For they do not resolve that question, ‘Why does God justify this man and leave the other in his sins,’ other than by setting up Freewill; that is to say, that the one man has endeavoured, and the other has not; and that God respects one of these characters for his endeavour, and despises the other — that He may not be unjust, as he would be if he acted otherwise. Indeed, even though they pretend both in their writings and in their speakings, that they do not obtain grace by merit of condignity, and do not call it merit of condignity, still they mock us with a word, and no less hold fast to the thing. For what excuse is it, that they do not call it merit of condignity, when they still ascribe to it everything which belongs to merit of condignity? For instance, that he who endeavours, finds favour with God; he who does not endeavour, finds none. Is not this plainly a merit of worth? Do they not make God a respecter of works, of merits, and of persons? For instance, that the one has himself to blame for lacking grace, because he has not endeavoured; and the other, because he has endeavoured, gets grace — he would not have had it, if he had not endeavoured. If this is not a merit of worth, I would be glad to know what can be called merit of worth. You might trifle in this manner with all sorts of words, and say that it is not really a merit of condignity, but it does what merit of condignity usually does. The thorn is not a bad tree, it only does what a bad tree does. The fig-tree is not a sound tree, but it does what a good tree usually does. Diatribe truly is not an abandoned woman, but only says and does what abandoned women are prone to do. 714
SECT. 17. Sophists are worse than the Pelagians.
These defenders of Freewill have met with the misfortune described in that old saying, ‘He falls into Scylla by wishing to avoid Charybdis.’ Through a desire to dissent from the Pelagians, they began by denying the merit of condignity,715 and by the very ground on which they deny it, they more strongly affirm it; denying with word and pen what in reality and in heart they affirm, and making themselves twofold worse than the Pelagians.
First, the Pelagians simply, candidly, and ingenuously confess and assert a merit of condignity, calling a boat a boat, a fig-tree a fig-tree; and teaching what they think. But our “friends,” 716 though they think and teach the same thing, beguile us meanwhile with lying words, and with a false show of dissenting from the Pelagians. But in reality, they do nothing less than this — so that, if you look at the character we impersonate, you see in us the most determined enemies of the Pelagians; but if you look at our real mind, we are double Pelagians.
Secondly, inasmuch as, by this assumption, we estimate and purchase the grace of God at a far lower rate than the Pelagians. They assert that it is not some small thing which is in us whereby we obtain grace, but many great, whole, full, and perfect endeavours and performances. Our “friends,” on the contrary, account it to be a very small thing, and next to nothing, by which we earn grace.
If we must be in error, therefore, those persons err more honestly and with less pride, who affirm that the grace of God is purchased at a great price (reckoning it to be dear and precious), than those who teach that it is bought for a little, and for a very little, accounting it mean and contemptible.
But Paul beats them both together into one mass by a single word, when he says that “all are justified freely.” And again, “that they are justified without the law;” “without the deeds of the law.” In asserting free justification as the justifier of all men, he leaves none to work, or to merit, or to prepare themselves, and he leaves no work that can be called congruous or deserving. Rather, he breaks in pieces, by one stroke of this thunderbolt, both the Pelagians with their entire merit, and the Sophists with their little modicum of merit. Free justification does not allow you to set up workers of any sort; inasmuch as ‘free gift,’ and ‘prepare yourself by some work,’ are manifest opposites. Again, justification by grace does not allow for any personal worthiness, as Paul says afterwards in Rom 11.6, “If by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.” He also says in Rom 4.4, “Now to him that works, the reward is reckoned, not of grace, but of debt.” So that my friend Paul stands up as the invincible destroyer of Freewill, laying two whole armies flat on their faces with a single word. For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, both small and great. He excepts none, but fulminates 717 equally against all.
SECT. 18. The Fathers overlooked Paul.
See here, also, how drowsy all our friends have been; and of what profit it is to a man, if he has leaned on the authority of the old Fathers, approved as those have been, through ‘such a series of ages.’ Have not they also been all equally blind; rather, have not they also over looked Paul’s most clear and most express words? Is it possible, that any thing could be said clearly and expressly for grace, in opposition to Freewill, pray, if Paul’s discourse be not clear and express?
He pursues his argument by way of comparison, 718 making his boast of grace in opposition to works. And then, in the clearest and plainest terms, he declares that we are justified freely; and that grace is not grace if it is procured by our works. He most explicitly excludes all works in the matter of justification, so that he may establish only grace, and gratuitous justification. 719 And yet, would we still look for darkness in the midst of this light? And when we cannot ascribe great things and every thing to ourselves, would we endeavour to ascribe very small and inconsiderable things to ourselves, just to carry the point that justification is not free, and without works, and by the grace of God? Truly, it is as if the man who denies that we are supplied with the greater things, and the all things which are necessary to justification, does not much more deny that we are supplied with the little things, and the few things — and all the while, he is maintaining that we are justified only by His grace, without works of any kind, and even without the law itself, in which all works, both great and small, both works of congruity, and works of condignity, are comprehended! Go now, and boast of the authority of the ancients, and trust to their sayings, all of whom to a man, as you perceive, have overlooked Paul, that most clear and explicit doctor! No indeed; they have, as it were, designedly gotten out of the way of this day-star, or rather of this sun — being so engrossed, truly, with the carnal imagination, that it seemed absurd to them that there could be no place left for merits.
SECT. 19. Paul’s citation of the example of Abraham searched and applied.
Let me adduce the example of Abraham, which Paul subsequently adduces: “If Abraham, was justified by works, he has glory; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” Rom 4.2
Here again, observe Paul’s division. He distinctly mentions two righteousnesses of Abraham. One is of WORKS, which is moral and civil; but by this he denies that he was justified before God, even though he was just before men by it. Moreover, he has glory with men; although even this man, by this righteousness, also comes short of the glory of God. Nor can anyone say, that the works 720 of the ceremonial law are condemned here, since Abraham lived so many years before the law. Paul speaks simply of the works of Abraham; and those were none other than his best. It would be ridiculous to reason whether a man is justified by bad works. If, then, Abraham is not just by any works of his, and unless he is clothed with another righteousness, that of pure faith, then he is left under the charge of ungodliness, both as to his person and all his works. It is plain that no man makes any advances towards righteousness by his own works: and further, that no works, no desires, no endeavours of Freewill, are of any avail before God; but are all accounted ungodly, unjust, and wicked. If the man is not just, then his works and desires are not just; and if they are not just, then they are damnable, and worthy of wrath.
The other righteousness is that of FAITH, which
