Louis Le Blanc on the Relationship between Good Works and Eternal Life Theses 18-21
Theses Theologicae [...] (London, 1683), pgs. 591-92
18. The most celebrated men, John Davenant and Moses Amyraut, provide evidence that Reformed doctors acknowledge that there is consent and agreement of this nature [cf. the previous thesis] between eternal life and the good works of the pious. Davenant, in explaining how the good works of the regenerate relate to eternal life, and are ordained to it, not only observes that those good works are ordained to be rewarded, because God gratuitously, according to his will of good pleasure, promises the rewards in this life and the future one for the good works of believing and regenerate men; but he moreover affirms that those good works have a certain ordination, or at least an aptitude, in their being ordained to divine rewards for, as it were, a threefold reason. 1. On account of the condition of the doer. 2. On account of the condition of the works themselves. 3. On account of the difficulty of doing good works. First, I will note what he says regarding the condition of the doer. “For,” he says, “when the doer himself is assumed to be a believer and justified, it is also presumed that he is admitted into the divine favor and friendship. But the law of friendship requires that whatever may be the services which an inferior performs for a friend in a higher station, they are compensated not according to the unimportance of the service performed, but according to the generous disposition and rank of him to whom they are offered. Therefore, seeing that the regenerate are numbered among the friends of God, according to the saying of Christ, ‘you are my friends if you do whatever I command you’ (John 15:14); when they aim at this from a godly disposition, they may expect from God, their benefactor and friend, rewards of such a character as those with which he is accustomed to honor his friends.” Then, on account of the condition of the works themselves: “For these works which are called good, ought always to flow from the love of God, and have respect to the honor of God. But such a work, although it has not a condignity, yet there is a propriety in their destination (so to speak) for a celestial reward. For to do anything from the love of God calls forth the love of God towards the doer, which, since it consists in the effect, not in the disposition, brings with it of necessity the bestowment of some good. So to make our works have a reference to the honor of God, excites him as it were to honor us, and confer upon us the Divine rewards. Thus, the sacred Scriptures teach: ‘Them that honor me, I will honor’ (1 Sam. 2:30). ‘Whoever will give you a cup of water, in my name, because you are Christ's, will not lose his reward’ (Mark 9:41)—As if he had said that no work is so small, but that if it be done out of love for me, and to my honor, it will obtain the richest reward for its doer.” Finally, he says that the very difficulty of doing good works, which arises from the opposition of the devil and the world, the resistance of the flesh, and the urge to do the contrary, gives to good works a certain fittingness for divine reward. “For,” he says, “some reward is always due to the one who strives lawfully in obedience to the direction of the umpire [i.e., he who assigned prizes in the ancient Greek games]. Therefore, since good works are not wrought without opposition and struggles—for the flesh lusts against the spirit (to say nothing concerning the devil and the world, who proclaim, as it were, war against all good works)—there is, on account of the difficulty of practicing them, a certain ordination for rewards. He, therefore, who will have toiled and fought in the gym of good works, may say with the Apostle, ‘I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord will give me,’ etc. (2 Tim. 4:7–8).”
19. Similarly, the celebrated man M. Amyraut, in his little French book about the merit of works against Theoph. Brachetus Milleterius (pg. 50), accurately expounds and follows up with more explanation of the agreement between good works and eternal life. In giving a reason why God is said to the just according to their works, observes that the preposition κατα, that is, according to, in general signifies each relation or agreement which is between two things. But between the good works of the just and eternal life one finds quite clear and distinct agreements. For, first, good works are a moral good, and life and glory is a physical good, as they say. The former consists in virtue; the latter in praise and happiness. And so these two agree in that they are both goods, although not of the same kind. Second, good works restore the image of God as it is good and holy, and life and glory do the same as they are blessed and happy. And so these two agree in that, among both, in their own unique way, the image of God is made manifest. Third, seeing that holiness and good works share some excellency of the divine nature, God thus delights in them. So, on the contrary, God hates sin because they are opposed to the purity of his nature. Fourth, from this it follows that God has promised blessedness for good works and holiness, just as, on the opposite side, he has threatened penalty and punishment for sin.
20. And afterwards, on pg. 60 and following, Amyraut, while explaining how the faithful who are zealous for good works are worthy of the kingdom of God, teaches first they are declared worthy of the heavenly kingdom by reason of the holiness which is in them—not indeed absolutely, if God were to strictly examine them; but nevertheless, comparatively, with respect to the ungodly who are immersed in the filth of sin. Then he notes that there are two kinds of worthiness in things: One which consists in a certain relation of justice. In which sense, a worker is said to be worthy of his payment; The other which consists only in a certain harmony of nature, as when it is said, “produce fruit worthy of repentance,” that is, which are consistent with and in harmony with it. And it is in this latter sense that he affirms that the godly are worthy of glory and felicity seeing that happiness and the natural state of sin are incompatible, and are not able to be correspond; so there is a certain natural agreement between happiness and holiness, which true penitence promotes. And moreover, given an established promise of remuneration was made for the good works of the pious, they are worthy of remuneration because they are in the state which the promise requires, and they have that disposition which it demands.
21. Again, although there is a certain harmony among the good works of the faithful and the life and glory which God rewards to them which is the reason that Scripture speaks of the faithful as being worthy of eternal life, nevertheless in no way ought one to think that eternal life is owed per se and by strict justice because of their good works. For in order that, according to the rigor of the law, a reward to be owed to a work and labor, a simple harmony between a work and a reward is not enough. But it is required that the work be, as far as possible, equal in worth and value with the reward, and we have already shown from Scripture that there is not that sort of proportion of equality between both.