: not by our merits, but of his free gift: wherefore also he addes, In Christ Iesus our Lord; Behold the merit, behold the righteousnes; the reward whereof is euerlasting life, but to vsus it is a gift, by bRatione ipsius Christi.reason or in regard of Christ Iesus himselfe.
speaker D. B. P. In which place he crosseth M. Perkins proportion most directly, affirming, that S. Paul might hauehave said truly, eternall life is the pay or wages of good workes: but to hold vsus in humilitie pa…tly, and partly to put a difference betweene our saluation, and damnation, chose rather to say, that the gift of God, was life eternall: because of our damnation, we are the whole and only cause, but not of our saluation, but principally the grace of God, the only fountaine of merit, and all good workes.
speaker A. W. The reasons you giuegive, why the Apostle would not speak, as was fittest for his purpose, are too weake. First you say, he would keepe vsus in humilitie; but his principall end was more to be respected, which was the stirring of vsus vp to holinesse of conuersation. Beside (if it be as you teach) Christians are acquainted with this doctrine of meriting euerlasting life; and therefore the concealing of it here was to small purpose. I would your Councill of Trent had thought vponupon this reason; and then (perhaps) they would not hauehave valued the good workes of men at so high a rate.
The difference, you speake of, was put before in handling the doctrine of iustification. Neither could any Christian be so foolishly proud, as to think he could of himself do good works; how then could he looke for euerlasting life simply by his owne strength?
speaker W. P. Again, Tit. 3. 5. We are saued not by works of righteousnesse which we hauehave done, but according to his merciemercy he saued vsus. And Ephes. 2. 8. 10. By grace you are saued through faith, and that not of your selues, it is the gift of God: not of workes which God hath prepared that we should walke in them. If any works be crowned, it is certaine that the sufferings of Martyrs shal be rewarded: now of them Paul saith, Rom. 8. 18. The sufferings of this life are not worthie of the glorie to come. Where then is the value and dignitie of other workes? To this purpose Ambrose saith, The iust man though he be tormented in the brasen bull is still iust, because hee iustifieth God, and saith he suffereth lesse then his sinnes deserue.
speaker D. B. P. Now to those texts cited before about iustification, VVe are saued Ad Ephes. 2. Ad Tit. 3. But you neuer proued …, and hauehave been a… s…ered. Rom. 8.freely, not of our selues, or by the workes of righteousnes, vvhichwhich vve hauehave done. I hauehave often answered that the Apostle speakes of workes done by our owne forces, without the helpe of Gods grace: and therefore they cannot serue against workes done, in, and by grace.
Now to that text which he hudleth vp togither with the rest, although is deserued a better place, being one of their principall pillers in this controucrise: It is The suffering of this life, are not vvorthy of the glorie to come. The strength of this obiection, lyeth in a false translation of these words, Axia pros ten doxan, equall to that glorie, or in the misconstruction of them: For we grant (as it hath bin already declared) that our afflictions and sufferings be not of equall in length, or greatnesse, with the glorie of heauen: for our afflictions be but for the short space of this life, and they cannot be so great, as will be the pleasure in heauen, notwithstanding, we teach, that this shorter, and lesser labour imployed by a righteous man, in the seruice of God, doth merit the other greater, and of longer continuance: and that by the said Apostles plaine words, for (saith he.) That tribulation vvhichwhich in this present life, is but for a moment 2. Cor. 4.and light, doth vvorke aboue measure exceedingly an euerlasting vvaight of glorie in vsus. The reason is, that iust mens workes islue out of the fountaine of grace, which giueth a heauenly value vntounto his workes. Againe, it maketh him a quicke member of Christ, and so receiuing influence from his head, his vvorkes are raised to an higher estimate: it consecrateth him also a temple of the holy Ghost, and so maketh him partaker of the heauenly nature as S. Peter speaketh. Which addes a worth of heauen to his workes.2. Pet 1. Diuine nature.
speaker A. W. For the translation, we hauehave the warrant of the Syriak interpretation, which is all one with ours; as cArias Moncanus.your own men expound it, and dTheophyl. ad Rom. 8.Theophylact in his Commentarie saith not onelyonly that they are not eDignae, pares.equall, but also that they are not worthie. Indeed the Apostles purpose is to compare the sufferings of this life with the glorie of the life to come, and to shew how wonderfully that exceeds these. But yet we may also from thence conclude, that because of this inequalitie, there can be no proper and true merit by these. f 1. Cor. 4.As for that you alleage, of their working an euerlasting waight of glorie in vsus, it is to be vnderstood, that this is by Gods bountie, not the worthinesse of the person, or matter. Which must needes be apparant to eueryevery man, that considers what infirmities accompanie the sufferings of the best of Gods children. By being a member of Christ, he doth not receiue abilitie to merit, but priuiledge, to be partaker of his head our Sauiour Christs glorie; neither by being the temple of God are we made able to deserue; nor by g2. Pet. 1.being partaker of the diuine nature; which is nothing else, but to hauehave the spirit of God dwelling in vsus, by the graces of righteousnesse and holinesse; which is the image of God, according to which wee were at the first created. For these graces, being not perfect in vsus, bring foorth vnperfect fruites, which can neuer merit truly and properly.
speaker A. W. Neither is that glory in heauen, vvhichwhich any pure creature attaineth D. B. P. VVhere saith be so? According to our vvorks, but not for the value of them.vntounto of infinite dignity, as Master Perkins fableth; but hath his certaine bounds and measure, according vntounto each mans merittes, othervvise it vvould make a man equall to God in glorie: for there can be no greater then infinite; as all learned men do confesle.
You should hauehave shewed, where Master Perkins saith, that the glorie of any creature can be infinite; as well as you reprooue him for saying so, and that with such skorne as you doe. Master Perkins knew, as well as you can teach him, that no finite nature is capable of any infinitnes; but yet he truly denies full proportion, betwixt our present sufferings and our glorie to come: which your selfe confesse to bee true.
speaker W. P. Reason IV. Whosoeuer will merit, must fulfill the wholelaw: but none can keepe the whole lawe: For if we say we hauehave no sin wee deceiue our selues, 1. Ioh. 1. 7. And he that sinnes against one commandement is guiltie of the whole law. And what can he merit, that is guiltie of the breach of the whole law?
speaker D. B. P. I deny the first proposition: for one good worke done with his due VVhy doe you not shevv what those properties be. Popish learned you meane. Luc. 15.circumstances doth bring forth merit, as by all the properties of merit may be proued at large: and by his owne definition of merit set downe in the beginning. Now if a man afterward fall into deadly sinne, he leeseth his former merit: but recouering grace, he riseth to his former merit, as the learned gather out of that saying of our Sauiour, in the person of the good Father. Doe on him (that is on his prodigall sonne returning home) his former garment. His second proposition is also false as *J… had been if your strongth had been as good as your stomacke. Epist. 29. ad Hieron.hath bin proued at large in a seuerall question. To that of S. Iames, although it belong not to this matter, I answere that he who offendeth in one, is made guilty of all: that is, he shall be as surely condomned, as if he had broken all; See S. Augustine.
speaker A. W. You denie the proposition; but if you did remember that the question is of meriting euerlasting life, which requires the keeping of the whole law, you would neuer stick at it, for hIam. 2. 10.no man can be guiltie of the whole law, as eueryevery one is that failes in any one commandement, and yet deserue euerlasting life. The reason of your deniall is not sufficient, for no one worke done with neuer so due circumstances, can bring forth any merit of euerlasting life, whereof Master Perkins speakes in his definition. Indeede this reason is nothing, but a bare deniall of Master Perkins proofe. That you add of a mans losing, and recouering his merit, is liker a dreame, then a point of diuinitie, as it may well appeare by the poore proofe you bring of it, viz. a speech out of an allegory, and that also falsly translated, his former garment, for that best iforeign.or principall garment. Your vulgar kEditio Latina vulgar.latine calls it the first garment: lPagnin. Vestem primam, praecipuam.Pagnin that principall, your mGlossa Interlin.interlinear glosse expounds it to signifie the garment of the holie ghost: and the nGlossa ordin.ordinarie glosse giues a reason why it is called the first, because it is the garment of innocency, in which the first man was created, which interpretation is taken out of oDe qq. Euangel.Austin. But to the matter, What reason is there that merit should not be recompenced according to iustice? If a man hauehave once deserued euerlasting life, why should he not hauehave it? Or if that merit be once lost, how can it be restored againe, but only by Gods acceptation? and then how can it be truly and properly merit?
You must not only say, but shew too, that the place of S. Iames belongs not to this matter, els it is an easie matter to answere any authority of scripture. Let vsus grant your owne interpretation, that he which breakes one commandement, shall be certainely condemned, how then can he deserue euerlasting life without keeping all the commandements? And what a strange and vnsauorie doctrine is it, that he which hath merited euerlasting life may be damned? But the meaning of the Apostle is that the seuerall commandements are as it were seuerall conditions of a couenant betwixt God and man, whereof if any one be broken, the whole bond is forfeited, how exactly soeuer all the rest hauehave bin performed, what merit then can there be of life, where the partie is liable to damnation?
speaker W. P. Reason V. We are taught to pray on this manner, GiueGive vsus this day our daily bread. Wherein we acknowledge eueryevery morsell of bread to be the meere gift of God without desert: and therefore must we much more acknowledge life eternall to be eueryevery way the gift of God. It must needs therefore be a satanicall insolencie for any man to imagine, that hee can by his workes merit eternall life, who cannot merit bread.
speaker D. B. P. M. Perkins taketh great delight to argue out of the Lords prayer: Master Perkins knevv hovv to make better vse of it, then to patter it ouer as you doe. He vnderstood it better then you doe his argument. VVhat needeth that, if vve deserue it?but he handleth the matter so handsomely, that a man may thinke him to be so profoundly learned, that he doth not yet vnderstand the Pater noster: for who taketh our dayly food to be so meerely the gift of God, that we must not either make it ours with our peny, or trauaile? we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle, by the meere gift of God: but according vntounto S. Paules rule, either labour for our liuing in some approued sort, or not cate. Yet because our trauailes are in vaine, vnlesse God blesse them, we pray to God daily to giuegive vsus our nuriture, either by sending or preseruing the fruits of the earth, or by prospering our labours with good successe: or if they be men who liue of almes, by stir ring vp the charitable to relieue them So we pray, and much more earnestly that God will giuegive vsus eternall life: Yet by such meanes as it hath pleased God to ordaine; one of which and the principall is by the exercise of good workes, which God hath appointed vsus to walke in, to deserue it. And it cannot but sauour of a Satanicall spirit, to call it a Satanicall insolencie (as M. Perkins doth) to thinke that eternall life can be If vve vvill beleeue your vvord.merited: when Saint Augustine and the best spirit of men, since Christs time so thought and taught in most expresse tearmes.
speaker A. W. You take greater paines to disgrace Master Perkins Arguments, then to disproue or vnderstand them: his reason lyes thus:
He that cannot merit bread, cannot merit euerlasting life.
But no man can merit bread.
Therefore no man can merit euerlasting life.
The proposition stands vponupon the comparison of inequality, from the lesse to the greater, for it is a lesse matter to deserue bread, then to merit euerlasting life. The assumption is proued by that clause of the Lords prayer, wherein we beg our dayly bread, which we might claime of due debt, if we could deserue it.
In stead of answering some part of the syllogisme, you tell vsus, that we must not looke to be fed from heauen by miracle without our owne trauell or cost, which is as much to purpose as if you should say, we must eate our bread when we hauehave it, if we will be fed.
It is but a mockery to pray to God for it if we know we hauehave deserued it, vnlesse perhaps we thinke him so vniust, that it is well if we can get our owne of him by any meanes whatsoeuer. We deny not that we are to vse the meanes both for the one and the other, but that we can deserue either by vsing the meanes.
speaker W. P. Reason VI. Consent of the auncient Church. *De interpellatione Dauid. 4. vel ps 72. Yet is he one of your Saints.Bernard, Those which we call our merits, are the way to the kingdome, and not the cause of raigning.
speaker D. B. P. But let vsus heare his last argument, which is (as he speaketh) the consent of the auncient Church: and then beginneth with S. Bernard, who liued 1000. yeares after Christ: He (in I know not what place, the quotation is so doubtfull) saith. Those things vvhichwhich vve call merits, are the vvay to the Kingdome, but not the cause of raigning.
speaker A. W. You that twight vsus so much with ignorance, and brag so much of your owne knowledge especially in the old writers, should hauehave all these places at your fingers ends, but this answere if it were true must needs be more by gesse then by cunning. Bernard sayes merits are the way, not the cause, if he had meant as you would hauehave him he should and would hauehave said, that they were not the whole cause, but the party or ioint cause, but he denyes them altogether the nature of causes by giuing them another place to be the way to heauen.
speaker A. W. I answere, that merits be not the whole cause, but the promise of God D. B. P. Serm. 68. in Cantic.through Christ, and the grace of God freely bestowed on vsus, out of which our merits proceed. Which is Bernards owne doctrine.
What is pBernard ser. 68. in Cantic.Bernards owne doctrine? your whole answer, or only the later part of it? let the reader iudge. These are Bernards words, As it is inough to merit, not to presume of merit, so to want merits is inough to condemnation. If he speake of merits properly taken what presumption is it for a man to demand his right? But because our good works, which he (as other auncient writers) calls merits, are imperfit, therefore our greatest merit is, to know we merit not: for the later part of his sentence, we graunt, that it is inough to damnation, for a man to be without good works. It followes in Bernard: No infants regenerate want merits, but hauehave Christs, whereof notwithstanding they make themselues vnworthie, if they had opportunitie to add their owne, and neglected it, which is the danger of riper yeares. Infants (sayes Bernard) hauehave Christs merits, but, if they come to yeares, they must also hauehave some of their owne. What? merits to deserue heauen? then were Christs insufficient; but they must hauehave good works, without which they make themselues vnworthie of any benefit by Christ. Is not this whollie our doctrine? let vsus heare his conclusion. HaueHave a care (sayes Bernard) to hauehave merits, hauing them, know they were giuen thee, hope for the fruite of them by the mercy of God, and thou hast auoided all danger, of pouertie, vnthankefulnes, and presumption. We must hauehave good workes, else wee are poore; we must know they are not of our selues, else we are vnthankfull; we must looke for reward of merciemercy, not of debt, else we are presumptuous. So that Bernard requires good workes, not as the cause, but as the way, betwixt Gods promise, and performance of giuing euerlasting life to them that are iustified and sanctified.
speaker W. P. August. Manual. cap. 22. All my hope is in the death of my Lord. His death is my merit—:my merit is the passion of the Lord. I shall not be voide of merits, so long as Gods mercies are not wanting.
speaker D. B. P. Secondly, he citeth Saint Augustine. All my hope is in the death of my Manual. c. 22.Lord: his death is my merit. True in a good sense: that is, by the vertue of his death, and passion, my sinnes are pardoned, and grace is bestowed on me to doe good workes, and so to merit.
speaker A. W. You leaue out the better halfe of that which was alleaged out of Austin; which indeede ouerthrowes your answere, That Christ hath procured pardon and grace for you to merit by: but Austin saith, that the death and passion of the Lord are his merit: that is (by your interpretation) his merit of grace, not of glorie. For that he must merit, by well vsing the grace which Christ hath deserued for him; to cut off this, Austin addes: qAug. Manual. cap. 22.I shall not be voide of merits, so long as Gods mercies are not wanting. HaueHave those works the true and whole nature of merit, which receiue their worth from Gods merciemercy? If you will answere, that by Gods merciemercy he meanes not his accepting of the worke, but his supplying vsus with grace to worke: I replie, that he may, for all that merciemercy, want merits: because it depends vponupon his own free will, when God hath done his vttermost, whether hee will worke or no. But that which followes in Austin, shewes, that all is in Gods merciemercy: If (saith he) the mercies of the Lord be many, I am much in merit: the mightier he is to saue, the more am I secure. So that Austin takes all from himselfe, and giues it to God.
speaker W. P. Basil. on Psal. 114. Eternall rest is reserued for them, which hauehave striuen lawfully in this life: not for the merits of their doings, but vponupon the grace of the most bountifull God, in which they trusted.
speaker D. B. P. These words are vntruly translated: for first, he maketh with the Apostle, eternall life to be the prize of that combate, and then addeth that it is not giuen according vntounto the debt, and iust rate of the works, but in a fuller measure, according vntounto the bounty of so liberall a Lord: Where hence is gathered that common and most true sentence. That God punisheth men vnderunder their deserts, but rewardeth them aboue their merits.
speaker A. W. Wherein lies the error of the translation? You take too much vponupon you; as if all the world were bound to allow your word, without any further proofe. But let vsus examine the translation. Eternall rest (saith Basil) rManetillos.is reserued for them who in this life hauehave striuen lawfully; not as sDebitum operibus reddi…m.a debt paid them for their worke, but giuen them vponupon the most bountifull grace of God, in whom they hauehave hoped. He is desirous to picke quarrels that findes fault with such translations. What one word hath Master Perkins left out, or misinterpreted, that might be any thing to your aduantage? But the testimonie was too plaine to admit any cauill, else the translation had been good enough.
But your proofe is, at least, as bad as your accusation. To prooue the words are vntruly translated, you tell vsus, that Basil makes eternall life the prize of the combat: what is this to the purpose? where is the fault of the translation? But let vsus take your interpretation of his meaning. If the reward be not giuen according to debt, but in a fuller measure, and yet no greater thing giuen than euerlasting life; doubtlesse our workes deserue not truly and wholy the reward of euerlasting life, that God bestowes on them of bountie.
speaker W. P. August. on Psal. 120. He crowneth thee, because he crowneth his owne gifts, not thy merits.
speaker D. B. P. S. Augustine was to wise, to let any such foolish sentence passe his penne: What congruity is in this. He crowneth thee, because he crowneth his ovvne gifts, not thy merits. It had been better said: He crowneth thee not, &c.
speaker A. W. It may be apparant to all men, who consider this mans course, in answering the testimonies of the Fathers, that he doth it by rote, and not by skill, not caring what their meaning was, but gessing what, in his conceit, it might be. If he had lookt for the place, here alleaged, he would certainly hauehave answered, that Austin hath no such speech vponupon that Psalme; and then perhaps he might with more reason hauehave denied that he hath it at all. The truth is the Printer misplaced the cypher, and of Psalme 102. made 120. But Master Perkins truly alleaged Austins words and sentence, which this bold censurer calles foolish, and confidently affirmes, that Austin would not let any such foolish sentence passe his penne. Let himselfe iudge, whether Austin say so or no. We (saith tAug. in Psal. 102.Austin) that are ouercome in our selues, hauehave ouercome in him; therefore he crownes thee, because uQuia dona sua coronat.he crownes his owne gifts, not thy merits. The sense is, that if God should looke to our actions of striuing against sinne, as they are weakly performed by vsus, hee would neuer crowne them; but considering that wee striue by his grace, he vouchsafes them a reward, though on our part altogether vndeserued.
speaker D. B. P. But he mistooke belike this sentence of Saint Augustine. VVhen God crovvneth thee, he crovvneth his gifts, not thy merits. Which is true, being taken in that sense, which he himselfe declareth. To such a man so De grat. & hb. arb. cap. 6.thinking (that is, that he hath merits of himselfe, without the grace of God,) it may be most truly said: God doth crovvne his ovvne gifts, not thy merits. If thy merits be of thy selfe, and not from him: but if we acknowledge our merits to proceed from grace working vvith vsus, then may vve as truly say, that eternall life is the crowne and revvard of merits.
speaker A. W. Austin hath the same sentence, for the substance of it, in xAug in Psal. 98. & epistola 105. & de gra. & lib. arb. ca. 6.many other places, and namely in that you alleage, though not altogether as you alleage it. For, after those words, If thy merits be of thy selfe, it followes in yDe grat. & lib. arb. cap. 6.Austin, for these, if they be such, are naught; those that are naught, God crownes not; but, if they be good, they be the gifts of God. The rest, and the greater halfe of the sentence is none of Austins, but yours; yet closely conueied by you, as if it were his no lesse than the former.
speaker W. P. And Psal. 142. Lord thou wilt quicken me in thy iustice, not in mine: not because I hauehave deserued it, but because thou hast compassion.
speaker D. B. P. His other place on the Psalme, is not to this purpose: but appertaines to the first iustification of a sinner, as the first word, quicken and reuiue Psal. 142.me sheweth plainely: now we confesse that a sinner is called to repentance and reuiued, not for any desert of his owne, but of Gods meere merciemercy.
speaker A. W. It will not serue the turne to say, It is not to this purpose, but speakes of the first iustification of a sinner. For Dauid, who is held to be the penner of it, was truly iustified, before the writing of that Psalme: yea the whole course of the Psalme it selfe manifestly prooues, that it was the prayer of one greatly in Gods fauour, and strongly perswaded of his succour. But what neede I seeke any proofes? HaueHave you forgotten, that a few lines before you confest as much, when as you would hauehave shifted off that place, in the second verse of this Psalme, by answering, that the Prophet prayed onelyonly for veniall and light sinnes? How then is the case so suddenly altred? Forsooth, because he saith, Thou shalt quicken me. For so indeed he saith, and not, Quicken me, as you write. But this quickning, is not giuing him grace to iustification, but comforting, and relieuing him in the troubles hee speakes of; and (as zLyra ad Psalm. 142.Lyra truly expounds it) deliuering him from the daunger of death, which hung ouer his head, by reason of his sonne Absoloms vnnaturall rebellion.