perform them by the grace of God. 2. That God does certainly reward good works: and 3. That this reward is promised in the Gospel, and could not have been claimed without that by any antecedent merit.a

The falsehood of the Roman Catholic doctrine, however, follows from the imperfection of our works. This is evident, for where there is guilt to be pardoned, there can be no pretension to merit.

II. The Article asserts, that good works are necessary and pleasing to God." "They are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith.”

This is so fully and frequently expressed in Scripture, that no doubt can be made of it by any who reads it. Thus it is said, Heb. xii. 15, "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord." "Every one who nameth the name of Christ,

On the nature of merit there have been three principal opinions: 1. That it arose from the real and inherent dignity of the action itself. This monstrous doctrine is held by Vasquez, and in general by the Jesuits.—(Maldon. in Ez. xviii. 20.) 2. That it arose solely from the promise of God, which was the opinion of the Scotists. (Camerac. in 1 Sent. Dist. 1 qu. 2.) 3. That it arose partly from the promise of God and partly from the dignity of the work; which is the opinion of Bellarmine (de Justifi. 1. 5. c. 17.) See Usher's Answer to the Jesuit, p. 494. Turretin, Ins. Theol. L. 17. Q. 5. and Stillingfleet's Works, v. 6. p. 468.

b See Whole Duty of Man, Sunday 1; Beveridge on the Articles; Homily of Faith, and Jewel's Def. of Ap. p. 2. c. 20. Div. 1.

66

It

must depart from iniquity." (2 Tim. ii. 19.) was the object of Christ's sufferings to bring us to God;" (1 Pet. iii. 18;) and to raise up and restore that image of God, from which we had fallen by sin.

It has been objected, that our good works cannot please God if they are imperfect, since nothing can be acceptable to him in which there is a mixture of sin. But we believe, that God regards an action according to the intention of the person, and as a father pities his children, so God passes over the defects of those who love him sincerely, though not perfectly. And thus we find, that the midwives of Egypt, "feared God," yet they excused themselves by a lie. But God accepted of what was good, and passed over what was amiss in them, and built "them houses." (Ex. i. 21.)

2 This objection has been made hy Roman Catholic writers, and in reply to it, a distinction has been made between an action which is verè bonum, though not perfectè bonum, that is, good, as proceeding from a sincere heart; though not good as fulfilling all the requirements of the law. See Turretin's Inst. Theol. L. xvii. Q. 4.

ARTICLE XIII.

OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION.

WORKS DONE BEFORE THE GRACE OF CHRIST AND THE
INSPIRATION OF HIS SPIRIT, ARE NOT PLEASANT TO
GOD; FORASMUCH AS THEY SPRING NOT OF FAITH
IN JESUS CHRIST, NEITHER DO THEY MAKE MEN MEET
TO RECEIVE GRACE, OR (AS THE SCHOOL AUTHORS
SAY,) DESERVE GRACE OF CONGRUITY. YEA, RATHER

FOR THAT THEY ARE NOT DONE AS GOD HATH COM-
MANDED AND WILLED THEM TO BE DONE, WE DOUBT
NOT BUT THAT THEY HAVE THE NATURE OF SIN.

THE writers of the Roman Catholic Church hold, that the actions of men in a state of unas

a Numeroous extracts in support of this assertion, may be found in Archbishop Laurence's Ser. 4. notes. It must be confessed, however, that this doctrine of congruous merit, considered independently of preventing grace, is fully disclaimed by the Council of Trent. Thus, (in Sess. 6. c. 5, 6. can. 3.) the following declaration is made: "If any one say, that without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit preventing and assisting him, a man can either believe, "hope, love, or repent as he ought, so that the grace of justification be bestowed on him, let him be accursed." See also Can. 1 and 2,

66

In the notes to the

and Bellar. de Just. 1. 1. c. 21. p. 788. Rhemish Testament, however, merit of congruity is plainly avowed. Thus, speaking of Cornelius, the authors say, “By

sisted nature, can be so pure as to be free from all sin, and to merit at God's hand, in consistency with his revealed attributes, as works naturally perfect. The grace thus merited was called grace of congruity.b

In considering this subject, a difference is to be made between an external action regarded in itself, and the same action as done by a particular person. An action is called good from the morality and nature of it; as works of justice and charity are in themselves good, whatever may be the character of the person who performs

well doing he deserved to know God perfectly, to believe, &c." and thence conclude, "that good works before faith are acceptable preparatives to the grace of justification." See Fulke's Rhem. Test. Annot. in Acts, x. 2.

a

Hence, the word congruity; for they do not assert these acts to be absolutely perfect, but that they are so far pure, as to render it congruous to, or consistent with God's honour to reward them.

b Perhaps it may be necessary to inform the reader of the doctrine held by the more moderate writers on this subject.

Of grace there are two kinds, preventing grace, and grace of justification. The former is that by which the will is excited to good, and without it, "no man can desire or receive future grace." (Bellar. de grat. et lib. arb. 1. 2. c. 1.) The agent, however, by co-operating with this, and by help of the sacrament of penance, may so far improve himself as to deserve, congruously, a further aid from God. This aid is called grace of justification, and consists in an infusion of perfect righteousness into the nature of man, whereby his acts become absolutely blameless, and must, necessarily, by their innate condign merit, obtain everlasting life. Comp. Bell. Opera. tom. 4. pp. 410, 451, 788, 82o, 839, 983. Ed. Paris, 1620.

them. But actions are considered by God with reference to the principles, ends, and motives of him who does them; for, unless all these be good, let the action be in its own abstracted nature ever so virtuous, it cannot render him acceptable or meritorious in the sight of God. Considered then in this sense, the Article asserts, that

Works done before justification are not pleasant to God.

The truth of this assertion appears, (1.) From the corruption of man. If what has been before advanced, concerning a corruption that is spread over the whole race of mankind, and that has very much vitiated their faculties, be true, then it follows, that unassisted nature can do nothing so good in itself as to be pleasant or meritorious in the sight of God.

(2.) From the example of St. Paul. In Rom. vii. 12, where he is supposed (even by those who take the words in the lowest sense they can bear,) to be speaking of his former state as a Jew, previous to his conversion, he shews that an unregenerate man has within him such a principle of corruption, that even a good and holy law revealed to him cannot reform it, but on the contrary, it will take occasion from that very law" to deceive and slay him." (v. 11.) So that all the benefit he receives even from that revelation, is, that "sin in him becomes exceeding