ship in the temple of .Jerusalem — The names of some persons sacrificed — The use of human sacrifices among the Gentiles proved from Cle- mens of Alexandria, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Porphyry, Philo,
Eusebius, Tertullian, Euripides — Instances of human sacrifices in the sacred Sci'iptures— The remarkable obedience of Abraham — What the neighbouring nations might have gathered from that event — Why human sacrifices were not instituted by God — Tlie story of Iphigenia — The history of Jephthah — Whether he put his daughter to death — The cause of the difficulty — The impious sacrifice of the king of Moab — The abominable superstition of the Rugiani — The craftiness of the devil — Vindications of the argument — The same concluded, . 525 V. — The third argument — This divine attribute demonstrated in the works of providence — That passage of the apostle to the Romans, chap. i. 18, considered — Ani;er, what it is— The definitions of the philosophers — The opinion of Lactautius concerning the anger of God— Anger often ascribed to God in the holy Scriptures — In what sense this is dune — The divine anger denotes, 1. The effect of anger; 2. The will of punish- ing— What that will is in God — Why the justice of God is expressed by anger— The manifestation of the divine anger, what it is— How it is "revealed from heaven" — The sum of the argument. The fourth argument — Vindicatory justice revealed in the cross of Christ — Tlie attributes of God, how displayed in Christ — Heads of other argu- ments—The conclusion, ....... 541
VI. — Another head of the first part of the dissertation— Arguments for the necessary egress of vindicatoiTr justice from the supposition of sin — The first argument — God's hatred of sin, what — ^Vllcthcr God by nature hates sin, or because he wills so to do — Testimonies from holy Scripture — Dr Twisse's answer — The sum of it — The same obviated — The relation of obedience to reward and of sin to punishment not the same — Justice and mercy, in respect of their exercise, difl'erent — The second argument — The description of God in the Scriptures in respect of sin — In what sense he is called a "consuming fire" — Twisse's answer refuted— The fallacies of the answer, . . . 549
VII. — The third argimient — Tlie non-punishment of sin is contrary to the glory of God's justice — Likewise of his holiness and dominion — A fourth argument — The necessity of a satisfaction being made by the death of Cliri.-t — No necessai-y cause or cogent reason for the death of Christ according to the adversaries — The objection refuted — The use of saci'i- fices— The end of the first part of the dissertation, . . . 554
PART II.
VIII. — Objections of the adversaries answered— The Racovian Catechism pai-ti- cularly considered — The force of the argument for the satisfaction of Christ fmni punitory justice — Tlie catechists deny that justice to be inherent in God ; and also sjmring mercy — Their fii-st argument weighed and refuted — Justice and mercy are not opposite— Two kinds (if the divine attributes — Their second and third arguments, with the answers annexed, ......... 661
564
569
CONTENTS. VII
^"^^^ Paqb
IX.— Crellius taken to task-His first mistake-God doth not punish sins as bemg endowed with supreme dominion- The first argument of Crellius — Ihe answer— The translation of punishment upon Christ, in what view made by (jod— Whether the remission of sins, without a satisfac- tion made, could take place without injury to any one— To whom punishment belongs-Whether every one can resign his right-Right twolold— Ihe right of debt, what ; and what that of government— A na- tural and positive right-Positive right, what— A description also of natural right— Concessions of Crellius, . . .
X.— The opinion of Socinus considered— What he thought of our present question, namely, that it is the hinge on which the whole controversy concerning the satisfaction of Christ turns— His vain boasting, as if, having_ disproved this vindicatory justice, he had snatched the prize from his adversaries-Other clear proofs of the satisfaction of C'hi ist— ihat it IS our duty to acquiesce in the revealed will of God-The truth not to be forsaken— Mercy and justice not opposite— Vain distinctions ot bocinus concerning divine justice-The consideration of these dis- tinctions— His first a,rgument against vindicatory justice— The solution ot it— Ihe anger and severity of God, what -Universal and particular thi a^dversc r agree-The false reasoning and vain boasting of
XI.-The arguments of Socinus against punitory justice weighed-A false hypothesis of his-Sms, in what sense they are debts— The first argu- ment of Socinus, in which he takes for granted what ought to hSve been proved— A trifling supposition substituted for a proof— Whether that excellence by virtue of which God punishes sins be called justice in the Scriptures-The severity of God, what-Our opponent's second argunient— It labours under the same deficiency as the first— It is not opposite to mercy to punish the guilty-The mercy of God, what— ihere is a distinction between acts and habits-Our opponent con- lounds them— rhe mercy of God infinite, so also his justice— A distinc- tion ot the divine attnbutes-In pardoning sins through Jesus Christ, God hath exercised infinite justice and infinite mercy— The conclusion ot the contest with JSocinus,