Richard Baxter's Catholic theology plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriors who,…Richard Baxter's Catholick theologie plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriours who,…

Then because some words of Medina and Cajet. and Romaus seem for Commutative Justice, he showeth that it was not their meaning: Next he vindicateth Scotus and Gabriel as having no such meaning in some words of theirs: Then he cometh to the case of Christs own Merits, and saith, that some say [Christ satisfied for us in rigour of Justice.] But that Aquin. Bonavent. and such ancients use not that form of speech; but only teach, that Christs satisfaction was perfect, that is, needed no Acceptilation: but to this it is not necessary that it be according to Justice properly, but that it was of equal condignity by way of Merit. And other Schoolmen that speak as aforesaid mean not that in Christ there was proper Justice towards God; but that the equality which he kept by the way and similitude of Justice in his satisfaction, was according to rigour: that is, needed not Gods liberal acceptation, but was altogether of equal condignity; which is true: I except but some late ones, who contend that in that satisfaction there was proper justice; (whom he opposeth;) But they speak only of Imperfect Justice, such as is found in Creatures, which is not in God. ⟨p. 274⟩In Cap. 3. he layeth down several foundations against Commutative Justice, and confuteth Cajetan and Medina who said that indeed between God and man there was no Commutative Justice, but inter res, that is, inter meritum & praemium there is; which he showeth is a contradiction of the former. In Cap. 4. he disputeth against commutative Justice in God to man, and that 1. Because there is not aequalitas dati & accepti; and to be short, he brings against it the very same arguments as Protestants urge against Merit, which showeth that both sides mean and oppose the very same thing: And he is so much against any Merit of ours from God in Commutative Justice, that he labours to prove that Christs satisfaction was not such, nor can any▪ Creature so merit of God; much less is mans penance or satisfaction such: yea indeed he goeth too far in his reasons, as I think: For he argueth that where there is no Damnum (damage) in the sin against God, there is no proper injustice, but a common sort of it: and therefore there can no merit in proper justice by satisfaction (by Christ or us;) and that our sin bringeth no damage to God, ergo, &c. But I deny his Major: There may be injury where there is no Damage;

Then because some words of Medina and Cajet. and Romaus seem for Commutative Justice, he sheweth that it was not their meaning: Next he vindicateth Scotus and Gabriel as having no such meaning in some words of theirs: Then he cometh to the case of Christs own Merits, and saith, that some say [Christ satisfied for us in rigour of Justice.] But that Aquin. Bonavent. and such ancients use not that form of speech; but only teach, that Christs satisfaction was perfect, that is, needed no Acceptilation: but to this it is not necessary that it be according to Justice properly, but that it was of equal condignity by way of Merit. And other Schoolmen that speak as aforesaid mean not that in Christ there was proper Justice towards God; but that the equality which he kept by the way and similitude of Justice in his satisfaction, was according to rigour: that is, needed not Gods liberal acceptation, but was altogether of equal condignity; which is true: I except but some late ones, who contend that in that satisfaction there was proper justice; (whom he opposeth;) But they speak only of Imperfect Justice, such as is found in Creatures, which is not in God.