Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable — Richard Baxter

Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable · Richard Baxter

The Twelfth Dayes CONFERENCE. L. A Lutheran: R. A Reconciler.

Whether the Difference between Papiſts, Arminians, Lutherans and Calviniſts about Mans Merits, be as Great as many think it?

I Am greatly ſcandalized by a Sermon that you lately preached in London, in which you ſaid (as many good people aſſure me) that the difference between the Proteſtants and the Papiſts was little more than in meer words: The City ringeth of it, and it is a common ſcandal, and offence.

Seeing you heard it not, you are unfit to receive ſatisfaction about it, ſave only by telling you that the Report is falſe, and that which I ſaid of ſome particular Controverſies only, they ſeign to be ſpoken of all, or moſt, or others: But of this when you bring one that heard it, I will give you a further account.

However I perceive by your words and writings, that you extenuate our difference about Mans Merits: And what is there that we more differ from the Papiſts about, than Merits; and from the Arminians, than their placing our Righteouſneſs in our own Believing and Repenting? Is there any thing that more evacuateth the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt? and deſtroyeth the honour of free grace, and juſtly entitleth them to the name of Antichriſtian?

Forget not that before I further diſcourſe with you, I premiſe, that I ſpeak not a word to juſtifie or excuſe the Papiſts in general, or any one of them in particular, for any unſound word about this ſubject, nor to abate your juſt diſlike of any of their errors: And before we proceed, I deſire your promiſe that you will hear and ſpeak with as little partiality, paſſion, and unrighteouſneſs as you can, (for to lay by all, I cannot expect,) and that you will be true to what evidence of truth ſhall appear to you.

Do you think that I love not Truth and Sobriety? Why do you ſo ſuſpect me?

Alas, how ſtrange are our hearts oft to themſelves! and how much of our own ignorance, temerity, paſſion and unjuſt partiality is there, in many a cauſe which we (ſinfully) father upon God, and his Truth and Grace! But in order to our better underſtanding, I ask your anſwer to theſe Queſtions.

Queſt. 1. Had you rather it did truly appear to you, that the Papiſts and Arminians do leſs differ from us, than moſt conceive, or not▪

I had rather they did differ leſs, and if it be ſo, I had rather know it than not; But I would not hear that it is ſo, when it is not.

Take heed that your heart deceive you not, and that you be not averſe to know the truth, leſt it ſhould croſs your own and other mens former cenſures.

Queſt. 2. If it prove true, that the difference is leſs than moſt take it to be, is he that falſly aggravateth it to the procuring of unjuſt odium, or he that truly openeth and extenuateth it, the more to be commended or approved?

If you have the Truth on your ſide, no doubt but you do well, becauſe Love and Peace alſo are on your ſide, and our fault is great that quarrel with you.

Queſt. 3. Do you think it is juſtice in any Papiſts to charge the crude unſound expreſſions of particular Writers, on the Proteſtant party as their Doctrine? (as Mr. Parker, Mr. Patrick, Mr. Sherlock are blamed for doing by the Non-conformiſts:) or for us to do the ſame by them?

No: but where their Doctors agree, we may go further.

Queſt. 4. Do you think that the bare name of Merit, is cauſe enough to accu…e any of falſe Doctrine, who meaneth by it nothing that is unſound? or that the name is reaſon enough for ſharp accuſations of ſuch men?

I am willing to difference the controverſie de nomine from that de re, and not to make a greater matter of a name than there is cauſe: But yet ill names do tend to introduce ill Doctrines.

Queſt. 5. Do you hold that well-doing hath any Reward from God?

It is not vain▪ It hath that bleſſing freely given which is improperly called a Reward.

It is figuratively called Wages: And yet this is the commoneſt Scripture title, (and cannot you bear with Gods Word?) But it is not improperly called Praemium a Reward: that is, A benefit given to one for well doing. Indeed if with the new Atheiſtical Philoſophers, you take God but for a Phyſical Motor, and his Government, and Laws, and Judgement to be all but Motion, improperly and popularly ſo named, then you may ſay the ſame of his Rewards and Puniſhments.

Well: you know that Proteſtants deny not Reward.

Queſt. 6. Is not Reward formally Related to ſome well-doing as the moral aptitude of the Receiver?

Yes: it is ſuch a Relation formally.

Queſt. 7. Are not they then of your judgement as to the Matter, who hold Merit in no other ſenſe, than as it is [Rewardable well-doing] or [a Moral aptitude for Reward?]

I deny not that with ſuch I differ but in the Name.

Queſt. 8. Do not you know that it is the common uſage of the word, in Civil and Eccleſiaſtical Writers, to take Meritum and Praemium ſo far for Relatives, as that omne Praemium eſt meriti praemium; though omne meritum be not Praemii meritum. Reward and Rewardableneſs are thus meant as related.

It's true that Meritum is ſometime taken leſs properly for any Dueneſs; …s a man is ſaid to Merit his Fathers Legacie, that is, hath right to it: ſometimes it is taken for any Moral Congruity: ſometimes in malam partem for Commerit of puniſhment: and ſometimes for a fault it ſelf. As Calvin noteth on the word. But ſtill every Reward is formally related to Merit or Rewardableneſs.

But (not only our late Lectures againſt Popery, but) many Proteſtants ſay, that It is not Merit, unleſs there be an Equality of it in worth to the Reward; And therefore their Arguments againſt Merit are (as there). 1. The Reward is meerly of Mercy and Grace: therefore not of Merit. 2. It is Gods Gift: therefore not deſerved. 3. It is by Inheritance. 4. We owe all to God; and therefore cannot Merit. 5. Our works are imperfect. 6. We need pardon. 7. Our works are not equal in Goodneſs and Value to eternal life. 8. We cannot recompence God for what we have. 9. We cannot profit God. 10. Grace and debt are oppoſite. 11. We may not Truſt our works (faith or love) therefore they merit not. So that the queſtion is but of ſuch a Merit as by equal worth maketh the Reward due in point of Juſtice.

All theſe reaſons ſufficiently confute Merit in point of Commutative Juſtice: But they go upon a meer miſtake, as if this were the ſtate of the controverſie between us and the Roman Church, or they took Merit in any ſuch ſenſe; unleſs it be ſome rare ignorant fellow (ſuch as Romaeus ſeemeth by ſome words, and ſome few others): But do you grant that you differ but de nomine and not de re with thoſe that take not Merit in any ſuch ſenſe, but mean as you do de re ipſa?

That I muſt needs grant.

Before we proceed then, let me briefly and plainly open the caſe.

1. God ſtandeth related to Man, 1. As the Owner of us and all things: 2. As our Rector by Laws: 3. As our Benefactor.

2. To Merit, 1. Of a Proprietor or Owner, muſt be giving him ſomewhat to his gain or pleaſure, for the worth of which he is bound by Commutative Juſtice, to requite us. 2. To Merit of a Ruler is to do that which he is bound to Reward in Diſtributive Juſtice, to perform his Rewarding promiſes, or at leaſt for the Ends of Government. 3. To merit of a meer Benefactor is no more than not to be uncapable of his Gift, which is improperly called Merit.

3. All our controverſie is about the ſecond: God as our Governour ruleth us 1. At firſt by the Law of Innocency, 2. By the Law of Grace; and that 1. As delivered to the World in Adam and Noe, 2. Or to the Jews with the addition of the Moſaical Law of Works, 3. Or as delivered in the Goſpel by Chriſt and his Spirit.

4. To dream of that Merit from God as a proprietor in point of Commutative Juſtice which our Arguments militate againſt, is tantum non madneſs: and is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome (that I know of.)

5. To aſſert our Meriting of God as Rector by the Law of Innocency is dotage. And I know none that hold that we do ſo (by our ſelves, though ſome hold that we do ſo per alium.)

6. Nor do any but Jews that I know of aſſert Merit after the Jewiſh Law of Works.

7. But they that hold that Chriſt hath Merited and freely Given a Conditional pardon and right to life to all mankind, even on condition of a penitent believing acceptance of the free gift, and this by a Law of Grace, which we muſt now be Ruled and Judged by, do hold that this Law hath its Reward, and mans acts accordingly their worth or Merit.

8. This Merit in point of Diſtributive Juſtice, is to be conceived of and defined according to the Regiment which it reſpecteth, which is Gods Paternal Government of freely Redeemed ſinners, by a Law of Grace freely pardoning and ſaving them if they will believe and accept the gift. So that it is only Meriting under a Law made by a Governing Owner and Benefactor, for the ſapiential orderly diſpoſal of a free Gift. As a Father will teach a Child Obedience by telling him that he will give him Gold or Meat, if he will thankfully accept it.

9. It is not true therefore that it is only a free Gift: For as it is a free Gift in regard of the Value and quoad rem, ſo that Gift is a Reward in regard of the Order of Conveyance, and tenour of the Donation, and the moral capacity of the Receiver, which men call Merit.

10. That we cannot (per impotentiam voluntariam moralem) perform the Condition, without Divine Grace, is nothing againſt the Tenour of the Donation, nor the nature of the Relation of a Reward.

11. But Reward and Merit in this caſe are furtheſt from that of Commutation, and leaveth leaſt to man to boaſt of.

12. Yet may he truly glory in the effects of Grace with thankfulneſs to God, as Paul did, 2 Cor. 1. 11, 12. that in ſimplicity and godly ſincerity, &c. and 2 Tim. 4. 8. that he had fought a good fight, &c. And he may juſtifie his ſincerity with Job, chap. 13. 15, 16. And Chriſt will ſay, Well done good and faithful ſervant, &c. Let him that glorieth glory in this, that he knoweth me, (ſaith the Lord,) &c. And Paul would rather dye, than any ſhould make his glorying void, as to his free preaching the Goſpel.

13. And it is very falſe that in this ſenſe a Chriſtian is not bound to truſt to his Faith, Repentance, Love, Obedience, only in their own place and office aſſigned them by God; but no further: As we may truſt to the Bible, Preacher, Parents, ſo to hearing, reading, praying, &c. for their proper part: elſe we ſhall take them all to be in vain. Are they Means, or no Means? If Means, they muſt be judged and truſted as they are, and no further: And people are not to be frightned from neceſſary truth, by putting an ill ſenſe upon words.

14. And though here be nothing of Commutative Juſtice, yet there is that which Juſtifieth the name of Wages uſed analogically in the Scriptures: Becauſe Love in a Father maketh a Childs intereſt to be partly his own; and the Pleaſure of his Will, is that to God who is Love it ſelf and delighteth in his Childrens good, which Profit is to a humane proprietor.

And now I will proceed with you in my Queſtions.

Queſt. 9. Do you think that Papiſts or Arminians do believe, that either Man, or Angel, or Chriſt can merit of God by Profiting him, in Commutative Juſtice? Or that it is poſſible for any creature to have any Good which is not the free gift of God? ſuppoſing man a free agent in his duty.

I have hitherto thought that they ſo judge: Why elſe talk they of Merit of Congruity and Condignity, and that ſay ſome, ex dignitate, yea, and ex proportione operum?

It ſeemeth you think not that you hold all this your ſelf. Let us try.

1. By Merit, they ſtill mean a ſubordinate Merit, which ſuppoſeth the Benefit 1. To be Gods Gift, 2. Merited by Chriſt.

How prove you that?

It is the expreſs words of the Trent Council de Juſtif. Can. 8, We are ſaid to be Juſtified gratis, becauſe nothing that goeth before Juſtification, whether it be Faith or Works, doth merit the Grace it ſelf of Juſtification: For if it be Grace, it is no more of Works; elſe Grace is not Grace.

Can. 16. Though ſo much be given in Scripture to Good Works, that Chriſt promiſeth him that giveth but a Cup of cold Water to one of the leaſt, that he ſhall not loſe his reward,—yet far be it from a Chriſtian to truſt or glory in himſelf, and not in the Lord, whoſe Goodneſs is ſo great to all men, that he wills thoſe things to be Their Merits, which are His Gifts.

And Anath. C. 26. they thus open their Doctrine of Merit: If any ſay, that the Righteous ought not to expect eternal retribution from God by his Mercy and Chriſts Merits, for the good works done in God, if by well doing and keeping God Commandments they perſevere to the end, let him be Anathema.

31, 32. If any ſay, that a Juſtified mans good works are ſo Gods Gifts, that they be not alſo the Juſtified mans good merits, or that the Juſtified do not truly merit increaſe of grace and life eternal by the good works which are done by Gods Grace and Chriſts Merit (of whom he is a living member) &c. Anath. ſit.

16. To them therefore that do well to the end, and hope in God, Life eternal is to be propoſed, both as Grace mercifully promiſed to the Sons of God through Jeſus Chriſt, and as a Reward faithfully to be given by Gods own promiſe to their Works and Merits.

Yes, this ridiculous Doctrine of our Meriting by Gods Grace and Chriſts Merits I have often read and heard of in them.

It is ſomewhat bold to deride that which Scripture, Reaſon and all the antient Churches do accord in. That Chriſt merited that we ſhould ſubordinately merit, that is, be Rewardable, as before explained, hath no leſs conſent. And Contra Rationem nemo fobrius: Contra Scripturam nemo Chriſtianus: Contra Eccleſiam nemo Catholicus.

But if the Council of Trent deny that Juſtification is at all merited, what is meant by the Papiſts Merit of Congruity▪

II. I think you hold not only as much of that as they, but (do you think it?) ſomewhat more.

1. As much: For 1. De nomine ſome of them deny that this is any merit at all, as well as you. And their Council aſſerteth it not (that I ſee.) 2. De re: They mean the ſame thing by Merit of Congruity, which Mr. Rogers, Bolton, Hooker and the reſt call Preparation for Chriſt or for Converſion; And ſo the Council of Trent calls it: Which maketh a man a more Congruous Receiver of Grace than the unprepared, but doth not prove God obliged to give it him as a Reward. And do not you hold all this de re?

2. Yea and more: For the Council of Trent taketh Juſtification for Remiſſion of ſin and ſanctification together, as after Faith: And ſo hold that Faith it ſelf doth not merit Juſtification. But do not you hold more, de re, that Faith hath a flat promiſe of Juſtification (which is true)? And ſo God hath as it were obliged his fidelity to give it? which is it they mean by Merit.

But what is their Merit of Condignity then? Is not that abominable?

III. 1. You know that the words [Worthy] and [Worthineſs] are uſed in the Scripture? Bear therefore with Scripture words. 2. And de re, they mean not all one thing, or uſe not the ſame expreſſions at leaſt: Some (and many) with Scot… ſay, that it is ex pacto, from Gods Promiſe that the Merit and dueneſs do reſult; or from Gods Decree and free acceptation.

I am ſure your own friends ſay, that [Theſe are few, and too modeſt, and indeed half Hereticks for their pains.]

I love not to perſwade the World that men mean worſe than they ſpeak: What you mean by [too modeſt] I know not; but it is not true either that they are few, or taken by their Church for half hereticks. And truth is well ſerved by nothing but truth. But the author you mean, doth well in not oppoſing thoſe that are of this mind, nor thoſe that deny all merit of congruity; and in acknowledging that ſuch there are. He is a ſtranger to the Popiſh Doctors who either taketh the Scotiſts themſelves to be few (or judged half hereticks) or elſe that it is they only that are of that opinion: of which more anon.

But what mean they that ſay it is ex Dignitate, if not as profiting God?

1. I tell you they almoſt all conclude againſt commutative merit, and who is ſo mad as to think that we profit God? 2. I tell you that you may alſo ask what the Scripture meaneth by worthineſs; And how elſe will you tranſlate foreign but worthy or deſerving? And what is foreign but Mer… 3. They mean [the Moral aptitude of Well-doing for the promiſed Reward:] And do you deny that?

But ſome of them ſay plainly that it is of Debt?

Yes: they oft ſay with Auguſtine that God by his promiſe hath made himſelf as a Debtor.

But ſome ſay that Merit of condignity is ex proportione operum to the reward.

It's impoſſible to know what every man meaneth, and impoſſible to make all men ſpeak congruouſly: But as far as I can diſcern, moſt of them that ſo ſpeak, mean, that the moſt wiſe God doth all things in order and harmony, and as he ſuiteth natural cauſes and effects, ſo he doth gracious ones: And that his free grace putteth into mans holineſs, a ſuitableneſs to the Reward, which is but a ſuitableneſs of the habit and act to the object: And that he that Loved God much ſhall be much happy in that Love, and be much beloved by him: And ſo every Saint enjoy God according to the proportion of his Love or holineſs; and Glory be varyed according to the degrees of Grace.

This we all hold: But you make them ſounder and wiſer than they are.

Many of them and us want skill to ſpeak very clearly: Confuſion and darkneſs is found in all our conceptions and expreſſions ſo far as we know but in part: Thoſe that you can prove to me are worſe, prove it by them. I take this to be the common ſenſe of thoſe few that talk of Meritum ex proportione: For they moſt commonly diſclaim the word equality, and all diſclaim it as to commutation: And what elſe can they mean?

And here I offer you an argument for Reward even in this ſenſe of proportion which all the world cannot anſwer: ſuppoſing that God will freely continue man in life and immortality. If the Reward be eſſential to or neceſſarily inſeparable from true love and obedience, then true love and obedience have certainly a Reward (and a moral aptitude for that Reward, or a Rewardableneſs, called Merit:) But the former is certain. For 1. To Love God is the ſouls health, pleaſure and felicity it ſelf (including the Knowledge of him;) And perfect Knowledge and love is perfect happineſs. 2. To obey God is formally to do that which Pleaſeth him pleaſedly becauſe it pleaſeth him: And to Pleaſe God is mans ultimate End and Reward. 3. It is impoſſible but that God, by his perfection, ſhould Love and be pleaſed with every thing that is Good according to the proportion of its goodneſs; and therefore with the Love and obedience of his Children. So that all thoſe arguments of Proteſtants which well prove Holineſs to be Happineſs it ſelf, prove the Reward to be eſſential or inſeparable.

If this be all that thoſe few higheſt Papiſts mean, then they are but more zealous in commending holineſs than the looſer ſort, as the Religious Preachers with us are: And if this be indeed their meaning, they are unhappy in expreſſing themſelves, or we in underſtanding them, and our hearers unhappy that upon ſuch miſunderſtanding are taught to abhorr them.

You know 1. That by Juſtification they mean Remiſſion of ſin and Holineſs: 2. And that they hold that no works merit, but thoſe that are done by the members of Chriſt and by his ſpirit, in love and holineſs: 3. And that they merit nothing but what is primarily Gods Gift: 4. Nor any thing but what is merited by Chriſt by another ſort of merit, to which ours is but ſubordinate; 5. And that they commonly ſay that even faith it ſelf doth not merit Juſtification (or Holineſs;) becauſe though it have a Promiſe of it, and ſo ex pacto it is due; yet there is in the nature of the things no neceſſary connexion between them: And now what can they mean after all this by condignity ex proportione ▪ operis ad pr…mium, but this which I have deſcribed? Holineſs is happineſs and connexed to happineſs, in its various degrees.

But ſome ſay that they are ſo Impudent as to ſay that from the intrinſick worth of the work, ſetting aſide the conſideration of the promiſe, it is meritorious.

1. Their commoneſt opinion is that the natural Aptitude of Holineſs and obedience, and the Promiſe of God ſet together make them rewardable (or meritorious as they call it:) which is moſt certain. God promiſeth not his bleſſings and happineſs to men for things evil, or worthleſs and indifferent. But 2. Some among their Doctors ſay that Were there no promiſe Holineſs would be Rewardable; that is, that Gods perfection proveth that he is Pleaſed with it and Loveth the holy: 2. And that it is happineſs it ſelf as is aforeſaid: And as this doth but ſpeak the ſuitableneſs of Gods Image to be the object of his Love, and of obedience to be the Pleaſing of his will; ſo it ſeemeth to me only to mean that Were there no Poſitive ſupernatural promiſe, yet the very Law of nature (which is Gods firſt Law) containeth ſuch a ſignification of his will [that he will love, and bleſs thoſe that love him and obey him] as is indeed a kind of natural promiſe.

And it is to be noted that all the Heathen World, who know not the written promiſe do agree in this as a natural Verity, that God loveth and is pleaſed with Goodneſs, love and obedience, and that it ſhall go well with them that are ſo qualified. And if we ſhould forget the Papiſts, and preach to religious people with us, that there is no Goodneſs in the Divine Nature and Image of God, and in Holy love and obedient fruitful lives, for which God would love or be pleaſed with ſuch as have them (ſuppoſing Redemption and the merits of Chriſt) any more than with the wicked, if it were not that he hath promiſed▪ (as if he had been ſurprized into a promiſe, not ſuited to the nature of the thing,) this would be abhorred by the ſame profeſſours, who in other words, as it ſeemeth to be againſt Popery, will applaud it.

But in all this you muſt remember, that it is preſuppoſed that mans ſoul is before made Immortal by God as Creator; and that he might anni… late the moſt holy Creature if he will: But he hath declared that he will not, partly by the Nature of his ſoul, and partly by his natural and poſitive revelations: ſo that it is preſuppoſed that God will continue us men; and then Holineſs will be a proportionable Happineſs.

But I pray you give me further proof that the Papiſts mean ſo well and near us …s you deſcribe the caſe. Cite me the Authors.

1. You muſt take nothing for their Religion but what is in their Councils: And you muſt charge no errour on them but what you can prove: For the Accuſer is the prover. And I before cited to you the words of the Trent Council.

But I juſtifie not all that they there ſay: And one paſſage as it ſoundeth I greatly abhorr; which is, that a Juſt man doth not venially ſin, much leſs deſerve hell in every good work, Can. 11. de Juſtif. whereas I doubt not but the very culpable defect of Love to God and other holy qualifications defileth our beſt works with ſin: and every ſin deſerveth ſome degree of a hell, according to the Law of Innocency: But if they mean, 1. That Good works as ſuch are not ſin, 2. Or that our infirmities are not ſuch as to which the Law of Grace threatneth hell and will condemn us; we are then of their mind, but we much miſlike their words: For were there not an antecedent deſert of hell, and a ſinfulneſs ſo deſerving (though not by an unremediable guilt) there would be no need of pardon. But to ſpeak freely, the Council Doctors ſeemed not well ſtudied in the doctrine of the Covenants (even Suarez de Legibus, one of the beſt, is herein ſhort,) and ſo to ſpeak confuſedly of theſe matters: But they ſeem moſtly to take notice only of the Law of Grace, and becauſe that accepteth ſincerity, and condemneth none for meer Infirmities, therefore they thence meaſure both fault and guilt (which they ſhould not do:) For I find that they ſtill preſuppoſe Redemption and Pardon of ſin, in the preſent caſe.

But to proceed to their Doctors: Vega q. 4. defineth Merit thus, [Meritum eſt actio libera, acceptata ad aliquod praemium.] And de re, do you deny this?

Davenport thus amendeth it [Meritum de condign… eſt actio libera ab homine in gratia elicita, qua ex Juſtitia acceptatur ad praemium, &c.] (meaning Juſtitia promiſſoris.)

Scotus 1. d. 17. q. 1. &c. will not have it meritorious becauſe is done by grace, but by Divine decree, promiſe and acceptance. And this he calleth Juſtice, ex ſuppoſitione decreti & promiſſi: Non igitur ex natura actus oritur obligatio ad praemium, ſaith S. Clara: factâ autem pactione eſt debitum ex juſtitia: And thus ſay the generality of the Scotiſts.

Yet ſome will not yield that God is ſo much as a Promiſer leſt he be obliged, but only an Aſſertor: as S. Clara noteth.

Tho. Waldenſis and ſome others deny all merit fitly ſo called. De ſacram. tit. 1.

Eckius, Marſilius and Bellarmine ſaith S. Clara deny all merit of congruity.

Greg. Arim. 1. d. 17. q. 1. a 2. ſaith that there is no merit of bleſſedneſs by condignity.

Durandus 1. d. 27. q. 2. ſaith there is no merit of condignity with God, niſi largo modo.

So Marſilius in 2. d. 27. Brugenſis in Pſal. 35. Eckius in Cent. de Pradeſt. Cuſanus, Stapleton and others, of whom S. Clara referreth you to Suarez in 3 Tho. diſp. 10. ſect. 7. q. 3.

Bradwardine c. 39. fol. 338. laboureth to prove that the increaſe of Grace or Glory is not merited de condigno, but de congr…o, and that all Catholicks ſo hold. And next denyeth merit de congruo, and all by reaſons which S. Clara taketh to be valid.

Soto a Thomiſt denyeth all merit de congruo, and ſaith the Fathers held it not. 4. d. 14. q. 2. a. 5. & l. 2. de nat. & Grat. c. 4.

Bonaventure 2. d. 28. a. 2. ſaith Pelagius erred. 1. In holding that the firſt grace was merited; 2. That by the ſtrength of Free-will we can diſpoſe or prepare our ſelves for grace.

Clara ſaith, Aeſtimo eſſe omnium Scholaſticorum, non dari ex parte peccatoris ullam cauſam meritoriam, diſpoſitionem, aut conditionem ad primam gratiam. For which he citeth Auguſt. P. Innoc. 1. ad Concil. Carth. Concil. Arauſic. 2. can. 3, 4, 5. Concil. Trident. Seſſ. 6. c. 5. concluding, Et ſine dubio hoc eſt de fide apud omnes Catholicos Doctores, nec ullus unquam oppoſitum tenuit. Et Bradward. optimus divinae Gratiae propugnator dicit expreſſe—eſſe Pelagianiſmum, licet intelligeretur ſolùm de merito de congruo.

Yea Aquinas denyeth all merit de congruo as to Juſtifying grace, 1. 2. q. 14. a. 7. & in Rom. c. 4.

Vega's judgement is commonly known. See Carthuſian in Jac. 2. &c. I may conclude then with S. Clara, that Caſſander ſpake not unreaſonably when he ſaid, [Quo ſenſu hoc vocabulo Meriti & Merendi uſi ſunt Patres & Catholici, obſcurum non eſt, nempe ut per illud gratiae Dei ex qua merita omnia oriuntur, nihil detrahatur. Quare nil eſt cur aut Eccleſiaſtici à loquendi forma & ſententia in Eccleſia jam olim uſitata diſcedant, aut Proteſtantes eam tam odioſè repudient aut condemnent.]

And that Bucer ſaid well, colloq. Ratisb. [Si ſancti patres aut alii intelligunt Promereri, facere ex fide gratiae dei bona opera quibus Deus mercedem promiſit; hoc ſenſu uſurpare illud verbum minimè damnabimus.]

Thus you ſeem to like the very word merit; which in your confeſſion you do not.

1. I like the Scripture word foreign. And they that tranſlate it worthy, and account condignity the higheſt notion of merit, ſeem to allow that it may be tranſlated [Meriting.]

2. I would fain find a word to ſerve inſtead of merit, anſwering Reward, and I cannot: What word can you find? Premiability and Rewardableneſs are long and unhandſome, and I remember no other, without uſing many words.

3. Yet I wiſh it diſuſed, to avoid abuſe and offence.

But when Caſſander ſaith, It is uſed as not encroaching on grace, I take all merit to encroach upon it and injure it.

I ask you, Queſt. 1. If you preach that [a Holy Lover of God is fitter for Heaven and Happineſs in Gods love, than a wicked man, and hath a promiſe of it] and another preach, that [the Saints are no fitter for Gods love and happineſs than the wicked, but only it's promiſed them without any fitneſs;] which would good men more diſlike? I think that the firſt is but the very thing that moſt of the School Doctors mean: And that we at once abhorr their words, and abhorr the contrary, as they are variouſly preſented to men.

Queſt. 2. And I ask you, Whether do you think it a greater Grace or Gift of God, to give a man that Holineſs which ſhall fit him for Heaven (or as they call it Merit it,) or to give him Heaven without ſuch Holy fitneſs (or merit?)

Heaven without Holineſs is a contradiction. But if God could make a beaſt or bad man Happy without it, doubtleſs yet both is more than one. I had rather God would make me here fit for Heaven by holineſs, than not, and ſo all Chriſtians. But we all take Merit to ſignifie ſomewhat which profiteth God and which is our own, and not of his gift and grace: In which I ſee we are miſtaken.

Doubtleſs, as that God who can relieve your poor or ſick friend without you, ſheweth you a double favour if he will make you his inſtrument in relieving him; ſo if he cauſe you to work out your own ſalvation, it is a greater mercy than if he would carry you aſleep to Heaven: And it's ſtrange that men that know that all that we have is of God, ſhould think his grace diſhonoured by giving us the greater mercy.

But to return to my account of the Papiſts. I will mention Aquinas farther, becauſe you know who numbreth him with the groſſer ſort.

1. 2. q. 114. a. 1. He concludeth that man meriteth not at all of God according to abſolute or ſimple Juſtice, which goeth by equality; ſed ſecundum divinae ordinationis quandam praeſuppoſitionem, as man obtaineth that as a reward by his operation for which God gave him the operative virtue. And ſo that here is but modus quidam Juſtitiae, as a Father hath to a Child, and merit only ſecundum quid, at non ſimpliciter. And he addeth, that our voluntary doing our duty is our merit, not as profiting God, but manifeſting his glory, and pleaſing his will; and ſo God is not a Debtor to us, but to his own will or to himſelf.

And a. 2. he concludeth that without Grace even man in innocency, much leſs in ſin could thus merit life eternal. When after therefore he ſpeaks for merit of condignity as the acts are from the Holy Ghoſt, it is ſuch a merit as aforeſaid that he meaneth. But the firſt Grace he ſaith none meriteth.

But I deſire you for the underſtanding of Aquinas and ſuch others to take notice, that the foundation of many confuſed ſpeeches of theirs, is their confuſed notions of Gods Laws or Covenants. For Aquin. q. 106. a. 1. doth go the way of Mr. Sterry and Sr. H. Vane and the Quakers, and conclude that the New Law (of Grace) is not written but in the heart, that is, that Lex nova principaliter eſt ipſa gratia ſpiritus ſancti in corde fidelium ſcripta; becauſe unaquae que illud videtur eſſe quod in ea eſt potiſſimum: and ſo that Lex ſcripta is called a Law ſecondarily as a means to the former: Now this is groſs abuſe of an equivocal word by a vain pretence: For the word Law doth not firſt ſignifie another thing becauſe that other is moſt excellent; but leſs excellent things (as media ad finem) have their proper notions: And the world knoweth that the famoſius ſignificatum here is a Law ut ſignum voluntatis imperantis conſtituens debitum, as an inſtrument of Government; And that Sanctity of heart is the effect of the doctrine, and a diſpoſition to obey; and is called a Law but in tropical ſenſe.

But indeed Paul oft deſcribeth the Goſpel as in the heart, and the Law as a thing; But that contradicts not what I ſay: but it was becauſe the New Teſtament was not then much of it, if any, written and received in the Churches as Gods Law: But Baptiſm expounded by word of mouth (in the three Articles) was the Chriſtianity which Paul bid Timothy keep and commit to faithful men that might teach it. The Chriſtian Religion was by word committed to mens memory firſt, and ſo to their hearts before it was put in writing: But yet it was primarily and properly a Law, ut ſignum obligans, and but metonymically as the ſoul was holy by it. The Law was one thing, even in the mind and memory, and the Love of God and it another, though called a Law.

But from this notion (that the old Law was a writing, and the new Law was the ſpirit in us) no wonder if Aquinas gathered, that the word Juſtifie chiefly ſignified to make us Good and holy perſons; and that our Holineſs being our real aptitude for our Glorifying and pleaſing God, and ſo for our Happineſs therein, was to be called our merit; meaning thereby but that ſame fitneſs for the End o… Reward, which Scripture calleth worthineſs, and all religious Preachers and people among us zealouſly defend in other notions, where the Papiſts are forgotten.

It can never enter into my thoughts that ſo many Godly Learned Proteſtants would make odious the Papiſts, if ſome of them at leaſt meant no worſe.

Know you not that judicious George Major was made the head of Hereticks, by Gallus, Amſdorfius, &c. for but ſaying, Bona opera ſunt neceſſaria ad ſalutem: Read your Schluſſelburgius of his hereſie, and judge as you ſee cauſe.

But whereas our Divines in confuting merit, do ſtill deſcribe it as of commutative juſtice, and not as of paternal Governing diſtributive Juſtice according to the Law of Grace, I will yet tell you what is ſaid by Vaſquez the Jeſuite in 1 Thom. qu. 21. diſp. 83. c. 1. & 2. & ſequent. Which when you have read, I will appeal to common Reaſon and Chriſtianity, 1. Whether it be not a ſinful thing for ignorant Proteſtants to take it upon one anothers reports that the Papiſts hold that doctrine of merits, which they do not, and ſo to make them unjuſtly more erroneous and odious than they are? 2. Whether it be not a very ſinful ſerving of the Devil, for unlearned Divines that have read little of the Papiſts writings, to backbite and calumniate thoſe of us who truly ſtate the Controverſie, and narrow the differences, as if we made the Papiſts better than they are, and took their parts, meerly becauſe we would have no good men belye them? 3. Whether it be not the way to harden and increaſe the Papiſts, to find ſuch falſe dealing among their adverſaries?

Cap. 1. Vaſquez falls upon ſome late Doctors who ſay that [Commutative Juſtice is properly and formally in God:] yet they ſay that it is not in God as it is in men, nor as including any imperfection: In the ſecond Chapter he maintaineth, that Commutative Juſtice is not in God, according to propriety of ſpeech: and that this is the judgement of all the former School Doctors to a man; He citeth many whom I recite to ſhew that he is not ſingular: [Alex. Alenſ. 1. p. q. 39. m. 1. Scot. in 1. d. 46. q. 1. in ſolut. arg. Richard. art. 1. qu. 1. Durand. q. 1. Palud. q. 1. art. 1. Capreol. in 1. d. 45. q. 1. art. 1. Concl. 14. & art. 3. ad arg. S. Thom. 1. contra g. c. 39. & ibid. Ferrarienſ. Hoſius in Confeſſ. Polon. c. 73. Ruard. art. 11. Sot. 3. de nat. & grat. c. 7. & 3. de Juſtit. q. 5. art. ult. ad. 1. Cajet. in hunc art. Joh. Bunder. in Compend. Concert. tit. 6. art. 7. Gabr. Biel ſupplem. in 4. d. 49. q. 4. art. 4. dub. 3. Bonavent. in 4. d. 46. art. 2. q. 1. ad 2. S. Thom. 1. 2. q. 114. art. 1. Conrad. ibid. Durand. iterum in 2. d. 27. q. 2. Perrar. cont. Gent. 3. c. 179.] Then becauſe ſome words of Medina and Cajet. and Romaus ſeem for Commutative Juſtice, he ſheweth that it was not their meaning: Next he vindicateth Scotus and Gabriel as having no ſuch meaning in ſome words of theirs: Then he cometh to the caſe of Chriſts own Merits, and ſaith, that ſome ſay [Chriſt ſatisfied for us in rigour of Juſtice.] But that Aquin. Bonavent. and ſuch ancients uſe not that form of ſpeech; but only teach, that Chriſts ſatisfaction was perfect, that is, needed no Acceptilation: but to this it is not neceſſary that it be according to Juſtice properly, but that it was of equal condignity by way of Merit. And other Schoolmen that ſpeak as aforeſaid mean not that in Chriſt there was proper Juſtice towards God; but that the equality which he kept by the way and ſimilitude of Juſtice in his ſatisfaction, was according to rigour: that is, needed not Gods liberal acceptation, but was altogether of equal condignity; which is true: I except but ſome late ones, who contend that in that ſatisfaction there was proper juſtice; (whom he oppoſeth;) But they ſpeak only of Imperfect Juſtice, ſuch as is found in Creatures, which is not in God.

In Cap. 3. he layeth down ſeveral foundations againſt Commutative Juſtice, and confuteth Cajetan and Medina who ſaid that indeed between God and man there was no Commutative Juſtice, but inter res, that is, inter meritum & praemium there is; which he ſheweth is a contradiction of the former.

In Cap. 4. he diſputeth againſt commutative Juſtice in God to man, and that 1. Becauſe there is not aequalitas dati & accepti; and to be ſhort, he brings againſt it the very ſame arguments as Proteſtants urge againſt Merit, which ſheweth that both ſides mean and oppoſe the very ſame thing: And he is ſo much againſt any Merit of ours from God in Commutative Juſtice, that he labours to prove that Chriſts ſatisfaction was not ſuch, nor can any▪ Creature ſo merit of God; much leſs is mans penance or ſatisfaction ſuch: yea indeed he goeth too far in his reaſons, as I think: For he argueth that where there is no Damnum (damage) in the ſin againſt God, there is no proper injuſtice, but a common ſort of it: and therefore there can no merit in proper juſtice by ſatisfaction (by Chriſt or us;) and that our ſin bringeth no damage to God, ergo, &c. But I deny his Major: There may be injury where there is no Damage; and conſequently injuſtice: Suppoſe a King or Father ſo far above his ſubject or ſon, as that all his diſobedience would no way hurt or damnifie him: yet it would injure him; becauſe the father hath Right to the ſons obedience (and love,) and Juri… denegatio eſt injuria. So that I confeſs that God cannot poſſibly give us anything by Commutative Juſtice, in a ſtrict and proper …ence; becauſe we can ſo give him nothing in commutation: But I ſee not but that by ſin, man ſinneth againſt proper Juſtice, in not giving God his Own or Due, to his Injury, though not to his damage. But I confeſs the term Commutative nothing mutual Right, is improper; and their diſtinction of Commutative and diſtributive Juſtice is narrow, ambiguous, inep…, and therefore …eedeth and not endeth Controverſies: The true diſtribution of Juſtice is from the three Grand Moral Relations, Dominii, Imperii & Beneficii vel Amicitiae. 1. God hath the true proper Right of Propriety in us, and to our ſervice: 2. He hath a proper Right of Imperium Rule, and ſo to our obedience: 3. By his Goodneſs, Love and Benefits, he hath a proper Right to our greateſt Love and Gratitude. And he that ſinneth denyeth God all theſe, and ſo doth violate proper Juſtice, denying him that to which he hath Right.

But to return to Vaſquez, having ſaid, That our Merit and Satisfaction can be no benefit to God, nor our ſin his damage, nec ulla inaequalitas inter ipſum & nos conſtituta eſt, quae ſit objectum injuſtitiae propr…ae, he addeth that his puniſhments are no parts of commutative juſtice in reſarciendis & vindicandis injuriis, becauſe here is no reparation of damage, as Thom. 2. 2. q. 108. art. 2.

And Cap. 5. he proceedeth to prove his doctrine, from the Condition of God and the Creature, we being as Children and ſlaves, abſolutely his own; therefore there can be no proper juſtice between us: And he cometh to the great objection, that As free, our Actions are our own, and ſo may merit of Juſtice: and anſwereth No: becauſe the Value of our works to which the Reward is given dependeth on Gods grace, which he freely giveth and conſerveth to us, though as▪ free the actions are of us as Cauſes: And becauſe that Liberty is only a fundamentum of merit, but giveth not the work its Value (or worth;) therefore we cannot make God our Debtor, by any meritorious work of which he himſelf is the author and Cauſe.

And hence he is ſo much againſt this merit of Juſtice, as to inferr, that [Chriſt himſelf could not ſatisfie God according to ſtrict Juſtice properly, by the works of his Humane nature; becauſe the whole Value came from the Godhead it ſelf, ſanctifying the humanity and making his works worthy.

Cap. 6. he proceedeth to ſhew that though it be not true that ſome ſay, that full equal ſatisfaction may be refuſed, it being not the ipſum debitum, and that he proveth that a full equal ſatisfaction to proper juſtice cannot in juſtice be refuſed, and if it be refuſeable, it is unequal; (though it may be equal condignitate meriti quae ad juſtitiam propriè non pertinet;) Yet even from Gods promiſe it ſelf, it is no obligation of proper juſtice, that is on God to us. Confuting Sotus that ſaith that Gods Fidelity is not to be referred to the virtue of verity, but properly belongeth to commutative Juſtice.

If this be not enough, Diſput. 86. he cometh to the other branch, Whether God have diſtributive Juſtice to us? and denyeth this alſo in proper ſence. And proveth it by the authority of Bonavent. in 4. d. 46. art. 2. q. 1. ad 1. Scotus qu. 1. Durand. ib. q. 1. & in 2. d. 23. q. 2. num. 5. Palud. in 4. d. 46. q. 1. a. 1. Gabriel ſupplem. in 4. d. 49. q. 4. a. 3. dub. 3. Alex. 1. p. q. 39. in 1. & Thom. &c. & ex Anſelm. & Ariſtot.

Cap. 3. he proveth it by many Reaſons. Yet Cap. 4. granteth that Juſtice diſtributive is in God, ſecundum quandam rationem generalem, non autem ſecundum propriam; concluding, Diſtinguendum eſt; Aut enim Propriè opponitur Metaphoricè, aut opponitur Communiter: ſi priori modo, Deo Propriè convenit Juſtitia diſtributiva; ſi poſteriori, non convenit.

If in all this you can juſtifie this Jeſuite and all the Schoolmen who he ſaith agree with him, from giving too little to humane merit, and Gods Juſtice, I ſuppoſe few Proteſtants will accuſe him of giving too much.

But yet this Jeſuite elſewhere is one of the greateſt defenders of merit, for all that he ſaith in the words recited.

Do you mean the Name or Thing? If the Name 1. Sure you will not make that a matter of much quarrel: 2. If you do, you muſt quarrel alſo with all the ancient Fathers; even with Auguſtine who (as Melancthon ſaith, Loc. com. de Lib. arb. of his uſe of the word free-will) doth uſe it throughout all his Volumes. 3. And if foreign be well tranſlated Worthineſs or Merit, you muſt quarrel with Chriſt and his Apoſtles alſo, (of which before.)

But Aquinas his followers uſe the word Merits in a worſer ſenſe, and many a volume they have written partly to aſſert it and defend it.

I hope you your ſelf would write to defend Gods retributive Judgement, and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently ſeek him, Heb. 11. 6. If you would let an Infidel carry it, that pleadeth that obedience and patience have no Reward, the Chriſtian cauſe is little beholden to you. Juſtice, Reward and Merit are Relatives in their ſence; and you muſt deny All or none: For nothing can be Rewarded but a Rewardable act, which they mean by meritorious, (as nothing can be Puniſhed, but a real or imputed ſault; Poena and Culpa being ſo related alſo:) Though as Affliction may be without the commerit of culpability, ſo a meer Gift may be without Laudable merit. And Judicial Juſtice is the virtue of equal Judicial retribution, according to laudable or culpable actions.

But what Aquinas and his followers hold, it's eaſie to ſee in himſelf, in Cajetan, in Ferrarienſis and abundance ſuch: I will now turn you but to ſuch an Epitomizer as Carbo, (or Vignerius,) where it's ſooneſt found. Carbo 1. 2. q. 21. art. 4. ſaith [Actus humani habent rationem meriti & demeriti per comparationem ad Deum; Quia omnes actus ſunt referribiles in Deum ut eſt ultimus …inis, & ut regi… communitatem univerſi, & ità debet eis pro juſtitia retribuere; aliàs non haberet univerſi procurationem. 2. Homo quantum in ſe eſt, aliquid ſubtrahit vel exhibet Deo, cum ſervat, vel non ſervat ordinem à Deo conſtitutum. 3. Homo ſic movetur à Deo ut Inſtrumentum, ut etiam moveat ſeipſum; & ideo meretur & demeretur. 4. Homo non ordinat ſe totum ad rempublicam, ſecundum omnia ſua; & ideo non omnes ejus Actus ſunt meritorii reſpectu reipublicae: ſed totus ordinatur ad Deum, reſpectu cujus omnis actus eſt meritorius vel demeritorius.

So that here is a meriting of God in the ſame ſenſe as there is a demeriting and a meriting of God as the Rector of the Univerſe: not for any real profit to God, but for a free referring all our actions to him as the end, and keeping the order he hath conſtituted in the World, & quantum in nobis with a loving and honouring mind returning to him that which is his own. And do you deny any of all this?

No, not the Matter, but this is not to be called Merit.

If you will needs be the Maſter of Language, openly profeſs then that it is the Name that you contend about.

Indeed Aquinas defendeth that which Vaſquez ſeemeth to deny, that in God there is Diſtributive, though not Commutative Juſtice (quia à nullo accipit.) And that though God do all according to the good pleaſure of his will, yet he doth all things Righteouſly, becauſe his Will is the Rule of Juſtice, and he willeth what his Wiſdom dictateth. And that he giveth himſelf his Due, in that he doth all to the glorifying of his goodneſs: and he giveth the creatures their due, in that he ordereth one for another, as its end, and the parts for the whole: yet he is not called a Debtor to any, becauſe all are ordinated to Him: which Juſtice is called, The Condecency of his Goodneſs. And is there any thing to be blamed in all this? I am ſure that Engliſh ears are ſo uſed to hear that God is Juſt, yea, that the Glory of his Juſtice is a great End of his Government, that good men will hardly endure you to deny it: Though yet through prejudice they hardly digeſt the name of that Merit or Rewardableneſs which is the object of that Juſtice; becauſe of other mens abuſe of the word, and ſome mens hard interpretation of it. But God the Righteous Judge will give the Crown of Righteouſneſs (2 Tim. 4. 8.) not according to Names and Logical Notions, but mens works.

But are other Jeſuits of Vaſquez's mind, or many other Schoolmen of Aquinas his opinion? We commonly ſuppoſe them to give more to Merit.

There are many School Doctors ſo ſtrict herein, that they will not grant that there is any ſuch thing properly as Legal or Governing Juſtice in God. Ruiz citeth for this Argentin. 4. d. 46. q. 1. a. 1. Baſſolis ibi q. 1. Brianſon in 4. q. 8. cor. 3. ſol. 152. ſaith [Nullus fidelium fuit ita fatuus quod quaereret ſi peccator poſſit dare aliquid condignum, vel aequivalens gratiae Dei] ſpeaking of Commutative Juſtice; But Ordinative Juſtice (which is that which we call Governing) only he defendeth in the caſea. 1. Suarez (a Jeſuite) de Juſt. Dei ſect. 4. n. 8. Peſant. 1. p. q. 21. a. 1. diſp. 1. concl. 2. But he thinketh that they differ but in words from others that aſſert Gods Legal Juſtice (vid…licet Scotus, Sotus, Rubellus, Lorca, Navarret.) Yet all agree, that God is (in ſome ſenſe) Juſt. And Ruiz ſaith that Suarez (paſſim) maintaineth that Gods Promiſes are but naked aſſertions, by which he declareth his will to give the benefit. And Durandus 2. d. 27. q. 2. n. 15. faith that Gods promiſes ſignifie not any obligation, but the meer diſpoſition of Gods liberality. And Greg. Arim. 1. d. 17. q. 1. a. 2. ſaith, that the Crown of Righteouſneſs is not a debt, but only of Gods free ordination. And Marſil. 2. q. 18. a. 4. abſolutely denyeth, that God is a Debtor, or doth any otherwiſe accept mens deſerts, than by the free diſpoſition of a gift. Scotus holdeth our acts are called Merit as relating to Gods free Covenant or Promiſe to reward them, and not otherwiſe, but he abſolutely denyeth yet that God is thereby made our Debtor, 4. d. 46. Major. 2. d. 27. not only followeth him, but ſaith, God may deny Glory to good works; (but he meaneth as the reſt.) Richard. 2. d. 27. q. 3. a. 2. ad 3. ſeemeth to deny even Debt upon the title of promiſe. Bon…vent. 2. d. 27. a. 2. q. 3. ſaith but that God is quodammodo, in ſome ſort obliged to glorifie them that love him. Ruiz who is againſt all this, and maketh Gods Promiſes to be proper promiſes and Covenants, and more than bare aſſertions, and that God is become a kind of Debtor by his Promiſe (and ſo it is not his Veracity only that is our ſecurity, as Suarez thinketh) yet holdeth, that It is but the Things promiſed that are Due or obliged to us, and that Gods obligation is properly to Himſelf: that he hath indeed true Governing or Legal Juſtice, but tanquam objectum Formale & primarium reſpicit univerſaliſſimum bonum & praeſtantiſſimum quod eſt Ipſe: & tanquam Materiale & ſecundarium objectum reſpicit univerſale bonum totius mundi conſtantem ex omnibus creaturis, quod praeponit particularibus bonis ſingularum creaturarum. Indeed he ſaith, that this Juſtice in God, is that [Quae ſolo natur… lumine demonſtrari poteſt: ac proinde nullam ſupponit liberam Dei promiſſionem aut pactum, nullumque ſupernaturalem concurſum aut gratiam.] But this is meer confuſion by ambiguous words. Theſe men talk as if they conſidered not, that Creation was a free act of God, and made man a Law in the Nature of himſelf and the circumſtant creatures; And in this Law of Nature is a ſignification of Gods will to do good to the good, and reward the obedient, and this is a Natural promiſe. There could be no obedience, and ſo no merits, were there no Law: And if there be a Law of Nature, (and ſo God even by making us Rational free Governable Creatures was himſelf our Governour), theſe things ſuppoſed to be done by the very act of Creating, it is a contradiction to ſay that God is our Governour, and not a Juſt Governour, (being perfect as he is God) or to be Juſt, and yet not Reſolved to uſe the obedient better than the diſobedient. To be Governour, is to be the Orderer of Moral Agents: And what Moral Order is there, where the good and bad are not differenced in retributions? But the Papiſts conceits of all Promiſes to Adam and his merits being meerly ſupernatural, confound them in many ſuch diſpu…ati…s.

But do they not hold that a man may merit the remiſſion of his own ſins? (yea, and of the ſins of others?) and juſtification alſo?

Let Medina anſwer you in 12. q. 113. a. 1. p. 651. [Ad authoritates ſonantes quod non meremur Remiſſionem peccatorum nec vero juſtificationem, non oportet ſatisfacere: Nam omnes convenimus, in hanc ſententiam Catholicam & irrefragabilem, quod non meremur remiſſionem peccatorum.—ut Auguſtin. Nulláne ſunt merita juſtorum? Sunt plane quia juſti ſunt. ſed ut juſti fierent, merita non fuere.] None merit Remiſſion or Juſtification, with them.

Not by merit of Condignity; but they ſay, that by merit of Congruity a man may merit Remiſsion and Converſion and Juſtification.

Medina ibid. p. 652. [Sed cum Meritum de Congruo non innitatur Juſtitiae, ſed Congruenti…, proprie appellationem meriti non meretur.] And ſo ſay many others of them.

But at leaſt they hold that we may prepare our ſelves for Juſtification or Converſion without Grace, or ſpecial Grace.

Preparatory Grace is not the ſame that the Grace to which it prepareth us: But let the ſame Medina anſwer you, q. 109. p. 592. Deus expectat noſtrum conſenſum (inquit Pelagius) ut nos convertat: ergo ex parte voluntatis noſtra eſt pr…paratio ad gratiam ſuſcipiendam. Sed h…c ſententia eſt haeretica & contra Scripturas & Concilia; Veritas Catholica eſt quod Gratia Juſtificans datur ſine meritis, & quod nemo ſe valet ad …am praeparare ſine auxilio ſpeciali. Et p. 593. Ultima diſpoſitio ad gratiam ad quam infallibiliter ſe quitur Gratia, non habetur ex facultate naturae, ſed tantum dono Dei ſpeciali. Do you ſay any more againſt Preparation for Grace without Grace, or againſt mans power to prepare himſelf? or againſt merit than all this?

But ſure Luther and his fellow Reformers had never ſo much inveighed againſt the Papiſts in the point of Works, Merits and Juſtification, if they had all taught no worſe than theſe which you have cited; There are ſure many others that ſay worſe.

No queſtion but the Ignorance of the Prieſts was ſo great, and the carnal ends ſo powerful with covetous proud men, which were ſerved by the abuſe of the Doctrine of Merits and Good Works, that multitudes of ſuch did ordinarily abuſe it: If all Proteſtants taught the Proteſtant Doctrine uncorruptly, we ſhould not have had ſo many differences and diviſions as we have had; nor would one condemn another as you do us.

But though the old Schoolmen might mean better, thoſe that Luther had to do with, did ſure ſpeak much worſe.

I tell you, the Carnal and Ignorant ſort of Prieſts and Fryers did each man talk according to his model, and ſo do all Sects: Few had the Wit and Skill to open aright the common Doctrine: But 1. Our Dr. Field (of the Church) undertaketh to prove, that (excepting the tyrannical Papal faction, and the carnal and ignorant that ſerved their ends, and by violence bore down the reſt) the chief of the Doctors in the Church of Rome it ſelf, did hold the great Doctrines which the Proteſtants againſt the Papiſts do aſſert. 2. To tire you now with no more, I will cite but two of Luthers own adverſaries in his dayes. 1. The firſt is the Learned Cardinal Contacenus who lived in the time of Luthers Reformation: Read but his Notes on Luthers Articles, and his Tract. of Juſtification, Free-will and Predeſtination, and you will ſee that he ſaith almoſt as much for what you plead, as you would do your ſelf. I am loth to tire the Reader with the citation of his words at large; Turn to them and read them, and ſee where he differeth from us. I confeſs the man was moderate; but never accuſed as differing herein from the Church of Rome, as in an Article determined of by their Councils: But their Doctors variouſly expreſs themſelves.

The other is Fiſher Biſhop of Rocheſter one of the chief Martyrs of the Roman Cauſe, beheaded by Henry the Eighth for denying his Supremacy in Cauſes Eccleſiaſtical: who in Opuſcul. de fiducia & miſericordia Dei (Printed Colon. 1556.) ſpeaketh as much and plainly for the intereſt of Faith and Mercy and Chriſts Redemption as Proteſtants uſe to do. fol. F. Fide in Chriſtum ſola quis etiam citra quaevis opera juſtificatur. Nam ſi propriis operibus quis juſtificatus fuerit, is habet unde glorietur apud ſe: gloriari enim poteſt de operibus ſuis quibus juſtificatus eſt: Caeterum qui non ſuis operibus, ſed fide juſtus effectus eſt, huic de ſe neutiquam eſt gloriandum, ſed de Deo qui fidem ei dedit qua juſtificatur.—Introducit itaque Scripturam Paulus quae non per opera, ſed per fidem Abrahae juſtificationem imputat; nimirum ut ita non ſibi ſed Deo totam referat gloriam—Ecce quia credidit Abraham, ideo per fidem juſtificatus eſt: Nam ſi per opera ſua juſtitiam fuiſſet conſecutus, jam non gratis ei Juſtitia fuiſſet dat…, ſed magis operum reſpectu.—Si juſtificatio propter opera conferatur, jam ex debito confertur potius quam gratis, hoc eſt, quam per gratiam & ex gratuita Dei liberalitate.—Caeterum è diverſo quando citra opera quis ob id tantum quod credat in Chriſtum qui juſtificat impium, juſtificationem adeptus eſt, jam ſo…a fides ſua illi ad juſtificationem imputatur. Ecce jam hic audis cui jam fides ad juſtitiam imputatur; ei viz. qui non operatur ſed credit in eum qui juſtificat impium ſolâ fide.

Et …ol. G. paſſim. & H. Per fidem in illum ſic expurgaremur, ut ille noſtra peccata ferret, nos ejus juſtitiam aſſequeremur:—Non dicit factum fuiſſe illum Peccatorem, & nos juſtos per illum, ſed illum Peccatum, & nos Juſtitiam Dei: See the reſt—Nec eſt ut quiſquam ſecum haeſitet num pro ſuis peccatis Chriſtus ſeipſum tradiderit: Immo credat, & ſecurus ſit ad eorum ſe catalogum pertinere pro quorum peccatis Chriſtus ſemetipſum donavit: Nam ſi iſtud non crediderit, plane ſejunctus eſt ab eorum conſortio: fides enim ea res eſt, qua nos agglutinamur ita Chriſto, ut meritorum ejus facti ſimus participes: & per hanc conſtituti ſumus una cum eo filii Dei pariter & cohaeredes—fol. I. Hoc tu quiſquis es peccator perſuaſiſſimum habeas, quod ſi reſipueris ac in Chriſtum conſtanter credideris, jam Chriſtum induiſti, jam ejus ſpirit… donatus es, …am denique communem cum illo patrem nactus es—See the reſt. Et fol. I. 5. Nam ſatisfaciente pro nobis hoc potentiſsimo ſanguine, quotquot in Chriſtum credimus à peccatis omnibus abluimur & juſtificamur, inſiti Chriſto, atque in unum cum ipſo ferruminati, ſic ut omnia mala noſtra per ipſum deleta ſint, bon… vero ipſius cuncta nobis effecta ſint communia: Is not this high enough?

Fol. K. L. Is corde accedit quem veteris vitae poenitet—Quare fides in Chriſtum una cum reſipiſcentia te juſtificat ab omn… peccato.

Fol. M. Gratis confertur nobis iſta redemptio; non …llis meritis noſtris—Namque ante quodvis Meritum juſti conſtituimur, nimirum ut inde prodeant opera noſtra juſta: fiunt utique opera noſtra juſta per juſtitiam fidei—Quiſquis igitur peccator fueris (nihil moror quo… quantaque & quam gravia peccata tua fuerint) ſi teipſum vere converteris ad Deum, teque ipſum in ejus miſericordiam totum projeceris, credens Jeſum Chriſtum pro te mortuum, jam haud dubie primam iſtam Juſtificationem adeptus es. Sed cave te fallas, te converſum ſimulans quum non integre convertaris. Is quidem integre convertitur, qui toto corde peccatis renunciat, fiduciam plene ſuam collocans in Deo—What think you of all this? Do you differ from it?

I will not be ſo malignant as to diſown the truth, becauſe a Papiſt ſpeaketh it: But ſtill you ſhall give me leave to believe that ſo many Proteſtants would never have ſaid ſo much againſt their Doctrine in this point, if they had indeed held what theſe words import, which are as much as any Proteſtant herein ſaith. And you your ſelf in your Confeſſion cite abundance of them ſpeaking for mans Merits.

1. I cited them as uſing commonly the term [Merit] which I told you I had rather (becauſe of mens miſunderſtanding) were diſuſed, ſo we could agree of ſome fitter ſafer word. 2. And I told you that one Rom…us fooliſhly pleadeth for Merit in point of Commutative Juſtice, which the moſt reject. 3. And I told you, that the paltry phraſe of Merit [ex proportione operum] is uſed by ſome, and rejected by others: And ſome that uſe it, it's like, have an unſound meaning in it, and others mean but that different degrees of Glory or Reward ſhall be given according to different degrees of holineſs, which Proteſtants approve.

But as I juſtifie thoſe Proteſtants who reprehend the unſound aſſcrtions of any Papiſts Writers, ſo I muſt adviſe you to charge nothing on any Sect or party of men, upon the words of particular men, but what that party owneth: nor to charge men with opinions, becauſe others have ſo done before you, without finding what you charge them with in their own words.

Would you have me ſo uncharitable as to ſuſpect ſo many Proteſtant Writers of Calumny?

1. It is no Calumny to charge that on ſome Papiſts, which thoſe ſome do hold. 2. It is perverſe charity to receive unproved accuſations of others, for fear of ſuſpecting the accuſers of calumny. By that rule all the falſe reports that now fly about in London ſhould be received, if a good man or woman (ſpecially many) have once ſpoken them. 3. And tell me whether you would have others obſerve the ſame rule towards you▪ For inſtance, you may ſee in Tolet (a Cardinal Jeſuit) on the Romans, that he chargeth the Hereticks (as he calleth us) with holding that God doth only Hide or forget our ſins, and not impute them to us, but doth not mortifie them. Whereas we all hold, that he Remitteth actual ſins paſt by Pardoning them as to the puniſhment; but that he mortifieth the preſent habits of ſin, and preventeth the Reign of future ſin (called Moral ſin by them) in ſuch as ſhall be ſaved. Which is the ſame in ſenſe as they hold themſelves. So he chargeth us as holding, that we have no Inherent Righteouſneſs after Juſtification (no not Imperfect) but only Chriſts Righteouſneſs imputed; and that we hold obedience unneceſſary as to our final or continued Juſtification: All which are falſe. And ſhall all the unlearned Papiſts believe this of us, for fear of an uncharitable ſuſpicion of their Teachers? Multitudes of their Writers falſly charge us with theſe ſame errors.

The Papiſts are Lyars, and therefore to be ſuſpected, but ſo are not our Divines.

If once you fall upon ſuch Rules as thoſe (as that Accuſations againſt adverſaries are to be believed without proof, on one ſide and not on the other) Gods Rule againſt receiving evil reports will be caſt out; and Charity and Juſtice will be caſt away; and meer ſiding and ſaction will poſſeſs the place: And then all the queſtion will be, Who are thoſe Accuſers that are to be believed? And if you think that it is your Teachers, the Papiſts that have many more, will think that they have more reaſon to believe them: And … the Anabaptiſts will believe theirs, and the Separatiſts theirs, and the Quakers theirs: and what falſhood and evil will not then be believed againſt all parties? and how odious will they appear to one another, and conſequently all (Chriſtians) to Infidels and Heathens?

A man that is ſet upon a ſodering deſign, may palliate any Hereſie in the world, and put a fair ſenſe on the fouleſt words; but God hateth ſuch cloaking of ſin, and complyance with it.

May not Papiſts, Familiſts, Seekers, Quakers and all Sects ſay the ſame againſt Concord and Complyance with you?

I pray you tell me what you think of theſe following words, before you know who wrote them; and take heed what you ſay of them, leſt you ſtrike you know not whom.

[Queſt▪ How is Juſtification free, ſeeing faith and repentance are required to it? Anſw. There are two anſwers given; One is from Auguſtines doctrine Epiſt. 105. the ſumm is, As Juſtification is taken incluſively, taking in Faith and Repentance as its beginning, it is free, becauſe faith is free: But as it is taken narrowly for Juſtification following faith that is, for Remiſſion of ſin, and Reconciliation with God, it is merited by faith. But the other ſolution I more approve, and it ſeemeth more agreeable to Scripture: to wit, that even Remiſſion of ſin it ſelf and Reconciliation with God, are given freely, no Merit of ours going before, and that neither by faith nor repentance we do merit the gift of this grace: For underſtanding of which, Note, that Faith hath not of it ſelf any efficacy as it is our act, to Remit or Reconcile; but all the Vertue proceedeth from the object it ſelf, that is, Chriſt; who…e Vertue and Merit God hath determined to apply to a ſinner for his juſtification by faith in him: And what I ſay of Faith, I ſay of Repentance, and other diſpoſitions, as in the example of them that looked to the Brazen Serpent, who were healed by looking: not that looking as it was an act of the eye had ſuch a healing force▪ but the effica…y was from the Serpent, which God had appointed for the Ioure. So we ſay▪ of Faith, which hath not in its nature and from its entity any power to Remit and Reconcile, but as the Vertue of Chriſt doth this in believers: And ſo I anſwer, that If Faith juſtified as an act and of it ſelf, Juſtification were not free; But ſo it doth not, but is a Medi…m by Gods good pleaſure, by which the Vertue of Chriſt Juſtifieth believers: therefore faith (or repentance,) make it not l…ſs free▪ …. g. I give a Beggar a gift: He puts forth his hand and taketh it: If one tell me, Thou gaveſt it not freely, becauſe he took it, or elſe had not had it, it were a ridiculous objection: For putting forth the hand doth not of it ſelf bring him a gift: elſe every time that he puts forth his hand it would bring in a gift: But it is from the vertue and bounty of the giver. So is it as to faith and the diſpoſitions by which the vertue of Chriſt and the free mercy of God do give Remiſſion and Reconciliation to believers and diſpoſed perſons: ſo that it taketh not away Chriſts Merit, nor maketh Grace leſs free, that faith or theſe diſpoſitions are aſſerted.

I know not how much men may mean worſe than they ſpeak: but theſe words are ſuch as the beſt Proteſtants uſe.

They are the words (tranſlated) of the aforeſaid Fr. Tolet a Jeſuit and Cardinal on Rom. 3. pag. 157, 158, 159.

But ſtill remember, that by Juſtification they mean the holy effect of the Spirit on the ſoul; and indeed by Remiſſion of ſin, they moſt commonly mean the deſtroying or mortifying ſin within us, and ceaſing to commit the act: And they are dark and confuſed in theſe matters.

But do not Papiſts hold forgiveneſs of deſerved puniſhment?

Yes: but they bring it in diſorderly, and on other occaſions: But if they did not, how could they hold, that any ſin paſt from our childhood till Converſion is Remitted or pardoned? For the Act is paſt as ſoon as done, & factum infectum fieri non poteſt: and ſo ſuch paſt ſins can have no remiſſion, but forgiving the penalty, and healing the effects. And wrangling Papiſts conſider not that this is the Remiſſion that Proteſtants mean, who call their kind of Remiſſion by the name of mortification: And ſo we endleſly quarrel about words, through our unhappy imperfection in the art of ſpeaking, and words being arbitrary ſigns, the world is come to no agreement of their ſenſe.

You confeſs then their confuſed Doctrine, and you cannot excuſe many of their Doctors from groſs error herein.

No, nor many honeſt pious perſons that go for Proteſtants: What Papiſts have more plainly ſubverted the Goſpel by their Doctrine on theſe ſubjects, than many of thoſe called Antinomians have done by the contrary extream? And who can juſtifie all the ſentences and phraſes of many eminent Divines among us? yea, or of many of the moſt wiſe and accurate? For when all are much ignorant, who can ſay, I do not err?

But undoubtedly you will be as bitterly cenſured for theſe your favourable interpretations of the Papiſts in the point of Merit, as if you were half a Papiſt your ſelf, and were but ſuch a Mongrel as Eraſmus, Wicelius, Caſſander, or Grotius, or as if your Conciliatory deſigns would carry you as far at laſt as Grotius, Mileterius, Baldwin, or at leaſt, as Mountague, Guil. Forbes, and ſuch others went. And others will then ſay, that you are juſtly ſerved for writing ſo much againſt Grotius and his followers on this account as you have done, of which Biſhop Bramhall and his Epiſtoler have already told you.

Truth, honeſty and Gods approbation change not as mens intereſts, minds or tongues do: Time will come, that Truth will be more regarded, when Love and Peace are to be revived; unleſs God will forſake this contentious and unrighteous World. And I am ſo near, ſo very near that World, where there is nothing but Truth, Love and Righteouſneſs, and where God is All, and the Fulneſs and felicitating object of holy ſouls, and where the cenſures of men are of no ſignification, that I am utterly unexcuſable, if I ſhould betray the Cauſe of Truth, Love and Concord, to avoid the obloquy of men, who ſpeak evil of the things which they never underſtood.

Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable, Conference 12

p. 263The Twelfth Dayes CONFERENCE. L. A Lutheran: R. A Reconciler.

The Twelfth Dayes CONFERENCE. L. A Lutheran: R. A Reconciler.