Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A66189
|
An exposition of the doctrine of the Church of England in the several articles proposed by Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, in his Exposition of the doctrine of the Catholick Church to which is prefix'd a particular account of Monsieur de Meaux's book.
|
Wake, William, 1657-1737.
|
1686
(1686)
|
Wing W243; ESTC R25162
|
71,836
|
127
|
the sight of God because that it is God who by Charity works in us only we think it withal such as is too weak to obtain for us the pardon of our Sins which Monsieur de Meaux seems content to confess with us We willingly acknowledg that our Righteousness is not perfect in this Life Whilst we are in the Body the Flesh will lust against the Spirit and in many things we shall offend all The Life of a Christian is a continued state of Repentance and he must be too much opiniated of himself that refuses to conclude with St. Augustine That our Righteousness in this Life consisteth rather in the Remission of our Sins than in the Perfection of our Vertue In a word the sum of our Difference as to this Point seems to be this Our Church by Justification understands only the Remission of our Sins We distinguish it from Sanctification which consists in the production of the Habit of Righteousness in us We believe our Sins are pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us And for the rest we say that this Remission of Sins is given only to those that repent that is in whom the holy Spirit produces the Grace of Sanctification for a true Righteousness and Holiness of Life The Church of Rome comprehends under the notion of Justification not only the Remission of Sins but also the production of that inherent Righteousness which we call Sanctification They suppose with us that our Sins are forgiven only by the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ But then as they make that inward Righteousness a part of Justification too so by consequence they say our Justification it self is wrought also by our own good Works It appears by this that were these things clearly stated and distinguish'd the one from the other the difference between us considered only in the Idea would not be very great And that we might safely allow whatsoever Monsieur de Meaux has advanced upon this point provided it be but well and rightly explained tho in some things he has expressed himself after a manner unusual among us and which we suppose not so entirely conformable to the Expressions of holy Scripture The sum of all is this Christ died and by that Death satisfied the Justice of God for us God therefore through the Merits of his Son freely forgives us all our Sins and offers us a Covenant of Mercy and Grace By this Covenant founded only upon the Death and Merits of Christ he sends us his Holy Spirit and calls us powerfully to Repentance If we awake and answer this Call then God by his free Goodness justifies us that is he pardons our Sins past gives us Grace more and more to fulfil his Commands for the time to come and if we persevere in this Covenant crowns us finally with Eternal Life And all this he is pleased to do not for any thing which we have or can perform but only through the Merits and Satisfaction of his Son by Faith applied to us This is the Foundation wherein Monsieur de Meaux seems content to agree with us We go on to see how the following Doctrine will stand upon this Foundation ARTIC VI. Of Merits FOR what concerns the Merits of Good Works we are content to accept of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition That eternal life ought to be proposed to Man as the Grace of God mercifully bestow'd upon us through Jesus-Christ and as a recompence that is faithfully rento their good Works and to the merits of them by vertue of Gods Promise The word Merit we acknowledge to have been very antient in the Church and tho to prevent those mistakes which many in these latter ages have made an occasion of that expression we think it safer to discourse more reservedly of the Merit and press more strongly the Necessity of good Works Yet if it be understood so as Monsieur de Meaux expounds it That all our Merit derives its force only from the Merits of Jesus Christ who works in us both to will and to do and when we have done renders by the same Merits our good Works acceptable to God and available to our Eternal Life we shall not be difficult to allow of it If this be All the Church of Rome ascribes to Good works that our Justification proceeds absolutely from God's Bounty and Mercy and but accidentally only in as much as God has tied himself by his Word and Promise to reward them from our own Performances We need no long exhortations to receive a Doctrine which we have always defended against such of the Church of Rome as have opposed it and are not yet that we know of censured for their so doing That which we reject is That we do as truly and properly merit Rewards when we do well as we do merit Punishment when we do ill so says the Jesuit Maldonate EZek. 18.20 That our Good Works do merit Eternal Life condignly not only by reason of God's Covenant and Acceptation De Justif l. 5. c. 17. Vasquez in D. Th. 1 2 ae q. 114. d. 214. c. 5. but also by reason of the Work it self so says Cardinal Bellarmine All which Vasquez sums up in the three following Conclusions 1. That the Good Works of just Persons are of themselves without any Covenant or Acceptation worthy of the reward of Eternal Life and have an equal value of Condignity to the obtaining of Eternal Glory 16. c. 7. 2. That there comes no accession of Dignity to the Works of just Persons by the Merits or Person of Christ which the same would not otherwise have if they had been done by the same Grace bestowed freely by God alone without Christ 3. 16. c. 8. That God's Promise is indeed annex'd to the Works of just Men but yet belongs no way to the Merit of them but cometh rather to the Works themselves which are already not only worthy but meritorious also From all which he draws this remarkable Corallary Disp 222. c. 3. n. 30 31. Seeing the Works of just Men do merit Eternal Life as an Equal Recompence and Reward there is no need that any other condign Merit such as that of Christ should interpose to the end that Eternal Life might be rendred to them Wherefore we never pray to God that by the Merits of Christ the Reward of Eternal Life may be given to our worthy and meritorious Works but that Christ's Grace may be given to us whereby we may be enabled worthily to merit this Reward This is that Doctrine of good Works which we most justly do detest And if the Opinion of the Church of Rome be so directly opposite to it as Monsieur de Meaux professes we are a little surprised that no Index Expurgatorius no authentick Censure has ever taken notice of so dangerous a Prevarication But contrary-wise these are the great Authors of their Party approved embraced and almost adored by the Greatest and most Learned of that Communion These
are the Principles which we suppose to have been an unwarrantable derogation to the Grace of God and directly opposite to the nature of Justification by Faith in Christ before established And tho this point was far from being the only cause of our Separation from their Communion yet let Mr. de Meaux himself please to say whether such a Doctrine of Merits as this were not sufficient if not to engage us wholly to leave a Church that taught such things yet at least to dissent from her in these Particulars ARTIC VII c. Of Satisfactions Purgatory and Indulgences THE whole of this Point we think to be the advancement of a Doctrine grounded upon no Authority of Holy Scripture but on the contrary derogatory to God's Mercy in Jesus Christ and as the Doctrine of Merits before considered inconsistent with the nature of that Justification we before establish'd Monsieur de Meaux was pleased there to tell us of God's justifying us freely for Christ's Merits That our Sins are not only covered but entirely done away by his Mercy and the Sinner not only reputed but made just by his Grace We cannot but be troubled to see our selves so soon deprived of this excellent Hope and required our selves to satisfy God's Justice here which he assured us was entirely done for us by Christ before When Christ says Monsieur de Meaux who alone was able to make a sufficient Satisfaction for our Sins See above p. 66. died for us having by his Death abundantly satisfied for them he became capable of applying that Satisfaction to us after two very different manners Either by giving us an entire Forgiveness of our Sins without reserving any Pains for us to undergo for them or in changing only a greater Pain into a lesser the Eternal Torments of Hell into a Temporal Punishment The former of these being the more entire and the more agreeable to the Divine Goodness he accordingly makes use of it at our Baptism But we suppose he gives the second only to them who after Baptism fall again into sin being in a manner forced to it through the Ingratitude whereby they have abused his former Gifts so that they are to suffer some Temporal pain tho the eternal be remitted to them This is a very great Doctrine and ought certainly to have some better Proof of it than barely We suppose However it be our Church has declared its self of an opinion directly contrary That since the absolute forgiving of sin is Confessed to be the more perfect way and more becoming the Divine Goodness and that God has never that we know of revealed any other but rather has constantly encouraged us to expect his Pardon after the largest and most ample manner that it is possible for words to set forth We are persuaded that accordingly whenever God do's pardon it is in that way which is the most suitable to his Divine goodness and which alone he hath declared to us that he do's it intirely for Christs merits not for any Works or Sufferings of our own In vain therefore does Monsieur de Meaux labour to reconcile this Doctrine with Christ's absolute Satisfaction We confess that we ought not to dispute with God the manner of his Dispensations Nor think it at all strange if he who shews himself so easie at our Baptism is afterwards more difficult for those sins which we commit being Baptized There is nothing in all this but what we could most readily allow of were there but any tollerable Arguments to establish the Doctrine that requires it But whilst this is so destitute of all Proof that it is acknowledged to introduce a manner of forgiveness neither so intire nor so befitting Gods mercy as a total remission of the Punishment together with the Guilt whilst we have the Sufferings of Christ to rely upon which are so far from needing any addition of our own that they are Confessed to have been Super-abundant to whatever the divine Justice could require of us Tho we can and do practice the same Discipline for the other benefits of it viz. To shew our Indignation against our selves that we have offended and to keep us from sinning for the future yet we cannot be so forgetful of our dear Master as to pretend to any part in that Redemption but only to enjoy the benefits of that forgiveness which by his alone Merits he has intirely purchased for us nor do we see any reason to believe that Gods Justice will require any more than what has been Super-abundantly paid upon the Cross for the Iniquities of mankind 'T is true Monsieur de Meaux tells us That the necessity of this Payment does not arise from any defect in Christ's Satisfaction but from a certain Order which God has establish'd for a salutary Discipline and to keep us from offending This indeed were something would either Monsieur de Meaux have been pleased to shew us this Establistment or had not the Council of Trent declared more Concil Trid. Sess 14. c. 8. viz. That the Justice of God requires it and that therefore the Confessors should be charged to Proportion the Satisfaction to the Crime From whence Cardinal Bellarmine concludes L. 1. de purg c. 14. That it is We who properly satisfie for our own sins and that Christs Satisfaction serves only to make ours Valid This is an Exposition somewhat different from Monsieur de Meaux's who will have the Church of Rome believe That we do not our selves satisfie in the least for our sins but only apply the infinite Satisfaction of Christ to them Upon the whole it appears 1. That these Penances are not only a Salutary discipline but a Satisfaction too 2. They change the Mercy of God into a forgiveness that is confessed neither to be in its self Perfect nor so becoming the Divine goodness as an intire remission of sin the Punishment as well as Guilt would be 3. Their Establishment depends only upon a humane Supposition of its fitness and derogates from the very Foundation of that Covenant God has entred into with us by Christ Hebr. c. 8. v. 12. That he will be merciful to our unrighteousness and our Sins and our Iniquites he will remember no more Upon all which accounts tho we Practise this Discipline for many other benefits of it and wish it were universally Established not only in a more perfect manner than either in Ours or Their Church it is Catech conc Trid. but even in a strictness equal to what they tell us it is fallen from yet we cannot believe that by any of these things we are able to make a true and proper Satisfaction to God for sin which he only could do who Himself bore our sins in his own Body upon the Cross and by that one suffering Hebr. 10.14 for ever perfected them that are Sanctified ARTICLE VII Of INDVLGENCES THE Doctrine of Indulgences the Council of Trent has asserted only not explained Monsieur