471 (481)
Appendix 6
By works, which Paul excludes, is not meant the
merit
of works.
There
is one other evasion, thought upon to shift by all the Apostle’s arguings, and
yet to maintain the interest of works, as the cause and ground of justification
before God, to wit: That Paul only disputes against a groundless conceit of
merit in works; not against the works themselves, but against a Pharisaical
sense of merit and worth in their works, whereby they conceived and conceited,
that thereby they could satisfy for their sins, and buy and purchase to
themselves Justification and salvation. But against this evasion, we have these
things to say.
1. By
merit here must either be understood, that which is called meritum ex
condigno, that is, that merit, which arises from the due proportion of
worth, that one thing hath unto another, in the balance of equity and justice.
And whoever imagines this merit in their works, must dream of an intrinsic
worth in their works, which God, if he does according to justice, cannot but
reward with eternal life: or that which is called meritum ex congruo, which
flows not from any inward condignity in the work, but from a promise or covenant,
and so it is meritum ex pacto, whereby the reward is not absolutely of
grace, but of debt, because of a congruity in the thing, in respect of the
promise and compact made. Our adversary cannot understand this last, when they
say, that Paul disputes against merit, because they themselves own it, when
they make works the condition of the covenant, and God to have promised justification
and life unto our works. Neither are they shy of the word merit itself,
as we saw lately from Mr. Baxter. But now, that Paul is not disputing against
the merit 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 intrinsic
worth and merit 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 says nothing to disprove justification by the old covenant of works
made with Adam, but establishes that, which who can believe? (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 and vanity, will own, or stand to, in their more sedate and
composed thoughts. (4.) Even the most proud and vain person, that is, will join
the free mercy of God, with all the conceit of merit they have; but this merit ex
condigno leaves no imaginable room for the free mercy of God, in less, or
more. (5.) Paul disputes
472 (482)
not against the merit ex congruo, as separated
from the works themselves, whereupon it is founded. As the
following argument will evince. Therefore far less doth he dispute only
against the fond and foolish conceit of the merit ex condigno.
2. It is
strange, that the Apostle should dispute against that, which he doth never once
mention, in his dispute, or in his conclusions. He everywhere mentions works
and the law, and the works of the law; but nowhere does he mention this merit
of works, as the thing he disputes against, as abstracted and distinguished
from the works themselves.
3. And
that place, which they think, gives some countenance unto their imaginations, viz.
Romans 4: 4, Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace,
but of debt, is directly against them: for, there the Apostle shows that
works are excluded, and all works (for there is no distinction made) are
excluded; because, then the reward should be of debt: showing, 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 and
incompatible) therefore all works are excluded. And to think, that the meaning
of the Apostle is, now to him, that worketh, with a conceit of merit, attending
his work, the reward is reckoned of debt, is to add to the word of God, to
pervert the Apostle’s argument, and to contradict the scope and cohesion of the
words; as hath been shown elsewhere, can any hence infer a restriction of works
to such only as make the reward of debt: for then the reward might be reckoned
to him, that worketh, and yet be reckoned of grace and not of debt, and thus
the Apostle’s argument, should be manifestly false, and a plain paralogism: which
were wickedness and blasphemy to assert.
4. The
Apostle excludes, in as plain terms, as can be, all the works of the Law: but
even such works, as are performed without this fond and groundless conceit of
merit, are works of the Law, being required and commanded by the Law. Yea the
Law never commanded any works with this conceit of merit: 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
meriting ex condigno thereby: And if no merit or works with a conceit of
merit be now excluded, but the merit ex condigno, then is the covenant
of works established by the Gospel. Nay thus, our imperfect works, are made to
merit as well ex congruo & ex pacto, justification and life, as Adam’s
perfect and sinless obedience could have done.
6. The
man that hath works, without this conceit of merit, cannot be called an ungodly
man, no more than Adam could have been called so, while he stood in his
integrity: but the justification under the Gospel is of the ungodly, God justifieth
the ungodly, Romans 4: 5. Nor can the worker without this conceit of
meriting, be said to be one that worketh not, but believeth on him, that
justifieth the ungodly: as is manifest.
7. Either
the Apostle establishes works of justification by them, and only condemns the
apprehension of merit in our works: or he excludes all
473 (483)
works, in which men may conceit some merit to be. If the
first be said, then I conceive, the Apostle would have once mentioned the Law
and the works of the Law; for with our adversaries these are separable, and
from the one the other cannot be inferred: but we see not the least appearance
of any such thing in all the Apostle’s arguings. And
if the last be said, we have all we desire, for thus all works shall be
excluded, because men can and ignorant persons too oft do imagine and conceit a
merit in what they do, though not that merit, which is ex condigno, yet
that which is ex congruo.
8. If
the Apostle disputes not against works, but against a conceit of merit in
works, why doth he not oppose works without this conceit unto this conceit, or
to works with this conceit? Why doth he always oppose faith unto works, and
say, we are justified by faith without deeds of the law? Are works the
same with conceit of merit, or with works having this conceit adjoined? And
is faith the same with works, or with works without this conceit
of merit? 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
conceit. But what palpable and manifest perverting of the Scripture and 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 merit in our works in
reference to justification and salvation, but such as the Apostle here uses, to
exclude works from this interest? If this had been all, which the Apostle had
intended, his saying with Christ, Luke 17: 19, So likewise 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 uses, manifestly declare, there was some other thing in his eye;
and he leveled at some other mark, even that, which he plainly declares, 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: Romans 4: 4,
Ephesians 2: 9, 10. And the Apostle clears the consequence, because all works
have a ground of merit with them, and make the reward of debt and give ground
to the worker to boast and to glory before men: though not before God: for upon
these grounds doth the Apostle reject all works, in this affair; as we see in
Romans 3: 27 and 4: 2. Now to say, that the Apostle rejects only such works, as
men conceit to be meritorious for their intrinsic worth, and not other works,
that merit only ex pacto; is to destroy the Apostle’s arguments, and to
enervate all his discourse; for even works meritorious ex congruo, or ex
pacto, will give ground of boasting before men, and 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 and debt are not compatible.
474 (484)
11. If
any were puffed up with this conceit of the merit of their works, ex
condigno, it could be none other than the proud, fantastic Pharisees; nor
is there any ground to suspect any other. And if so, why, may we suppose, would
the Apostle state a needless controversy concerning all both Jews and Gentiles,
when none of the Gentiles, and few, if any of the Jews, were concerned therein?
And why, may we enquire, would the Apostle so
laboriously prove both Jews and Gentiles to be guilty of sin? and why doth he speak of them all, without exception, seeing
the question did only concern a few, and a very few, and 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 adjoin to
their Christianity, the practice of some Jewish ceremonies, were also carried
away with this absurd fancy, 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 follows the same dispute against them, that he
did, in writing to the Romans, of which no reason could be assigned if this
merit was all, he disputed down.
13. We
find it said of the Jews, Romans 9: 31, that they
followed after the Law of Righteousness; because (verse 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 mere irrational conceit and groundless fancy of a merit in what they
did, or of an intrinsic worth, meriting ex condigno the reward they
expected. But a groundless apprehension, that their works themselves were their
way of attaining unto life, and therefore they followed that way of works, and
would not take the way of faith, but stumbled at the stumbling stone.
14. Then,
according to this interpretation, works performed without this conceit of
merit, must be God’s righteousness, as works together with this conceit of
merit must be our own: for these two are opposite, Romans 10: 3. But there is
no ground to imagine that our works performed without this fond conceit of
merit in them, are the righteousness, for these are not Christ, or his
righteousness: And it is added in verse 4, for explication of the righteousness
of God, for Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, to everyone that
believeth.
15. The
righteousness of the Law is, that the man, which doth
these things shall live by them, Romans 10: 5, Galatians 3: 12, Leviticus 18:
5. So that this righteousness consists in man’s own doing: and not in a mere
irrational apprehension of a merit in what he doth: So that it is not this
groundless fancy, that the Apostle is disputing against, but this
righteousness, which is of the Law, because he is laboring to establish by his
doctrine, the righteousness of faith, which is opposite to and 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 and conceit of merit, as is clear from verses 8, 9, 10 , 11, following, and from the whole Gospel.
475 (485)
16. If
this be all that the Apostle is disputing down, to wit, justification by works,
which we conceit to be meritorious, and not all justification by works, why did
the Apostle adduce the instance of Abraham, and insist so much upon it, as he
doth (Romans 4)? Shall we think, that Abraham, that
holy Patriarch and friend of God, did obey with any such conceit of intrinsic
worth in his obedience? Was he infected with that leaven of Pharisaical pride?
And if not, where is the consequence of the Apostle’s arguing from his
practice? Is it a good consequence to say, Abraham was not justified by works
performed in sincerity, without pharisaical pride and conceit of merits;
therefore we cannot be justified by works, which we conceit to have merit in
them: but by such works we can and must be justified, when we conceit no merit
in them, but a simple merit ex congruo, or ex pacto? The like may
be said of David, who had no conceit of merit in his works, and yet expected
not to be justified by them, but looked for free pardon, and for justification
through imputed righteousness, Romans 4: 6, 7, 8.
17. If
the Apostle had been establishing justification by woks performed without such
a fond conceit of merit in them; what ground was there for that objection which
he preoccupied Romans 6: 1 saying, Shall we sin, that grace may abound?
The urging of justification by works, could give no show or apparent ground for
this. Neither can any such purpose be in the least seen and observed, in all
the answer at large prosecuted in chapters 6 and 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: and
life eternal is expressly said to be the free gift of God.
18.
Then all that Paul meant, 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
puffed up with a pharisaical conceit of the perfection and merit of his works,
as meriting his justification and life ex condigno, by their intrinsic
value and worth. But no such thing appears in Philippians 3: 9, where he
utterly renounces his own righteousness, which is of the law; that is, a
righteousness consisting in his obedience and conformity to the law: for in
opposition to this, he desires to be found in that righteousness, which is
through the faith of Christ, the righteousness, which is of God by faith; and
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,
Ephesians 2: 8, 9, and consequently not of any works, seeing all works give
ground of boasting. And he meant 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, verse 10. Now these works are certainly done without any
vain conceit of merit: and yet we see, that by these
works we are not brought into a state of salvation.
476 (486)
20. The
Apostle excludes works of righteousness, which we have done, as opposed to
mercy and grace, Titus 3: 5, 7. Now grace stands in opposition to all works,
even to works performed without this conceit of merit, as we see in Romans 11:
6, else we must say, that the Apostle there grants election to be for foreseen
works, performed without a conceit of merit, and nothing must be called works,
but what is done with a Pharisaical conceit of merit and intrinsic worth in
them, which is absurd.