§. XII.
As to the other Part, That seeing the best of Men are still impure and imperfect, therefore their Works must be so; it is to beg the Question, and depends upon a Proposition denied; and which is to be discussed at farther Length in the next Proposition. But though we should suppose a Man not thoroughly perfect in all Respects, yet will not that hinder, but good and perfect Works in their Kind may be brought forth in him by the Spirit of Christ: Neither doth the Example of Water going through an unclean Pipe hit the Matter; because though Water may be capable to be tinctured with Uncleanness, yet the Spirit of God cannot, whom we assert to be the immediate Author of those Works that avail in Justification: And therefore Jesus Christ’s Works in his Children are pure and perfect, and he worketh in and through that pure Thing of his own forming and creating in them. Moreover, if this did hold, according to our Adversaries Supposition, That no Man ever was or can be perfect, it would follow, that the very Miracles and Works of the Apostles, which Christ wrought in them, and they wrought in and by the Power, Spirit and Grace of Christ, were also impure and imperfect; Were the Miracles and Works of the Apostles, wrought by the Power of Christ in them, impure and imperfect?such as their converting of the Nations to the Christian Faith; their gathering of the Churches, their writing of the Holy Scriptures; yea, and their offering up and sacrificing of their Lives for the Testimony of Jesus. What may our Adversaries think of this Argument, whereby it will follow, that the Holy Scriptures, whose Perfection and Excellency they seem so much to magnify, are proved to be impure and imperfect, because they came through impure and imperfect Vessels? It appears by the Confessions of Protestants, that the Fathers did frequently attribute unto Works of this Kind that instrumental Work, which we have spoken of in Justification, albeit some ignorant Persons cry out it is Popery, and also divers, and that famous Protestants, do of themselves confess it. A. Polan. Our Doctrine of Justification and Works, is not Popery.Amandus Polanus, in his Symphonia Catholica, Cap. 27. de Remissione Peccatorum, P. 651. places this Thesis as the common Opinion of Protestants, most agreeable to the Doctrine of the Fathers: “We obtain the Remission of Sins by Repentance, Confession, Prayers, and Tears, proceeding from Faith, but do not merit, to speak properly; and therefore we obtain Remission of Sins, not by the Merit of our Repentance and Prayers, but by the Mercy and Goodness of God.” Gentiletus Ex Impress. Gen. 1516.Innocentius Gentiletus, a Lawyer of great Fame among Protestants, in his Examen of the Council of Trent, P. 66, 67. of Justification, having before spoken of Faith and Works, adds these Words: “But seeing the one cannot be without the other, we call them both conjunctly instrumental Causes.” Zanchius.Zanchius, in his fifth Book, De Naturâ Dei, saith; “We do not simply deny, that good Works are the Cause of Salvation, to wit, the instrumental, rather than the efficient Cause, which they call [sine quâ non.”] And afterwards, “Good Works are the instrumental Cause of the Possession of Life eternal; for by these, as by a Means and a lawful Way, God leads unto the Possession of Life eternal.” G. Ames. in Medulla S. Theologiæ, L. 2. C. 1. Thes. 30.G. Amesius saith, “That our Obedience, albeit it be not the principal and meritorious Cause of Life eternal, is nevertheless a Cause in some Respect, administering, helping, and advancing towards the Possession of the Life.” R. Baxter.Also Richard Baxter, in his Book above-cited, Page 155. saith, “That we are justified by Works in the same Kind of Causality as by Faith, to wit, as being both Causes sine quâ non, or Conditions of the New Covenant on our Part requisite to Justification.” And P. 195. he saith, “It is needless to teach any Scholar, who hath read the Writings of Papists, how this Doctrine differs from them.”
Of the Merit and Reward of Works.But lastly, Because it is fit here to say something of the Merit and Reward of Works, I shall add something in this Place of our Sense and Belief concerning that Matter. We are far from thinking or believing, that Man merits any Thing by his Works from God, all being of Free Grace; and therefore do we, and always have denied that Popish Notion of Meritum ex condigno. Nevertheless we cannot deny, but that God, out of his Infinite Goodness wherewith he hath loved Mankind, after he communicates to him his holy Grace and Spirit, doth, according to his own Will, recompence and reward the good Works of his Children; GOD rewards the good Works of his Children.and therefore this Merit of Congruity or Reward, in so far as the Scripture is plain and positive for it, we may not deny; neither wholly reject the Word, in so far as the Scripture makes use of it. For the same Greek [Greek: axion: αξιον], which signifies [Merit] is also in those Places where the Translators express it Worth, or worthy, as Mat. iii. 8. 1 Thess. ii. 12. 2 Thess. i. 5. 11. Concerning which R. Baxter saith, in the Book above-cited, P. 8. “But in a larger Sense, as Promise is an Obligation, and the Thing promised is said to be Debt, so the Performers of the Conditions are called Worthy, and that which they perform Merit; although properly all be of Grace, and not of Debt.” Also those, who are called the Fathers of the Church, frequently used this Word of Merit, whose Sayings concerning this Matter I think not needful to insert, because it is not doubted, but evident, that many Protestants are not averse from this Word, in the Sense that we use it. The Apology for the Augustan Confession, Art. 20. hath these Words; “We agree that Works are truly meritorious, not of Remission of Sins, or Justification; but they are meritorious of other Rewards corporal and spiritual, which are indeed as well in this Life, as after this Life.” And further, “Seeing Works are a certain fulfilling of the Law, they are rightly said to be meritorious; it is rightly said, that a Reward is due to them.”
Conference of Oldenburgh.In the Acts of the Conference of Oldenburgh, the electoral Divines, P. 110. & 265. say, “In this Sense our Churches also are not averse from the Word [Merit] used by the Fathers; neither therefore do they defend the Popish Doctrine of Merit.”
G. Vossius of the Word Merit.G. Vossius, in his Theological Thesis concerning the Merits of good Works, saith; “We have not adventured to condemn the Word [Merit] wholly, as being that which both many of the Ancients use, and also the reformed Churches have used in their Confessions. Now that God judgeth and accepteth Men according to their Works, is beyond Doubt to those that seriously will read and consider these Scriptures.” Matt.. xvi. 27. Rom.. ii. 6. 7. 10. 2 Cor. v. 10. James i. 25. Heb. x. 35. 1 Pet. i. 17. Rev. xxii. 12.