.
Subsection
Necessity of Good Works
Unbelievers’ Virtues & Good Works
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 20+
Westminster 1
Righteousness 3
Romanism 2
Supererogation 3
Rutherford’s Assertions
Latin 2
.
Articles
1500’s
Hamilton, Patrick – Patrick’s Places… (d. 1528; London: White, 1598)
No works make us unrighteous
Works makes us neither good nor evil
Every man, and his works, are either good or evil
None of our works either save us or condemn us
The man is the Tree, his works are the fruit
He that thinks to be saved by his works, calls himself Christ
We should do no good works for the intent to get the inheritance of heaven, or remission of sins
Certain brief Notes or declarations upon the foresaid places
The order and differences of places
In the doctrine of the Law, three things to be noted
Errors and absurdities of the Papists touching the doctrine of the Law and of the Gospel
Three Cautions to be observed and avoided, in the true understanding of the Law
Hamilton (1504–1528) was a proto-reformer and martyr in Scotland.
Calvin, John
19. ‘How the righteousness through good deeds and the righteousness through faith fit and harmonize together’ in Instruction in Faith (1537) tr. Paul T. Fuhrman (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), pp. 44-45
18. ’The Righteousness of Works improperly inferred from Rewards’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 2, bk. 3, pp. 413-28
Melanchthon, Philip – 14. ‘Of Good Works’ in Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, Loci Communes, 1555 tr. Clyde L. Manschreck (1555; NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), pp. 175-87
Bullinger, Henry – 9th Sermon, ‘Of Christian Liberty & of Offenses; of Good Works & the Reward Thereof’ in The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (1549; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1850), vol. 2, 3rd Decade, pp. 300-57
Musculus, Wolfgang – ‘Good Works’ in Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), folio 232.a
Bullinger, Henry – 5. ‘Of Faith & Good Works’ in Questions of Religion Cast Abroad in Helvetia [Switzerland] by the Adversaries of the Same, & Answered… tr. John Coxe (1560; London, 1572), pp. 46-58
Beza, Theodore
A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1565)
Ch. 4
14. Those do slander us falsely which say that we disallow good works
15. The first difference in the matter of good works is, which be good and which be evil
16. Which be the most excellent works and the qualities of true prayer according to the Word of God and the authority of the ancient doctors of the Church
Of Works of Charity
Of Works Indifferent
17. The second difference in the matter of good works is to know from whence they proceed
18. The third difference of the matter of good work is to know whereto they be good
19. To what end good works do serve us before God and before men
Ch. 7, 10. They know not what good works are in the Papistry
pp. 50-57 in A Book of Christian Questions & Answers… (London, 1574)
Becon, Thomas – 11. ‘Of Good Works’ in Prayers & Other Pieces by Thomas Becon (d. 1567; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1844), pp. 335-39
Becon (c. 1511-1567) was an Anglican reformer, clergyman and a chaplain to Thomas Cranmer. He was initially significantly influenced by Luther, and then Zwingli.
de Brès, Guy – ‘Of Merit & of Good Works’ in The Staff of Christian Faith… for to Know the Antiquity of our Holy Faith… gathered out of the Works of the Ancient Doctors of the Church… (d. 1567; London, 1577), pp. 70-107
de Bres (1522-1567) was a Walloon pastor, Protestant reformer and theologian, a student of Calvin and Beza in Geneva.
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573)
The Sum of the Principal Points of the Christian Faith
28. Of good works which are the fruits of true faith 28
The Summary of the Christian Doctrine
Of the Fruits & Effects of the Law, and of good works
Of the Good Works which God requires of the faithful
A Familiar Exposition of the Principal Points of the Catechism, and of the Christian Doctrine, made in Form of Dialogue
1st Dialogue, Of the Good Intents of Men that are not Governed by the Word of God
4th Dialogue, Of the True Spring of Good Works
9th Dialogue
Of the Impurity of men’s works, and how God judges of them
Of the Obligation whereby man is bound to God, and for what cause he cannot make recompence by the good works which he does, for the evil works which he has committed
The Exposition of the Preface of the Law
Zanchi, Girolamo – ch. 21, ’Of Good Works’ in Confession of the Christian Religion… (1586; Cambridge, 1599), pp. 163-69
Ursinus, Zachary – The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587)
Of Justification [Note that Ursinus was not for the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness to the believer in justification, which plays into these issues.]
1. What of Justice or Righteousness in General is 677
2. How manifold Justice is
3. In what justice differs from justification
4. What is our justice
5. How Christ’s satisfaction is made our justice and righteousness 681-83
Of Good Works 831-52
1. What Good Works are
2. How good works may be done
3. Whether the works of the Saints be perfectly good
4. How our works, though not perfectly good, please God
5. Why we are to do good works
6. Whether good works merit anything before God
Of Sin, 3. How many kinds of sin there are
Sinful in itself or Not
The Works of the regenerate and unregenerate differ seven manner of ways
Finch, Henry – The Sacred Doctrine of Divinity gathered out of the Word of God… (Middelburg: 1589), bk. 2
2. Of Righteousness in Nature, Desire & Will
10. Of Uprightness
Finch (d. 1625) was an English lawyer and politician.
Beza, Theodore, Anthony Faius & Students – 27. ‘Of Good Works’ in Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva by Certain Students of Divinity there, under Mr. Theodore Beza & Mr. Anthony Faius… (Edinburgh: Waldegrave, 1591), pp. 60-63
Virel, Matthew – A Learned & Excellent Treatise Containing All the Principal Grounds of Christian Religion (London, 1594), bk. 2
Intro
1st Part, What Good Works are to be done of us
. Intro
2nd Part, For what end good works are to be done and what is the use of them
Virel (1561-1595)
.
1600’s
Bucanus, William – 32. ‘Of Good Works’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), pp. 359
What are works properly?
To omit sundry distinctions of works, what is a good work?
By what names are they called?
Why does the Scripture oftener use the title of ‘good works’ rather than of ‘virtue’?
How many kinds of good works are there?
What is the efficient cause of good works?
What is the matter of good works?
What is the form of good works?
Whether is it sufficient that some work should be good and agreeable to the law of God, if that it be done according to the law of God in outward show?
What then are good works?
Who are they that do good works?
Are not Cornelius’s works praised before he was baptized and believed in Christ, Acts 10:4?
Are the good works of the regenerate pure and perfectly good, and blemished with no fault?
How then are they said to be perfect and easy to all that be born anew?
Seeing that which is good only in part cannot satisfy the law of God, and therefore that cannot please God which has the least imperfection in it, how then do the good works of the regenerate please God?
What are the adjuncts or the appurtenances of works?
What is merit?
How manifold is merit?
What is recompence?
What is the proper adjunct of wages?
What is debt?
Are the good works of men meritorious in the sight of God?
Is there anything then due to the good works of the regenerate, at least by covenant and promise?
Are there not also in the Gospel everywhere promised many blessings, both temporal and eternal to our good works?
How do the promises which are made in the gospel with the condition of works differ from the legal promises?
What then are the legal promises concerning the reward of good works to no purpose?
Does not the merit of Christ at the least give the virtue and efficacy thereof to our works that they may merit and deserve the grace and favor of God?
Does not Paul in those places speak of works done by mere natural men before regeneration?
Seeing the Scripture does commend unto us this rule of the judgment to come in these words, ‘God will give every man according to his works,’ Ps. 62:15; Mt. 16:27; Rom. 12:6; Rev. 22:12, shall sentence be given according to works, as causes deserving the recompence either of life or of death?
But the causes of death whereunto the reprobate shall be adjudged are placed out of themselves, to wit the malediction of God and the decree of God (for the king shall say, Mt. 25:41, ‘Get ye hence ye cursed into everlasting fire’) and yet they let not, but that their works also be the cause of damnation. Are not then (besides those causes of the benediction and decree of God) the good works of the elect in like manner the causes of salvation?
Whether is there in those words, ‘Come ye blessed,’ only a calling and adjudging them to life, and then after follows the cause taken from their works, ‘for I was hungry and ye gave me to eat’?
Wherefore will He give sentence according to works?
In what respect then is life-eternal called a reward?
And why does God promise reward to the good works of his children?
To what purpose does He thus promise?
What causes ought to provoke us to live well?
Why must we avoid evil works?
Are good works necessary to salvation?
What is to be observed in the sayings of the Scriptures wherein justification, salvation, and life-eternal is ascribed to works?
What is the end and use of good works?
What is contrary to this doctrine?
Ames, William – ch. 3, ‘Good Works’ in The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997), bk. 2, pp. 232-36
Ames (1576-1633) was an English, puritan, congregationalist, minister, philosopher and controversialist. He spent much time in the Netherlands, and is noted for his involvement in the controversy between the reformed and the Arminians. Voet highly commended Ames’s Marrow for learning theology.
Polyander, Johannes – 34. ‘On Good Works’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 2, pp. 342-72
Wolleb, Johannes – 1. ‘The Nature of Good Works’ in Abridgment of Christian Divinity (1626) in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), bk. 2, pp. 191-94
Wolleb (1589–1629) was a Swiss reformed theologian. He was a student of Amandus Polanus.
Maccovius, John – ch. 15, ‘On Good Works’ in Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological & Philosophical Distinctions & Rules (1644; Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009), pp. 249-53
Maccovius (1588–1644) was a Polish, reformed theologian.
Rijssen, Leonard – ch. 15, ‘The Decalogue & Good Works’ in A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary trans. J. Wesley White MTh thesis (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), pp. 170-97
Rijssen (1636?-1700?) was a prominent Dutch reformed minister and theologian, active in theological controversies.
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 2, 17th Topic
3. ‘Are good works necessary to salvation? We affirm.’ 702
4. ‘What is required that a work may be truly good? Are the works of the righteous such? We affirm.’ 706
.
2000’s
Barth, Paul – ‘Good Works’ 7 paragraphs in ‘Reformed Scholasticism: Distinguishing Ends’ (2017)
This is very helpful. Barth quotes from Zanchi, Turretin, Aquinas, and Ursinus.
.
Westminster
Confession of Faith – ch. 16, ‘Of Good Works’
.
What Righteousness is
Order of Contents
Articles 2
Quotes 2
.
Articles
Ursinus, Zachary – The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587), Of Justification, pp. 677-83 Note that Ursinus was not for the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness to the believer in justification, which plays into this question.
1. What of Justice or Righteousness in General is
2. How manifold Justice is
3. In what justice differs from justification
4. What is our justice
5. How Christ’s satisfaction is made our justice and righteousness
Pemble, William – pp. 2-3 of Vindiciae fidei, or A Treatise of Justification by Faith… 1st ed. (Oxford, 1625), section 1, ch. 1
.
Quotes
William Pemble
Vindiciae fidei, or A Treatise of Justification by Faith… 1st ed. (Oxford, 1625), section 3, ch. 1, pp. 66-67
“The righteousness required by the Moral Law is of two sorts:
1. Habitual [an abiding inward disposition], in the inherent holiness of man’s whole person, when such gracious qualities are fixed and planted in every faculty of soul and body: as do dispose and incline the motions of both only unto that which is conformable to the righteousness of the Law.
That such righteousness is required by the Law is a plain case and confessed; That which commands the good or forbids the evil action does command the virtuous and forbid the vicious habit too. He that looks for purity in the stream cannot but dislike poison in the fountain: and God that commands us to do good, bids us also to be holy; nor can we do the one, unless we do the other. And therefore the apostle joins both together. The end of the commandment is love, (but where?) out of a pure heart, 1 Tim. 1:5.
2. Actual, in the exercise of all good works enjoined by the Law, and forbearing the contrary evil works. Whether these good or evil works be inward in that spiritual obedience which the Law required; (viz.) in the right ordering of all the motions of our souls, that every one of our thoughts, imaginations, purposes of our mind, and all the secret workings and stirrings of our affections, be altogether employed upon piety and charity, not so much as touching upon any thing that is contrary to the love of God or our neighbor. Or, whether these good and evil works be outward in the bodily obedience unto the Law, in doing all and every external duty of religion towards God: of justice and mercy towards man; and in leaving undone the contrary.
Further this actual righteousnesse of the Law is to be considered two ways:
1. As it respects all the commandments, and so that righteousness is only perfect, which fulfils all and every particular precept of the Law.
2. As it respects any one commandment, or any one duty therein contained. And so we may call that righteousness perfect, which exactly performs any one point of the Law, though it fail in others.”
.
Richard Baxter
Aphorisms of Justification… (Hague, 1655), thesis 16, pp. 62-64 Note that Baxter was not for the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness to the believer in justification, which plays into this question.
“…you must know therefore that righteousness is no proper real being, but a modus entis, ‘the modification of a being’. The subject of it is: 1. an action, 2. or a person. An action is the primary subject, and so the disposition; and the person secondary, as being therefore righteous, because his disposition and actions are so.
Righteousness is the conformity of dispositions and actions, and consequently the person to the rule prescribed.
It is not a being distinct therefore from the dispositions and actions, but their just and well being.
This [de]finition is only of the creatures’ righteousness.
God is the Primum Iustum, and so the rule of righteousness to the creature, and has no rule but Himself for the measuring of his actions.
Yet his essence is too far above us, remote and unknown to be this rule to the creature, therefore has He given us his laws, which flow from his perfection, and they are the immediate rule of our dispositions and actions and so of our righteousness.
Here carefully observe, that this law has two parts: 1. The precept and prohibition prescribing and requiring duty: 2. The promise and commination [threatening] determining of the reward of obedience, and penalty of disobedience. As the precept is the principal part, and the penalty annexed but for the precept’s sake; so the primary intent of the lawgiver is the obeying of his precepts, and our suffering of the penalty is but a secondary for the attaining of the former.
So is there accordingly a two-fold Righteousness or fulfilling of this law, (which is the thing I would have observed): the primary, most excellent and most proper Righteousness lies in the conformity of our actions to the precept: The secondary, less excellent righteousness) yet fitly enough so called) (see Pemble, Of Justification, p. 2) is, when though we have broke the precepts, yet we have satisfied for our breach, either by our own suffering, or some other way.”
.
Good Works in Romanism
Article
Pascal, Blaise – Letter 1 in Pensees – The Provincial Letters in The Modern Library (d. 1662; NY: Modern Library, 1941), pp. 325-35
Pascal, a Romanist, relates a humorous, though sad and sick account of Parisian Jesuit Molinists who conspired with Dominicans (Thomists), through sophistry (through affirming the same term ‘proximate’, yet in different senses, while refusing to acknowledge or expalin the difference), to condemn a (Romanist) Jansenist theologian (who would not affirm the term ‘proximate’ without it being explained to him) over a doctrinal/philosophical point relating to the ability of man to keep God’s commandments proximately, though the end shows all were agreed that man could not keep the commandments without the merciful efficacious will of God.
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations (Amsterdam: Jansson, 1669), vol. 5
‘On Subsequent Grace’, pt. 1 716
. pt. 2 726
. pt. 3 733
. pt. 4 741
. pt. 5 749-63
‘Subsequent grace’ was used by Romanists in distinction from prevenient grace. For a definition of subsequent grace, see p. 718 (bot).
.
On Supererogatory Works
See also, ‘On the Evangelical Counsels’.
.
Article
1500’s
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ch. 9, ‘Of the Works of Supererogation, & Imagined Perfection of the Papists’ in The Common Places… (London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 3, pp. 227-45
Willet, Andrew – pt. 3, ‘Of the Works of Supererogation’ in Synopsis Papismi (1592), Controversy on the 5 Other Popish Sacraments, Benefits of our Redemption Purchased unto Us, pt. 2, Question 2, Concerning the Law, pp. 567-68
.
Latin Article
1600’s
Hommius, Festus – Disputation 29, ‘On Monastic Vows, Evangelical Counsels & Works of Supererogation’ in 70 Theological Disputations Against Papists (Leiden, 1614), pp. 156-68
.
Rutherford’s Assertions
Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself (London: 1647), pp. 164-66
“Question: What is a right and straight intention in serving God?
Assertion 1. When the deliberation of a bended will concurs with the intention, it’s right; as when there is a heart-conclusion for God, Ps. 39:1, ‘I said I will take heed to my ways, that I offend not with my tongue.’ Ps. 31:14, ‘But I trusted in the Lord: I said, Thou art my God.’ Ps. 102:24, ‘I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days.’ This was an intended prayer, Ps. 119:57, ‘I have said that I would keep thy words.’
Assertion 2. The saints are not so perfect in their intentions as God is their only end: 1. Because a piece of ourself is mixed with our end; there is some crook in our straightest line; an angle in our perfectest circle: when we run most swiftly, because of the indwelling of corruption we halt a little. 2. Self-denial is not perfect in this life.
Assertion 3. It’s good when God is so preconceived in the intention, as the principal actions and motions both have being and denomination from their predominant element. Honey is honey, though not pure from wax. A believer is not a simple element, nor all grace and all sincerity. Now in bodies carried with a predominant element, the predominant is affirmed, the subordinate denied. 1 Cor. 15:10, ‘Yet not I, but the grace of God with me.’ 2 Cor. 4:5, ‘For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Christ’s sake.’ Where Christ is the predominant element, He is of weight to sway the whole soul in its motion. And it’s right-down sincerity (whatever Crispe [an Antinomian], with Papists say on the contrary) though it require some grains of allowance to make it pass.
Assertion 4. Where self is the predominant, the intention is bastard and adulterate. Jehu says, ‘Come see my zeal for the Lord;’ but he only says it. He could have said, ‘Come see my zeal for myself.’ In the Jews’ zeal, Rom. 10:1, there’s a pound of self-righteousness for one-half grain of Christ and of free-grace; therefore it’s not the right zeal of God.
Assertion 5. There be two characters of an intended end, which are also here:
1. All that the agent does, he refers to his end; for his end is his God. The wretch does all in reference to gold: that is his end; and Joab did all for court and honor; for the chief end is the man’s master and uses a lordship over him. Christ is so mighty through God that He darkens the scribes’ and pharisees’ light, because their end lies in the fat womb of the world and it is gain and glory; all they do is to make Christ out of the way. So when the believer sails all winds, rolls every stone, presses all means for Christ as his end and his weight, then stirs he to the right port. Christ’s love has a dominion over lord-will: One adamant will cut another; the sinner is a rock, Christ’s love an adamant. Christ’s love setting on the will’s intention burns the soul to the bone. Mary Magdalen cannot sleep (and its a ticklesome game where the heart is at the stake) and Christ she must have; apostles, angels, Christ Himself shall hear of it ere she want [lack] Him. And the rougher and harder the means be, when undertaken for Christ, Christ must be a stronger and more love-working end. When torment and burning quick [alive] are chosen for Christ, it’s like He is the end; for love overcomes a rough and dangerous journey: A sweet and desirable home is above a dirty and thorny way. Christ’s love is stronger than Hell. Our affections often take fire from difficulties, as absence of the Beloved kindles a new fire; stolen bread, because stolen, is sweeter, and not our nature only; but longing after Christ, nititur in vetitum, ‘inclines to that which is forbidden.’ What if Christ be longed for and loved more when absent than present?
2. The other character is that when the end is obtained, all operation for or about the means ceases, and the soul has a complacency in the fruition of the end. When the wretch’s chests are full, he has a heart-quietness in gold; Lk. 12, ‘Soul, take thine ease;’ but if the soul have an aching and a disquieting motion after gold is obtained, it is not because gold was not his end, but because he has not obtained it in such a large measure as he would, or because it’s but a sick and lame end and cannot satiate, but rather sharpen soul-thirst after such corruptible things. When Christ is obtained, the soul has sweet peace; He that drinks of the water of life thirsts no more, appetitu desiderii, ‘as longing with anxiety’ for this, as we do for earthly things which we want [lack]; though he have appetitum complacentiae, ‘a desire of complacency’ and a sweet self-quietness that his heritage pleases him well and his lines are fallen in pleasant parts, and rests on his portion and would not change it with ten thousand worlds. Men by this, who are fishing and hunting after some other thing than Christ, may know what is their end: when Christ and reformation come to their doors, they will have neither but cast out their lines for another prey: Men now fish and angle for gain in lieu of godliness.”
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations (Amsterdam: Jansson, 1667 / 1669), vol. 4, 50. ‘A Syllabus of Questions on the Whole Decalogue’
‘On Good Works’ 763
‘On the Intellect’ 764
‘On the Will’ 764
‘On Sense, or the Sensitive Power’ 765
‘On the Appetite, or the Affections’ 765
‘On Locomotion’ 766
‘On Habit’ 766
‘On Conscience’ 767
‘On the Law of God’ 767
‘On Motives of Good Works & Especially on Examples’ 769
‘On the Grace of God’ 770
‘On the Adjuncts & Requisites of Good Works: truthfulness or sincerity, necessity, preciseness, constancy or progress, efficacy or causality and of the opposite, merit, of imperfection’ 770
‘On the Division of Good Works’ 771
‘On the Opposites of Good Works, namely Sins’ 772
Wettstein, Gernler & Buxtorf – 17. Sanctification & Good Works in A Syllabus of Controversies in Religion which come between the Orthodox Churches & whatever other Adversaries, for material for the regular disputations… customarily held in the theological school of the academy at Basil (Basil, 1662), pp. 60-64
.
.
.
Related Pages