The Life of Justification Opened, Appendix · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
By works, which Paul excludeth, is not meant the Merite of Works.
THere is one other Evasion, thought upon to shift by all the Apostles argueings, & yet to maintaine the Interest of Works, as the Cause & ground of justification before God, to wit. That Paul only disputs against a groundless conceite of merite in works; not against the works themselves, but against a Pharisaical sense of merite & worth in their works, whereby they conceived & conceited, that thereby they could satisfie for their sins, & buy & purchase to themselves Justification & Salvation. But against this Evasion, we have these things to say.
1. By merite here must either be understood, that which is called meritum ex condigno, that is, that merite, which ariseth from the due proportion of worth, that one thing hath unto another, in the ballance of equity & justice. And who ever imagine this merite in their works, must dreame of an intrinsick worth in their works, which God, if he do according to justice, cannot but reward with eternal life: or that which is called meritum ex congruo, which floweth not from any inward Condignity in the work, but from a Promise or Covenant, & so it is meritum ex pacto, whereby the reward is not absolutly of grace, but of debt, because of a congruity in the thing, in respect of the Promise & Compact made. Our Adversaries cannot understand this last, when they say, that Paul disputeth against merite, because themselves owne it, when they make works the Condition of the Covenant, & God to have promised justification & life unto our works. Neither are they shy of the word merite it self, as we saw lately from Mr. Baxter. But now, that Paul is not disputing against the merite of works, in the first sense, is manifest from these. (1) The very works required of Adam in the first Covenant, had not in them this intrinsick worth & merite ex condigno, and so the Apostle shall be disputing against that, which never was nor never will be nay, nor cannot be. (2) Then the Apostle saith nothing to disprove justification by the Old Covenant of Works made with Adam, but establisheth that, which who can beleeve? (3) No man, that is right in his wits, can imagine such a thing. And shall we think that the Apostle is disputing against that, which none, but such as are transported with mere ignorance & vanity, will owne, or stand to, in their more sedate & composed thoughts. (4) Even the most proud & vaine person, that is, will joyn the free mercy of God, with all the conceite of merite they have; but this merite ex condigno leaveth no imaginable room for the free mercy of God, in lesse, or more. (5) Paul disputeth not against the merite ex congruo, as separated from the works themselves, whereupon it is founded. As the following Arguments will evince. Therefore far less doth he dispute only against the fond & foolish conceite of the merite ex condigno.
2. It is strange, that the Apostle should dispute against that, which he doth never once mentione, in his dispute, or in his Conclusions. He every where mentioneth works & the Law, & the works of the Law; but no where mentioneth he this merite of works, as the thing he disputeth against, as abstracted & distinguished from the works themselves.
3. And that place, which they think, giveth some countenance unto their imaginations, viz. Rom. 4: 4. Now to him that worketh is the rewasd not reckoned of grace, but of debt, is directly against them: for, there the Apostle sheweth that works are excluded, & all works (for there is no distinction made) are excluded; because, then the reward should be of debt: shewing, that if works have any place, in the matter of justification, debt must have place also; but because debt hath no place, but grace (which two are inconsistent & incompatible) therefore all works are excluded. And to think, that the meaning of the Apostle is, now to him, that worketh, with a conceite of merite, attending his work, the reward is reckoned of debt; is to adde to the word of God, to pervert the Apostles Argument, & to contradict the scope & cohesion of the words; as hath been shown elsewhere, far less can any hence inferre a restriction of works to such only as make the reward of debt: for then the reward might be reckoned to him, that worketh, & yet be reckoned of grace & not of debt, & thus the Apostles Argument, should be manifestly false, & a plaine Paralogisme: which were wickedness & blasphemie to assert.
4. The Apostle excludeth, in as plaine termes, as can be, all the works of the Law: but even such works, as are performed without this fond & groundless conceite of mer…te, are works of the Law, being required & commanded by the Law. Yea the Law never commanded any works with this conceite of merite: And therefore by this opinion none of the works of the Law are excluded.
5. Adam was obliged to give perfect obedience to the Law, without the least thought of meriteing ex condigno thereby: And if no merite or works with a conceite of merite be now excluded, but the merite ex condigno, then is the Covenant of works established by the Gospel. Nay thus, our imperfect works, are made to merite as well ex congruo & ex pacto, justification & life, as Adam's perfect & sinless obedience could have done.
6. The man that hath works, without this conceite of merite, can not be called an ungodly man, no more than Adam could have been called so, while he stood in his integritie: But the justification under the Gospel is of the ungodly, God justifieth the ungodly. Rom. 4: 5. Nor can the worker without this conceite of meriting, be said to be one that worketh not, but beleeveth on him, that justifieth the ungodly: as is manifest.
7. Either the Apostle establisheth works of justification by them, & only condemneth the apprehension of merite in our works: or he excludeth all works, in which men may conceite some merite to lye. If the first be said, then I conceive, the Apostle would have once mentioned this in argueings & conclusions, and not alwayes have mentioned the Law & the works of the Law; for with our adversaries these are separable, and from the one the other can not be inferred: but we see not the least appearance of any such thing in all the Apostles argueings. And if the last be said. We have all we desire, for thus all works shall be excluded, because men can & ignorant persons too oft do imagine & conceite a merite in what they do, though not that merite, which is ex condigno, Yet that which is ex congruo.
8. If the Apostle disput not against works, but against a conceite of merite in works, why doth he not oppose works without this conceite unto this conceite, or to works with this conceite? Why doth he alwayes oppose Faith unto works, & say, we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law? Is works the same with conceite of merite, or with works having this conceite adjointed? and is faith the same with works, or with works without this conceite of merite? Then Adam should have been justified by faith, if he had stood in his state of innocency; for he should have been justified by works without this conceite. But what palpable & manifest perverting of the Scripture & of the works thereof, is this? To take this liberty of expounding the words of the Scripture, is plainly to make nothing of the Scripture, but what we please.
9. Are there no mediums to prove, that there is no merite in our works in reference to justification & Salvation, but such as the Apostle here useth, to exclude works from this Interest? If this had been all, which the Apostle had intended, his saying with Christ. Luk. 17: 10. So lilkewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things, which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants; we have done that, which was our duty to do, had sufficiently confuted that mistake: But the long series of Arguments, with their variety, which the Apostle here useth, manifestly declare, there was some other thing in his eye; and he levelled at some other mark, even that, which he plainly declareth, in his repeated conclusions, viz. That we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, without the works of the Law.
10. Gospel Justification is of Grace. And therefore is not of works: Rom. 4: 4. Ephes. 2: 9▪ 10. And the Apostle cleareth the consequence, because all works have a ground of merite with them, & make the reward of debt & give ground to the worker to boast & to glory before men: thought not before God: for upon these grounds doth the Apostle reject all works, in this affaire; as we see Rom. 3: 27. & 4: 2. Now to say, that the Apostle rejecteth only such works, as men conceite to be meritorious for their intrinsick worth, & not other works, that merite only ex pacto; is to destroy the Apostles Arguments, & to enervat all his discourse; for even works meritorious ex congruo, or ex pacto, will give ground of boasting before men, & make the reward of debt, as we know it would have been, if Adam's Covenant had stood: But whatever works lay the foundation of due debt, they stand in opposition to the way of grace; for grace & debt are not compatible.
11. If any were puffed up with this conceite of the meritoriousness of their works, ex condigno, it could be none beside the proud fantastick Pharisees; nor is there any ground to suspect any other. And if so, why, may we suppose, would the Apostle state a needless controversie, a controversie concerning all both Iewes & Gentiles, when none of the Gentiles, and few, if any of the Iewes, were concerned therein? And why, may we enquire, would the Apostle so laboriously prove both Iewes & Gentiles to be guilty of sin? and why doth he speak of them all, without exception, seing the question did only concerne a few, & a very few, & such, as are never once named in all the dispute? These things look not very probable like.
12. Can we think, that the Galatians, who were seduced by false Teachers, to adjoine to their Christianity, the practice of some jewish Ceremonies, were also carried away with this absurd Phancie, that there was a meritoriousness ex condigno, in all their works? Though there be ground to imagine such a thing; Yet we see the Apostle followeth the same disput against them, that he did, in writting to the Romans, of which no reason could be assigned if this merite was all, he disputed down.
13. We finde it said of the Jewes Rom. 9: 31. that they followed after the Law of Righteousness; and yet by so doing did not attaine unto the Law of Righteousness; because (vers. 32.) it was not by Faith, but as it were by the works of the Law. Now neither were these works of the Law, nor that Law of Righteousness which they were following after, a meer irrational conceite & groundless fancie of a merite in what they did, or of an intrinsick worth, meriting ex condigno the reward they expected. But a groundless apprehension, that their works themselves was the way of their attaining unto life, & therefore they followed that way of works, & would not take the way of faith, but stumbled at that stumbling stone.
14. Then, according to this interpretation, works performed without this conceite of merite, must be God's Righteousness, as works together with this conceite of merite must be our owne: for these two are opposite. Rom. 10: 3. But there is no ground to imagine; that our works performed without this fonde conceit of merite in them, are the Righteousness, for these are not Christ, or his Righteousness: And it is there added vers. 4. for explication of the Righteousdess of God, for Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness, to every one that beleeveth.
15. The Righteousness of the Law is, that the man, which doth these things shall live by them. Rom. 10: 5. Gal. 3: 12. Levit. 18: 5. So that this Righteousness consisteth in mans own doing: and not in a meer irrational apprehension of a merite in what he doth: So that it is not this groundless phancie, that the Apostle is disputing against, but this Righteousness, which is of the Law, because he is labouring to establish by his doctrine, the Righteousness of Faith, which is opposite to & inconsistent with the Righteousness of the Law. And this Righteousness of Faith is not our own personal Righteousness, or obedience performed to the Law without this apprehension & conceite of merite, as is clear from vers. 8, 9, 10, 11. following, & from the whole Gospel.
16. If this be all that the Apostle is disputing down, to wit, justification by works, which we conceite to be meritorious, & not all justification hy works, why did the Apostle adduce the Instance of Abraham, & insist so much upon it, as he doth Rom. 4? Shall we think, that Abraham that holy Patriarch & friend of God, did obey with any such conceite of intrinsick worth, in his obedience? Was he infected with that leaven of Pharisaical pride? And if not, where is the consequence of the Apostles argueing from his practice? Is it a good consequence to say, Abraham was not justified by works performed in sincerity, without pharisaical pride & conceite of merites; therefore we cannot be justified by works, which we conceite to have merite in them: but by such works we can & must be justified, when we conceite no merite in them, but a simple merite ex congruo, or ex pacto? The like may be said of David, who had no conceite of merite in his works, & yet expected not to be justified by them, but looked for free pardon, & for justification through imputed Righteousness. Rom. 4: 6, 7, 8.
17. If the Apostle had been establishing justification by works performed without such a fonde conceite of merite in them; what ground was there for that objection which he preoccupieth Rom. 6: 1. saying. Shall we sin, that grace may abound? The urging of justification by works, could give no shew or apparent ground for this. Neither can any such purpose be in the least seen & observed, in all the answere at large prosecuted Chapters 6. & 7. which is given hereunto. There is not the least hint given of his rectifying of the misapprehensions, that any might have about works, as if they were or could be supposed to be meritorious ex condigno: Nor is there the least ground of surmise laid down, of their being meritorious of justification or of life eternal ex congruo, or ex pacto: but all things sound the contrary way: & life eternal is expresly said to be the free gift of God.
18. Then all that Paul meaned, when he desired to be found of his judge, not having his own Righteousness, which is of the Law, was that he desired not to be found puft up with a pharisaical conceite of the perfection & meritoriousness of his works, as meriteing his justification & life ex condigno, by their intrinsick value & worth. But no such thing appeareth Phil. 3. 9. where he utterly renunceth his own Righteousness, which is of the Law; that is, a Righteousness consisting in his obedience & conformity to the Law: for in opposition to this, he desireth to be found in that Righteousness, which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness, which is of God by faith; & this is some other thing, than his own works, performed without that pharisaical opinion.
19. We are saved by grace, through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast, Ephes. 2: 8, 9. & consequently not of any works, seing all works give ground of boasting. And he meaneth such works, unto which we are created in Christ Jesus, as his workmanship: and which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them vers. 10. Now these works are certainly works done without any vaine conceite of merite: and yet we see, that by these works we are not brought into a state of Salvation.
20. The Apostle excludeth works of Righteousness, which we have done, as opposed to Mercy & grace. Tit. 3: 5, 7. Now grace standeth in opposition to all works, even to works performed without this conceite of merite, as we see Rom. 11: 6. else we must say, that the Apostle there granteth Election to be for foreseen works, performed without a conceite of merite, and nothing must be called works, but what is done with a Pharisaical conceite of merite & intrinsick worth in them, which is absurd.