Baxter - Houston-Packer Collection BT763 .B35 1655

(149) juffification , and concluded to reprefs thevery termof merits: cap t 1. & tz. vid. etiam li. 5. Append. part 3.p. 2. Cbamier cites Saw, Latomus, gropperus, trindradiss, Gregor. de Falentia, Heins, as fpeaking again!' merit of Congruity before Juftification : the Council of Trent as neither affirming nor denying it: and Durandus as denying proper merit ofCondignity, andConrad. Chirgius asfollowing Scotus in affirming it, to be on- ly expatio. Chemnitius, Exam. Concil. Trident. in qrs. 4. de honk operib. p. 185. (cited alto by Davenant) faith thus, In the Reconciled, good Works do pleafe Godfor the Mediator , and have rewards corporal andfpiritual in this life, and after this life : but of thefree Promife of God, not that god is made our Debtor for the perfellion and digni- ty of our works : in thisTesti our (Divines) do not abhor the. Wordmerit ; as it was tired by the Fathers. See alfowhat is cited out ofBucer and Calvin, in the fame place by Davenant, p.572. Voffius Thef: de mer. operib. p. 66. faith , We dare not Wholly condemn the word (or name of) meriting, ,u being ufedby very ma- ny of the ancients, and ufedby the ReformedChurches in their Con- flicts:, as the Auguftane andWettemberg : yet We think it fitter to 'peak as the Scriptures, efirecially When the Word merit is ambi- guous,andefpeciallyincur age, is dangerous in reffrell of pride. Mr. Wotton de Reconc. cap. ult. p. 399. 403, brings in many Papifts againft merit of Congruity ( and foagainft our being by works put into a state of juftification ) ; and taking it to be no merit, but a meer difpofition that went before juftification, As Capreol. in 4.d. 144. Le,. 3. Antonius Pathasfa. li. de grat. &prep deft. c. 6. & de lib. arb. cap. 6. Et Delwin. Sow &Petras Solos I. de Inflit. Sacerd. 9, de ptrnit. Helios in Confer. Catbola c. 73. And Suarez laying, d. c. 37. n . 2 . eft comvnunis fen- tentia Theologorum. And Bellarmine and Pip confefsing that it is, but a controverfie about a word : And p. 4co. he faith ; Same perhaps will expeEi that Idebate this opinion of thePapifisabout merit of Congruity : But it Teems tome a thing not to be clone, becatsfe I have made it clear, that it belongs not to the Faith the Church of Rome, of which alone I holdcontroverfie with the Paptfts. And Chewing that the fpeeches of fome particular Papifts gave our,, Divines occafion todifpute thislueition, he concludes Butfot V. 3,

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=