Confession of His Faith, Chapter 6

Confession of His Faith · Chapter 6

p. 131CHAP. VI.

Whether it be true that the Papists do maintain no other merit than I do, as Mr. Eyre, and Mr. Crandon fearlessly affirm.

SECT. I.

MR. Eyre in his Book against Mr. Woodbridge most confiden…ly affirms that the Pa…ists ascribe no more meritoriousness to Works then I do, no not any of them: Mr. Crandon saith of my Doctrine of Merit thus, pag. 192. par. 1. In general I affirm, there is not to be found any of the most Trentified and deepest branded Papists, that hath in this point spoken more derogatorily of the Grace of God, and more superlatively to the exalting of mans menstruous Righteousness; but contrariwise divers, especially of the more ancient Schoolmen that have spoken more modestly and moderately of both then Mr. Br.

And pag. 190. Can he name any one of the worst Papists or Jesuites that doth attribute merit to mans Works in a higher degree then? or doth not when he hath extolled mans merits salve the Grace of God as finely as himself? Are not his words and theirs about Gods p. 132Grace and mans Merits the same? Doth he add any thing here of his own that he hath not learned of them? Do not Bellarmine and his Brethren speak altogether so fully and more fully, seemingly to vindicate the Grace of God, &c.?

I promised on this occasion to shew you how ill these men deal with the Ninth Commandment, by producing sufficient evidence of the falshood of their speeches: Though I need not do it for any man of reading; yet for the sake of younger scholars I will briefly do somewhat.

What my own Judgement is concerning Merit, I have fully declared: I disclaim the very name, as unfit for our use in this case: Yet I say, Improperly and unfitly and largely, our works may be called Meritorious; not that they may fitly or lawfully be so called: but that the thing is true which is so spoken, though the terms be unfit: and thus all our Divines against the Papists excuse the Fathers: and this is all that ever I held or wrote.

Now that the Papists do ascribe more to, or say more of the merit of works, then I do, I shall leave past question, when I have shewed you, 1. What our writers charge them with, 2. What they say themselves, so that if you will believe either Protestants, or Papists themselves, the case shall be clear.

But before I come to it, I have these two things to premise. 1. I do here confess that Satan took occasion from the false accusations of the men before named, and the unconscionable spleenish Jealousies and Censures of many others, to assault me with a Temptation to a very grievous sin; that is, to have stretcht and rackt the words of the Papists to the utmost that I could, thereby to make them seem more distant from the Protestants then indeed they are, that I might thereby appear to be as distant from them. He thus set upon me to move me to this sin. Thou seest what furious spirits are in many men, and how violent and implacable they are against dissenters, and how little Conscience they make of the vilest slanders; and what firebrands they continue to the poor divided Church. If thou dost not manifest yet a greater distance from Papists, they will brand thee every where as a Papist or as Erroneous and too near them: and though thou little regard this as to thy own name, yet oughtest thou to regard it for the benefit of the Church: For if thy name by these men be blasted, and a Jealousie and Odium raised on thy doctrine, thy Labours will become p. 133unprofitable; and the common people will be deterred from the reading of thy writings, or read them with prejudice; yea and the world will be prejudiced against the truths which thou deliverest, as supposing them to be Poperie, and will neither receive them now from thee, nor hereafter from any other. There is no way therefore to be taken but by making the worst of their sayings, to make the world believe that the Papists are more erroneous and further from us in the doctrine of Merit and Justification then indeed they are.

The Premises were too true, that is, the Antecedent; but the consequence so bad, and the Conclusion so evidently contrary to Gods word, that quickly shewed me that it was from the Tempter.

2. I do therefore now profess, that if Mr. Cr. and Mr. Eyr's words were true, that the Papists give no more to works, nor make them any otherwise Meritorious then I do; I am heartily glad of it, and shall hope that they are so much nearer the Truth and the Reformed Churches then they have been taken to be.

And I do profess that if I knew that the Papists hold every point that I hold, I would not therefore forsake one of them, no more then I will deny God, because the Papists do confess him: but I would be glad that we were unanimous: nor shall the name of Popery, by the grace of God deter me from owning any truth that I know, or from Receiving any that I do not know.

I do also profess, upon a survey of their writings, that many hotbrain'd incendiaries on both sides do perswade the world that our distance is greater in the doctrine of Justification and Merits, then indeed it is: And I do believe that it would be a very useful work of any that write against the Papists on these points, to gather the nominal controversies by themselves, and then let us see all the Real doctrinal differences by themselves, when the verbal differences are laid by, that we may know how far we differ indeed, in the matter, and how far in meer words. To which Purpose Mr. Wo oton d Reconcil. hath said somewhat. For example, seeing they use and obstinately will use, the word Justification for Sanctification, or as including it, which we do not; and seeing we confess that Justification and Remission of sin are either all one, or differing but notionally, or p. 134very little, or that Remission and Acceptance is our Justification; and seeing that we are better agreed with the Papists about the meaning of the word remission of sin then about the word Justification, were it not worth the while to enquire diligently how far we agree and diasgree, about Remission of sin, and that while lay by the notion of Justification?

I do also believe that it is a hainous sin in any man to study to widen the difference, and make it seem greater, then indeed it is: when firebrands have consumed themselves in making havock of Christs Church, it is Healing and Closing in peaceable Consultations, and humble conjunction in enquiring after truth, and covering the tollerable failings of each other, that must Recover the Church if ever it be Recovered, and must find that Truth, that is now lost by contention, and covered in the Ashes and the Ruines which faction and passion have turned some into. Restauration and Healing lies more in uniting and closing, then the Dividing furious party will believe. And even with Papists themselves we must so far endeavour it, as may justifie us before God and men, that the Division is not caused by us, but by them, and that it is not long of us, but of them, that it continueth unhealed.

Yet I still profess, that we must not for love of unity, renounce any of Gods truth, nor subscribe to any known error.

These things premised, I come to tell you what Protestant Divines do charge the Papists with in matter of Merit; that you may see whether it be any more then I assert: Yet I must advertise you, 1. That it is not all the Papists that our ordinary Writers do lay these charges upon: 2. That I undertake not to prove every charge that any Divine shall bring against them, much less to Justifie every angry word, but shall only tell you the charge, and referr you to try and judge of the verity. And to avoid tediousness of transcribing, I shall for most of them, but cite the places in their writings where you may finde their words.

p. 135SECT. II.

1. PErkins (whom I cited to Mr. Eyres) saith thus, The Popish Church placeth merits within men, making two sorts thereof; the merit of the person, and the merit of the work. The merit of the work is a dignity or excellency in the work, whereby it is made fit and enabled to deserve Life-everlasting for the doer. And works as they teach are meritorious two wayes: 1. By Covenant, because God hath given a promise of Reward to them. 2. By their own Dignity: For Christ hath merited that our works might merit. And this is the substance of their Doctrine. Perk. Reform. Cathol. of Merit. Vol. 1. pag. 574, 575. See more Vol. 1. p. 103. 2. c. pag. 187. 2. c. pag. 249. 1. a. p. 341. 1. d. p. 573. 651. 2. b. p. 69. d. &c.

2. Mr. Wotton in his Defence of this Book of Perkins, and this place against Bishop, pag. 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293.Vide & Wotton de Reconcil. Part. 2. l. 2. c. 37. pag. 396, 397, &c. hath much that way. He saith, We charge you, and that truly, without ignorance or slander, and according to your Doctrine of merits, that you need neither Christs merits nor Gods mercies; for so much of your purchase of everlasting life as is made by good Works: For if your works be such as that in the rigour of Justice, they deserve everlasting life, as wages, what need they either Christs blood, or Gods mercy to make them meritorious? The use of Christs blood is to wash away sin: where there is no sin, what should Christs blood do? And pag. 289 This then is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning merits: that the good Works of them that have the first Just…fication, do truly and wholly Deserve everlasting f…licity of God, as wages due to them by Debt, not by Grace. See also the same Mr. Wottons Tryal of the Romish Clergy, pag. 364.

3. Dr. Willet Synops. Papis. of Merit of Works, saith thus, Our Works, say the Papists, are pleasing and acceptable to God, even after the same manner that Christ and h… Works were: Tapper▪ ex Tileman. loc. 11. Err. 14. Again Bellarmin saith, that the good works of the righteous, are properly and verily meritorious of eternal p. 136life, even ex condignô, of Condignity or Worthiness in the highest degree, Bellar. c. 16. and that non solùm ratione pacti, sed ratione operis, in respect of the work as well as of the Covenant or Promise. Again, Bellarmine saith, that the trust which the righteous have in God, ariseth not only of Faith, but springeth also from their merits.

Again, Bellarmine saith, that our confidence ariseth not only from good Works, but that our confidence and trust may be reposed also in our merits. See him on Rom. 3. and 4.

But I perceive, should I go on to cite the words of others, to the same purpose in so well known a case, it would be tedious to my self and to the Reader, I will therefore only cite the places of some more, and that but one of many that might easily be cited.

4. See Jewels defence of Apolog. pag. 77. 319. 331. 321. 322. 323. &c. Edit. Printed, 1567.

5. See Calvins Institut. lib. 3. c. 15. Sect. 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. Et c. 14. Sect. 12, 13, 14. Et alibi passim.

6. Chemnitius Exam. Concil. Trident. (8^o. Printed 1606. pag. 195. 232. 274. 282. 354. 169. 160. 336. 195. 196. 200. 201. Et frequ.

7. Chamier Tom. 3. l. 14. de operibus, cap. 1. per totam pag. (mihi) 455. &c.

8. Davenant de Justitiâ habituali & actuali cap. 53. pag. 570. 571. 603. Et passim.

9. Pelargus Jesuitism. loc. 9. pag. 50, 51, 52, 53. & loc. 10. fol. 54, 55, 56. & in Math. 25.

10. Junius Lect. in Daniel. Tom. operum 1. pag. (mihi) 1204, 1205. &c. & Tom. 2. p. 1299. & passim.

11. Paraeus in Genes. pag. (mihi) 1401. 1402. 1293. 1294. Idem in Rom. 3. & 4. frequ. ut pag. (mihi) 591. A. 795. B. 185. D. 229. D. 230. 232. 238. 1142. 1018. Idem in Galat. p. 114. 154. 293. Et in Corinth. (Impress. Genu. 1614) p. 98 99. 27. 50. 100. 92. 157. 426. 442. & in Hebr. p. 329. 545. 556. 136. Idem Bellarmin. Castigat. de Justif. & operib. per tot.

12. Rivet. Catholic. Orthodox. Tom. 2. Tract. 4. Qu. 15. pag. 310. ad p. 322. & Qu. 17. Sect. 7. Idem in Disput. de satisfact. & merit. & saepissimè in Genes. & Exod.

13. Zanchius, Vol. 3. Compend Relig. loc. 11. de Justific. & operib. p. 767. &c. et alibi passim.

p. 13714. Fulk on Rhem. Testam. in Math. 25. Sect. 1, 2. Rom. 8. Sect. 5. Rom. 11. Sect. 4. 1 Cor. 3. Sect. 2. 2 Cor. 1. Sect. 1. 2 Tim. 4. Sect. 4. Luk. 20. Sect. 1. Heb. 13. Sect. 8. Col. 1. Sect. 2. 2 Thes. 1. Sect. 52. Apoc. 3. Sect. 2.

15. Mornaeus Plessiacus of the Mass, lib. 3. cap. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. fol. 341. to 388.

16. Sadeel, advers. human. satisfaction. pag. 201. Et per tot. Et de uncio Christi sacrificio contra missam per totum: Et adversus monachos Burdegalenses passim.

17. Camero (operum Genu. edit. fol.) pag. 46. 47. 44. 170. 616. 847.

18. Vossius Thes. de operum meritis edit. Oxoniens. pag. 65. & sequent.

19. Scultetus Medulla Patrum pag. 1201. in oper. Basilii.

20. Johan. Crocius, de Justificat. Disput. 5. & 7, 8, 9, & 10. per totas.

21. Guilielm. Rivet, de Justificat. Vindic. pag. 260, 261. &c.

22. Sam. Maresius, Colleg. Theolog. pag. 298, 299, &c. Idem Exeges. Catech. p. 344. fully.

23. Altingius, Problem. Theolog. pag. 210, 211, 212. Idem explicat. Catech. pag. 298. Idem Loc. Commun. part. 1. 236. & part. 2. 689. &c.

24. Cloppenburgius, Syntagm. select. Disput. pag. 530. 531.

25. Pemble of Justification. Sect. 2. cap. 1.

If I thought these were not enough, or that number would satisfie, I would so far conquer my impatiency as to add the like from Luther▪ Melancthon, many Churches Confessions, Bucer, Martyr, Bullinger, Musculus, Zuinglius, Illericus, Wigandus, Hemmingius, Hunnius, Brochmond, Polanus, Wallaeus, Polyander, Thysius, Trelcatius, Laurentius, Rivius, Molinaeus, Triglandius, Grynaeus, Danaeus, Piscator, Vrsine, Gualter, Lud. Crocius, Conc. Bergius, Gomarrus, Paulus Ferrius, Sharpius, Beza, &c. Cartwright, Whitaker, Reignolds, Twiss, Field, with multitudes more, who all affirm that the Papists do hold that Doctrine of merits, which as to the name and thing, I do constantly disclaim. These that I have named, I have not only seen and known that they so speak, but have them at hand by me to cite, were it useful, (all save one or two) with many more.

p. 138SECT. III.

IF our own Divines are to be credited, then I have proved that Mr. E. and Mr. Cr. are not. I come now to give you the testimonies of the Papists themselves concerning their own Faith.

1. Bellarmine (Printed Ingolst. 1605. 8^o.) pag. 2567, 2568, &c. cap. 17. lib. 5. de Justificat. (which I cited already to Mr. E.) determineth the Question, Ʋtrum opera bona sint meritoria ex condigno ratione pacti tantum? aut ratione operis tantum? aut ratione utriusque? Media (inquit) sententia nobis videtur probabilior, quae docet opera bona Justorum meritoria esse vitae aeternae ex condigno, ratione pacti & operis simul; non quidem quod sine pacto, vel Acceptione non habeat opus bonum proportionem ad vitam aeternam; sed quia non tenetur Deus acceptare ad illam mercedem opus bonum, quamvis par & aequale mercedi, nisi conventio interveniat. Quam sententiam conformem esse non dubitamus Concilio Tridentino & principibus Theologorum S. Thom. S. Bonavent. & aliis. pag. 2570. Iam vero opera bona justorum meritoria esse vitae aeternae ex condigno, non solum ratione pacti & acceptationis, sed etiam ratione operis ita ut in opere bono ex gratia precedente sit quaedam proportio & aequalitas ad praemium vitae aeternae probatur his argumentis. And so he annexeth 7 A…guments to prove the Proportion; and in answering Durandus, saith, that as the seed naturally contains the tree, Sic etiam charitas Dei in corde diffusa, morali meritoriaque virtute gloriam ipsam continet. And the 18. Chap. he bestoweth in answering the objections made against this. And lib. 1. c. 21. especially pag. 2208, 2209. he laboureth to prove potius fundari meritum de Congruo in aliqua dignitate operis, quam in promissione.

If I should add no more, me thinks that mans face should blush (whether Mr. Cr. Mr. E. or his Patrons who said the like) that affirmed that Bellarmine himself gave no more to works then I; and that he owned no other merit then I, and that (as Mr. E. saith) the Papists owned no merit, but ex pacto; nay that no Papists p. 139went further in this then I. Look one of these men in the face after the reading of this, and see whether they blush not, if they have any remnants of modesty left.

2. **Caiet. in Mat. 5. fol. (mihi) 28. Merces non ex Gratia datur sed ex Iustitia redditur pro opere, &c.Matt 5Caejetan not only saith as much as Bellarmine in 1, 2. qu. 114. art. 3. but is opposed by Bellar. himself as going too far, as holding opera bona Justorum esse meritoria vitae aeternae ex Condigno, ratione operis, etiamsi extaret nulla Divina Conventio. Vid. Bellarm. de Justific. l. 5. c. 17. p. 2567.

3. Dominicus à soto (though he deny all merit de Congruo) is of the same Opinion with Caietan lib. de Natur. & Grat. cap. 7.Vid. quid Paulus Ferius de Vasquez loquitur in Scholastic. Orthodox. c. ult. & Chamier de Merit. operum. and is with him cited and opposed by Bellarmine.

4. Vasquez is as bad or worse, and more laborious in it, then they in 1, 2. disp. 218. & 204. cap. 4. & 1. & 208. n. 5, 6. & d. 210. c. 4. labouring to prove that opera Justorum ex sola ingenita Dignitate meritoria sunt (viz. quia facta à justo per gratiam) so also in 2. sent. dist. 27. & in 1, 2. disp. 214.

5. See Suarez at large D. l. 12. 33, 34, 35, 36.

6. Aquinas in 12. qu. 14. art. 1. c. & art. 3. c. Si consideretur secundum operis substantiam, & secundum quod procedit ex libero arbitrio sic non potest ibi esse Condignitas propter maximam inaequalitatem: sed est ibi Congruitas propter quandam aequalitatem proportionis. Si autem loquamur de meritorio secundum quod procedit ex gratia Spiritus sancti, sic est meritorium vitae aeternae ex condigno: sic enim valor meriti attenditur secundum virtutem Spiritus sancti, moventis nos in vitam aeternam. &c. Vide etiam respons. ad 1^m. 2^d. & 3^m. ibid. & Art. 8. & 9.

7. Romaeus de libertate & necessit. operum Veritat. 22¹. Si doctioribus creditur illud dicitur esse Meritum de Condigno cui merces reddenda est secundum Justitiae debitum: ita sanè ut inter meritum & mercedem attendatur aequalitas quantitatis, quemadmodum in Commutativa Justitia, put a tantum quantum. De congruo autem dicitur quis mereri, cum scilicet inter meritum & praemium non paritas quantitatis, sed Proportionis attenditur. This is high indeed.

8. Peresius de Traditionibus parte tertiâ de sacrific. Altaris p. 141. dicit, 4. Quod Crimina & peccata his sacrificiis delentur: non tantum ejus qui communicat sed ejus pro quo offertur & representatur modo impedimentum nonponaet; & hoc quidem ex vi ipsius institutionis & excellentiae illius qui in eis mysteriis offertur, & Merito rei oblatae, p. 140quod scholastici dicunt ex opere operato. Valent ergo sacrificia oblata ad remissionem criminum & peccatorum id est reliquiarum quae in nobis remanserunt post indulgentiam Culparum. Et part. 1. page 108. Conjungimus Contritionem & satisfactionem qua perfectè Deo Reconciliantur peccatores per bona & poenalia opera.

9. Costerus Enchirid. cap. 7. de Meritis bonor. op. page (mihi) 286. Observa…dum est scripturam quando de Retributione loquitur, tade… verborum formula uti cum agit de Justo reddendis praemiis, qua utitur cum improbis supplicia denunciat, ut clarè perspiciatur, non minus nos bonis actionibus aeternam foelicitatem, quam malis & flagitiosis promereri aeterna supplicia. Et p 288. Ita opera nostra propter Christum, qui nobis ceu membris utitur, & spiritum sanctum inhabitantem, & per nos operantem, digna sunt coelesti praemio. Et p. 289. 2. Intelligimus ex dictis rationem haenc Justitiae qua Deus aeternam vitam Justis in mercedem operum donat, ad utramque quidem Justitiae partem aliquo modo pertinere. In ea tamen magis elucere distributivam, quae personarum dignitatem intuetur, quam Commutativam quae operum aequabilitatem considerat. So that he takes the reward to be partly, though not principally according to Commutative Justice. And page 294. 3. Considerantur ut effect a à filio Dei, atque inhabitante Spiritu sancto, qua Consideratione aequalitas invenitur inter opera & praemium, verumque meritum atque Justitiam.

10. W. Byshop against Perkins Reformed Cathol. of Merit saith, Austin saith, That the Reward cannot go before the Merit, nor be given to a man before he be worthy of it, for (saith he) what were more unjust then that? and what is more just then God? l. de. mor. Eccles. c. 25. where he concludeth that we must not be so hardly as once to demand, much less so impudent as to assure our selves of that Crown, before we have Deserved it. Seeing then the Protestants by this their proctor, renounce all such merit and desert, they must needs also renounce their part of heaven, and not presume so much as once to demand it, &c. and much more after on the same point; making a Geometrical Proportion necessary, and to be in mans Merits, though not an Arithmetical.

11. Bailius Catechis. part. 4. qu. 17. ut in Riveti Cathol. Orthod, To. 2. p. 312, 313. (I will not tire the Reader in vain with reciting the like words of each Author.)

12. Lindanus in Panoplia lib. 3. cap. 20. & sequentibus.

p. 14113. Salmeron ad Galatas disputat. 15, 16, 17, 18.

14. Beoanus Tract. Compend. ex Manuali lib. 1. cap. 19. de bonis operibus.

15. Maldonatus Disput. de Sacrament. Tom. 2 p. (mihi) 85, 95, 96, 98, 189. Idem in Luke 17. 7, 8. & saepissime in Mat. & Mar. & Luke, &c.

16. Genebrard in Psal. 18. ver. 13. p. 107. & in Psal. 142▪ p. 894. & page 741.

17. Pererius in Rom. cap. 6 Disput. 10 num. 53.

18. Joh. Arboreus Theosoph. lib. 2. cap. 17 fol. 31, 32, 33.See how Mr. Wotton Defence of Perkin. page 288, 289. charges Andradius.

19. Pintus in Ezek. 37. page 422, 423, &c.

20. Lombard sent. lib. 2 dist. 27. C. D. E. F. & dist. 11. D.

21. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 15. qu. 5. p. 1. art. 1. & 2 sent. dist. 27.

22 Marsilius in 2. qu. 18 art 3. Concl. 2. & 3.

23. Franscisc. de Daventria Exeges. Contr. Confess. August f. 46.

24. Gregor. de Vaelentia in Thom. Tom. 2. disp. 8. qu. 6. & de Gratiâ Divinâ cap. ult.

25. Albertus in 1. dist. 41. art. 2… ad 2^m & ult.

26. Gabr. Biel. in 3. sent. dist. 27. & in 4 sent. dist. 14. q. 1, 2

27. Ferrariensis contra Gentes cap. 149. dub. ult.

28. Adrian Quodlib. 7. qu. 4.

29. Almain in 2. & in 4. frequ.

30. Nicol. de Orbellis in 2. sent. dist. 27. just as Aquinas he answers, and out of Ricardus.

31. All the Sorbonists in Artic Parisiens. à facult. S. Theol. Pariens. determinat. art. 4, &c. Certâ & firmâ fide credendum est, peccatorem non solum fide, sed ex operibus Justificari, &c. Opera merentur vitam aeternam & per consequens justificant hominem: Nos damnamur propter mala opera, ergo Iustificamur propter bon…. Vid. Calvini hoc artic. Confut.

32. Pennottus Propugnacul. Libertat. human Lib. cap. 13. n. & 19 per totum: where he labours to prove that both Justification and perseverance are Merited de Congruo: and answers Dominic. a soto, who contradicteth that Merit.

33. Caprelous Defens. Theol. Tho. lib. 2. dist. 27. goes the same way as Aquinas, and speaks as exactly to the point as any of them, maintaining Meritum Gloriae de Condigno ex Proportione Geometricâ etsi non Arithmeticâ, vel ex aequalitate proportio…is etsi non Qu…ntitatis; and laboriously answers Durandus.

p. 14234. Sayrus Clavi Reg. li. 10. Tract. 1. cap. 2. §. 4, & 6. maintains satisfaction to God, and that it is principally to God, as distinct from Restitution which is to men only, and not to God. And this satisfaction they refer commonly to commutative Justice. Aquin. 3. qu. 85. art 3. sotus li. 4 de Instit. q. 6. art. 1. Martin. Ledesma 2, 4. q. 18. art. 1. dub. 15. concl. 4. Navar. in Manual. cap. 17. num. 6. Pet. Navar. li. 1. de restitut. cap. 2. num. 22. And Sayrus concludes that satisfaction is made even in Purgatory, if Care be not taken in this life that the heirs of the deceased make Restitution: though if they fail not through his default but their own, he takes it for a fable, that the soul in purgatory must satisfie. So Adrian. Quodlib. 11. diffic. 6. V. sylvest. verb. Testamentum: 2. quest. 9. sotus li. 4. de Instit. qu. 6. art. 1. ad 1. in fine. Martin. Ledesm. 2, 4. q. 18. art. 1. dub. 15. concl. 4. page 232. Col. 2. Navar. in Man. cap. 17 numer. 68. Pet. Navar. li. 1. de Restit. cap. 2. num. 23. & lib. 4. cap. 4. dub. 12. num. 75. Henriquez. li. 1. de poenit. cap. 6. §. 1. in annot. liter. A. Mich. Salon. in 2. 2. qu. 5.See that gross saying of Tapperus cited by Chamier de Merito li. 14. c. 1. §. 16. de Dominio art. 5. in princip. & in qu. 62. art. 1. in fine Gregor. de Valent. in 2. 2. disp. 5. qu. 6. punct. 2. Ludovic. Lopez. li. 1. instruct. confes…. cap, 121. ut a Sayro Cit.

35. Estius in sent. lib. 3. distin. 27. §. 5. per tot. page 85, 86. & li. 2. p. 376.

36. Joseph. de Voisin de Lege Divina, cap. 8. pag. 57, 58. ex Sepher Ikkarim Judaeo

37. Raymundus de sabundis Theolog. Natural. Titul. 82. page 126. where he saith that praemium debetur de Jure Naturae, &c.

38. The Rhemists on the N. Test. frequently: as Luke. 20. Mat. 25. Rom. 8. Rom. 11. &c.

39. Viguerius Institut. cap. 9. §. 3. vers. 1. & 3, 4. fol. 102. delivereth (as he useth to do in other things) the same as Aquinas (collecting together his dispersed sayings.)

40. Lastly, the Council of Trent, Session 6. though they purposely went lower then many of their Doctors formerly had done, yet say far more then ever I said: Yea Bellarmine (ubi supr.) affirmeth that they judged as he doth.

To name more were more easie then useful: He that will be at the pains to search the cited places of these, shall soon find, how far the Fear of God was from acting in the souls of Mr. Eyre and Mr. Cr. when they affirmed that the worst of the Papists do give no p. 143more to works then I, nor hold them Meritorious any otherwise then I, who wholly disclaim the very fitness of the Name, much more the proportion of our works to the Reward.

Let those Readers that know it not already, observe also that the Papists very much differ about the doctrine of merit among themselves: Insomuch as our Moderate and Learned Divines, do even in the point of Merit of Condignity, take the difference to be but about the very name of Merit, between us and some of them, and not the Thing. Yet even these, whom our Divines use to cite as on our side, do give more, in words at least, to mans works then ever I durst do: For they think the name of merit to be fit, and so do not I: (besides that in their doctrine of satisfactions they go yet further and use more unseemly terms then in the former.)

The Divines that give least to Merit, as denying Condignity, are Scotus, Vega, Gerson, Stella, Cassander, &c. Yet these go further then I dare follow them.

1. Scotus affirmeth that Meritum est Causa Instrumentalis respectu praemii, & per meritum acquiritur praemium. I take mans works to be no Causes of the Reward, as such, nor to be Merits. (Vid. Scot. in 1. sent. dist. 17. q. 2. &) in 4. sent. dist. 1. q. 5. fol. (mihi) 13. p. 2. he saith, hoc absolutè conceditur. Et in 4. sent. dist. 14. qu. 2. fol. 124, 125. Attritio est Dispositio sive meritum de Congruo ad deletionem peccati mortalis & inductionem Justitiae, &c. et postea: in illo instanti infunderetur Gratia, quia praecessit, meritum sufficiens de Congruo, &c. quare non Justificabitur in ultimo instanti, &c. Vide etiam in 4. sent. dist. 2. q. 1. fol. 19. & dist. 13. q. 2. fol. 118. K. & dist. 22. q. 1. art. 2. fol. 169. & dist. 49. q. 1. fol. 263.

2. Vega himself saith in Opusc. de Iustific. q. 7. prop. 4. Fides & alia bona opera, quibus disponimur ad gratiam gratum facientem, Meritoria sunt ex Congruo ejusdem gratiae & nostrae Iustificationis. Et in Defens. Concil. li. 8. c. 8. Possunt peccatores fide, spe, dilectione, eleemosynâ, poenitentiâ & martyrio & aliis bonis operibus Mereri ex Congruo gratiam Iustificationis. Where did ever I say this much?

3. Vide & Alvarez de Auxiliis, saying too much, disp. 59. &. 60. per tot.

4. Vide & stellam in Luc. cap. 17. page 222.

p. 1445. Gerson saith, de Descript. Terminor. Meritum (in genere) est actus laudabilis factus ad bonum alterius, verè, vel Interpretative, vel reputative pro quo exigitur praemium: dicitur reputativè propter Deum, qui bonorum nostrorum non eget. Et meritum vitae aeternae est actus laudabilis, &c. pro quo Dignificat Deushominemad vitam aeternam. He saith also, Operum part. 3. fol. 329. A Edit▪ Gromorsii, that God hath a Law, quae non liget ad sui observationem: eam quippe deserens poenam non incurrit: Impletio tamen ejus praemium meretur & Coronam. Et fol. 3▪ 19. 2. D. he saith that Vita naturae (sine gratia) potest mereri bona temporalia; and that not ex pacto, sed propter quandam adaequationem operum bonorum suorum de genere, ad bonum temporale, & saepe de Congruo ad vitam Gratiae disponit.

6. Melchior Canus Loc. Com. l. 12. pag. (mihi) 430. Duplices sunt operationes nostrae. Quaedam quas nostro nomine reddimus, & que nostrâ Gratiâ Meritisque nituntur ut Eleemosyna & Jejunium.

SECT. IV.

I Will trouble my self and the Reader with no more of this work. Only that all this be not misused to the further alienation of mens minds from each other, then there is just cause, I say again that 1. All the Papists are not to be charged with the opinion of some: Soto and some others deny all merit of Congruity. Scotus, and many more Schoolmen and others, deny all merit of Condignity, save what is ex pacto: (vid. Scot. 1. sent. dist. 17. Q. 2. pag. 108. (Edit. Venet. 1506.) Some of them, as Durandus, Ariminensis, &c. deny all proper merit of Condignity, whether ex opere or ex pacto, and differ not from Protestants in this, any further then in the use of the name. Waldensis is so far against the name it self, that (as he is cited by many of our Divines) he saith, He is the most pious Divine and the best Christian, that acknowledgeth no merit at all. And Contarenus and Paulus Burgensis are content to go with him: And the rest of the Papists with Contarenus that held the conference at Ratisbone with our p. 145Divines, for Reconciliation, did consent to lay by the very word Merit: and ours consented to forbear to say, we are justified by Faith only, and so we and they did wholly agree in the point of Merit.

2. Yea, I may add that their latter writers, especially the English, do seem more willing to withdraw from the higher sort, and to give less to Merits, then others formerly did. And I can truly say, that of all the Papists that ever I conferred with, I never yet met with two that did not disclaim merit with seeming zeal, and profess to trust in the sole merits of Christs. Though I confess I am jealous that this Reformation is not general in other Countries, but calculated to the Meridian of England: because the Jesuites and Priests know that the odium of the name of merit, isBishop the Papist, against Perkins, art. de Justific. (in Wotton, pag. 243.) saith, We acknowledge very willingly, (as you have heard often before) that every sinner is Justified freely of the meer Grace of God, through the merit of Christ only, and without any merit of the sinner himself. a great prejudice to their cause, therefore they do not here indue their proselytes so deeply with this Doctrine: However it be, I am glad it is so for the poor peoples sake. Their late Christian Moderator, mentioneth some late profession of theirs, wherein they profess that by Merit, they mean nothing but Rewardable: and Rewardableness no Protestant denyeth.

Many of them are content to deny the name of merit, to that of Congruity before Conversion. Petrus à Sancto, Joseph in Suavi Concordia, pro scientia Med. Disput. 1. de Praedest. Sect. 4. pag. 35, 36, &c. saith, Assertio 1. Ex communi omnium Catholicorum Sententia prima Gratia non datur ex meritis naturalibus ipsius praedestinati, sed ex mera Dei liberalitate & miserecordia, q. d. initium Iustificationis non esse ex nobis, sed ex Dei Gratia, &c.

And Franciscus à Sancta clarâ, is so moderate as to say (pag. 135, 136. li. Deus natura, Grat.) Non omnis promissio Conditionata inducit Titulum Iustitiae Promissario: sicut in Scripturis dum promittitur peccatoribvs Remissio si paenituerint, Collatio Remissionis vel primae gratiae, non est ex justitia, secundum omnes; quia requiritur solum ut dispositio ad illam, non ut opus sufficiens ad fundandum Justitiam. Justitia ergo oritur ex Conditione solum quae exigit quandam condignitatem operis, non solum aliqualem decentiam operis & operantis. And indeed most or all of them disclaim this justice in their merit of Congruity. I would they would say plainly, It is no merit at all: and say the like of their merit of Condignity.

p. 146One thing more I would say to prevent misunderstandings, and abuses of others. It will be exceeding necessary for young men, that have not read the Papists themselves, to gather what is their judgement from our most learned, judicious Divines, who knew what they said of them, and were not carried by passion or prejudice to wrong them: and not to take all for cerrain that every hot Preacher speaks of them at random; nor that some less judicious and more passionate writers do affirm: For, to speak freely and truly, many such there are that are better skilled in wounding then healing, in dividing, then doing our common duty against divisions, and in mis-reporting or straining words to the utmost advantage of the enemy of peace.

If you ask me who those writers be that I would commend to such, as dealing most candidly and truly with the Papists in this point, and from whom a young Schollar may credibly take an estimate of their Doctrine: I Answ. Among many others, these seven I would commend to you for this use, as the faithfullest Reporters of the Popish Doctrine of Merit. Davenant, de Instit. Actual. Wotton de Reconcil. Chamier, de Merit. in Paustr. Vossius in Thes. de Meritis bon. operum. Camero, Prelect. &c. Dr. Field of the Church, and Bishop Ʋsher.

Not that I would disparage any other faithful men; but I will name to young men but few.

And because it will not only shew Mr. Crandons and Mr. Eyres unworthy dealing with me, but may be a means to keep the younger Schollars from misapprehensions of the true state of the Controversie herein between the Protestants and the Papists, and so may prevent the guilt of much sin many waies, I will here annex the words of one of these Divines, (faithfully translated, for the use of the English Reader.)

Davenant, (de Instit. actuali cap. 53.) thus opens the state of the Controversie.

What the Adversaries hold concerning this, and what is to be held according to the Rule of Verity, I shall next shew. And seeing that on both sides in this Controversie, the Authority of the holy Fathers is wont to be pretended, it will be worth the labour to premise in a few words, what occurreth in them, which may seem to favour either the Adversaries or us: This therefore in the first place must be granted, that the words merit and meriting are frequently used by the Latine p. 147**And the like by the Greek Fathers.Fathers. Hence the Papists, because they often find the word merit in the writings of the Fathers, cry out, that they are all against the Protestants. But they make themselves ridiculous, who in a question about the most weighty point of Faith, do rest on one word, and that evilly wrested besides, yea against the mind of all the Fathers. For with the Fathers, To merit, signifieth nothing else, then To obtain or get some benefit from God, a good work mediating (or being a means thereto). And merit signifieth with them nothing else, then A good work ordinated of God to Reward, (or to be rewarded). Therefore to merit eternal life, is to do those works which according to Gods Ordination are the means of coming to it. If any man will in this sense call the Good Works of the Regenerate merits, to wit, because they are Ordinated of God to the Reward, and shall say, that the Regenerate do merit life eternal, because, walking in the way of Gods Commandments, they at last, God rewarding them, obtain the Crown of Eternal Glory, in the manner of speaking he agreeth with the Fathers; and in the thing it self with us, in both he differeth from the Papists.—And if, leaving the Fathers, we descend to the antienter and sounder Schoolmen, we shall finde with them also that this word merit doth denote only works grateful and acceptable, and doth not include either any Condignity to the Reward of eternal life, on the part of the Works, nor Debt on Gods part, according to Justice, properly so called. Parisiensis in Tract. de Merit. thus writeth, Of this which is commonly said, that some works are meritorious of eternal life, and that by every work done in charity, a man deserveth eternal life, it no way seemeth that by the Condignity of any work, a man can deserve eternal life.

Aquinas, though he grant merit of Condignity in words, 1. 2. q. 114. a. 3. yet indeed he denyeth it, when he excludeth from this merit equality of Justice. For he teacheth ib. a. 1. Justice is a certain equality; and therefore simply Justice is between them, who have simply an equality.—But in those, in whom Justice is secundum quid, and not simply, in them also the reason of merit is not simply.—But it is manifest, that between God and man there is the greatest inequality—and therefore there can be no merit of man with God, but upon presupposition of Divine Ordination; that is, so that man may obtain that of God as a Reward, by his own work, to which God did depute to him the vertue of working. From which words I gather, that Aquinas by merit even of Condignity, did mean p. 148nothing else, then a work that should obtain the Reward by Gods Ordination, without equality of value to the Reward, without Debt of Iustice in God to give the Reward. Whence he saith, fine art. ad 3. That our action hath not the nature of merit, but upon presupposition of Divine Ordination, and that God is not made a Debtor simply to us, but to himself; in as much as it is due that his Ordination be fulfilled. Durandus, by a meritorious act understandeth nothing else then an act ordinable to Reward, and expresly denyeth, that merit of Condignity strictly taken, can be in man to God. To these I may annumerate Scotus, Gregory, Occam, Gabriel, Alfonsus, and very many other Papists of best note, who professedly taught that the Works of the righteous done by the help of Grace, had yet no intrinsecal Condignity to eternal life, but as to this Reward, they wholly rested on the gracious acceptance and promise of God. We will not therefore have any Controversie with the Fathers, nor with these sounder Schoolmen, about the bare word merit, (though it be much better and safer to abstain from this word) but we will contend against the latter Papists, who so defend merit, as that for these works which they call merits, they affirm God himself to be in Iustice a Debtor to men, and do make a Condignity or Equality between these merits of man, and the Reward of Eternal glory. So far Davenant.

And if Protestants can so far digest such words of those of Aquinas which I cited, by the help of other explications, as to profess that we differ but in words from him, (who speaketh more harshly then most of the ancient Schoolmen) I leave it then to the enquiry of the learned, and moderate, what the number of the Papists proportionably may be, that we agree with, or differ from in this point: And if Protestants will have no Controversie with Fathers and such Papists about the bare name of merit, I leave it to consideration, with what peaceableness and sobriety Mr. Cr. and Mr. E. did write, and how like to Protestants they dealt, in making me a Papist, who disclaim the very name of merit: yea, in saying, that the worst of Papists maintain no other merit then I do, who deny all▪ properly so called.

Learned Dr. Field in the Appendix to his third Book of the Church, citeth many Papists, as saying the same with us about▪ Justification and Merit▪ and he approveth even of Stapletons Doctrine; and he there tells us, that the Papists and Protestant-Divines at the conference at Ratisbone, fully agreed in the point of p. 149Justification, and concluded to repress the very term of merits: cap. 11. & 12. vid. etiam li. 5. Append. part 3. p. 2.

Chamier cites Sotus, Latomus, Gropperus, Andradus, Gregor. de Valentia, Hosius, as speaking against merit of Congruity before Justification: the Council of Trent, as neither affirming nor denying it: and Durandus as denying proper merit of Condignity, and Conrad. Chirgius as following Scotus in affirming it, to be only ex pacto.

Chemnitius, Exam. Concil. Trident. in qu. 4. de bonis operib. p. 185. (cited also by Davenant) saith thus, In the Reconciled, Good Works do please God for the Mediator, and have rewards corporal and spiritual in this life, and after this life: but of the free Promise of God, not that God is made our Debtor for the perfection and dignity of our works: And in this sense our (Divines) do not abhor the word merit; as it was used by the Fathers.

See also what is cited out of Bucer and Calvin, in the same place by Davenant, p. 572.

Vossius Thes. de mer. operib. p. 66. saith, We dare not wholly condemn the word (or name of) meriting, as being used by very many of the ancients, and used by the Reformed Churches in their Confessions, as the Augustane and Wettemberg: yet we think it fitter to speak as the Scriptures, especially when the word merit is ambiguous, and especially in our age, is dangerous in respect of pride.

Mr. Wotton de Reconc. cap. ult. p. 399. 403. brings in many Papists against merit of Congruity (and so against our being by works put into a state of Justification); and taking it to be no merit, but a meer disposition that went before Justification. As Capreol. in 4. d. 14. q. 1. …. 3. Antonius Pathussa. li. de grat. & praedest. c. 6. & de lib. arb. cap. 6. Et Domin▪ Sotus, & Petrus Sotus l…. de Instit. Sacerd. lect. 9. de poenit. Hosius in Confess. Cathol. c. 73. And Suarez saying, d. c. 37. n. 2. Haec est communis sententia Theologorum. And Bellarmine and▪ Vega confessing that it is but a controversie about a word: And p. 400. he saith; Some perhaps will expect that I debate this opinion of the Papists about merit of Congruity: But it seems to me a thing not to be done, because I have made it clear, that it belongs not to the Faith of the Church of Rome, of which alone I hold controversie with the Papists. And shewing that the speeches of some particular Papists gave our Divines occasion to dispute this question, he concludes, But for p. 150me, I think I ought to be pardoned, if I do knowingly and purposely abstain from that disputation, of which there is no footstep in the Council of Trent, in so long, and so artificially and accurately composed a Definition of Iustification.

And thus I have truly shewed▪ both in word and deed, how far the Papists go beyond me, in the Doctrine of merit; and yet have given you the Judgement of our most learned Divines, concerning the true state of the Controversie (in part) lest any should be provoked by mistake, to think that we differ further then we do. For my part I am in this matter of the same Judgement as Davenant, and just so far as he, do I differ from them, in the point of merit and Justification by works, if I be able to understand his meaning and mine own: and this I cheerfully and unfeignedly profess: But every angry man that out-goeth him, I cannot accompany.