274 Of the difference about mans Merits Incap.3.he layeth doomfeveral foundationsagain(( Commutative Jutliçe, and coufuteth cajetan and Medina who Paid that indeed between God and man there wasno Commutative Juflice,but inter res, that is, inter meritum pramium there is;. which he fheweth is a contradit°tion of the former. In cap. 4. he difputeth againft commutative Juftice in God to man, and that a. Becaufe there is not equalitas dati b accepti and to be fhort, he brings againft it thevery fame argumentsas Proteflancs urgeagainft Merit; which theweththat both fidesmean and oppofe the very fame thing : And he is fomuch againft anyMerit of ours from God in Commutative Juftice, that he labours to prove that Chrifts fatisfaétion was not fuch, nor can any Creature fo merit of God much lefs is mans penance or fatisfat}iotr fuch : yea indeed he goeth too far in his reafons, as I think : For he ar- gueth that where there is no Damnom (damage) in the finaga;nft God, there is no proper injuftice,but acommon fort of it : and therefore there can no merit in proper juffice by facisfat4ion ( by Chrift orus ;) and that our fin bringeth no damage to God, ergo, &c. But I deny his Major : There may be injury where there is no Damage ; and consequently injuftice : Sup- pofe a King or Father fo far above his fubjettt or fon, as that all his difóbe- dience would no way hurt or damnifie him : yet it would injure him ; be- caufe the father hath Right to the Ions obedience ( and love,) and 3uria denegatio ell injuria. - So that I confefs that God cannot poflibly give us any thing byCommutative Juftice, ina arid and proper leuce ; becaufe we can fo give him nothing in commutation : But I feenot but that by fin, man finneth againft proper Juftice, in not giving God his Own or Due, tohlt Injury, thoughnot to his damage. But I confefs the term Commutative notingmutual Right, is improper; and their diflinttion of commutative and difirthutive Nike is narrow, ambiguous, inept, and therefore feedeth and not endeth Controverfies : The true diftribution of Juflice is from the three GrandMoral Relations, Dominii, Imperii &Beneficii vel Ámic#ie. z. Godhaththe true proper Right of Propriety in us, and to our fervice: 2. He bath a proper Right of Imperium Rule, and fo to our obedience : 3. By his Goodnefs, Love and Benefits, he bath aproper Right to our greateft LoveandGratitude. Andhethat finnethdenyeth God all there, and -lb doth violate properJuftice, denying him that towhich he hath Right. But toreturn to Vafquez, havingPaid, Ct That our Merit and Satisfatij- "on can be nóbenefit to God, nor our fin his damage, necullainequalitar "inter ipfum 6, nos conffituia eft, qua fitobjeclum injuftitie proprie, he tt addeth that his punifhments are no parts of commutative juftice in re.. st farciendis & 'vindicandis injuriís, becaufe here is no reparation of "damage, as 'Thom. a. a. q. t o8. art. a. And cap. 5. he proceedeth to provehis dotttrine, from the Condition of God and the Creature, we being as Children and (laves, abfolutely his .own ; therefore there can be noproper/tiffice between us : And he cometh .to the great objection, that ct At free,our Adions are our own, and fomay "meritof Juftice: and anfwereth No: becaufe the Value of our works " towhich the Reward is given dependeth on Gods grace, which he freely tt giveth and conferveth to us, though as free the aétions are of us as "Caufes : And becaufe that Liberty is only a findamentnm of merit, "but giveth not the work its Value (or worth;) therefore we cannot " make God ourDebtor, by any meritorious work of which he himfelf is " the author andCaufe. "And hence he is fo much againft this merit. of Juftice, as to inferr, "that [ Chrifi himfelf could not fatirfte God according to fleid Juftice "properly, by the works of his Humane nature ; becaufe the whole válat u came
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=