DISTINCTIONS EESPECTING JUSTICE. 601
which has not naturally some respect to another object, are for the most part silent concerning this justice. And once, by the way, to take notice of these [hair-sj^litters], on this, as almost on every other subject, they are strangely divided. Duns Scotus, Durandus, and Paludamus deny that there is commutative justice in God.^
For the Master of the Sentences himself calls God an impartial and just distributer, but says not a word of commutation. Thomas Aquinas^ and Cajetan do the same; though the latter says "that some degree of commutative justice is discernible." So also Fero- rariensis, on the same place; and Sotus, in the third book of his treatise, " Of Nature and Grace/' chap. vii. Durandus, in particular, contends, with many arguments, that this kind of justice ought not to be assigned to God; — first, Because that this justice observes an equality between the thing given and received, which cannot be the case between us and God ; — and, secondly, Because that we cannot be of any service to him (which he proves from Rom. xi. S5 ; Job xxii. 3, XXXV. 7; Luke xvii. 10), whereby he can be bound to make an equality with us by virtue of commutation ; — and, thirdly, Because that we cannot make an equal return to God for benefits received; — and, finally, That as there is no proper commutative jus- tice between a father and his children, according to Aristotle's^ opi- nion, much less can it subsist between God and us.
But the same Durandus likewise denies to God distributive justice,* because he is not indebted to any one. He, however, acknowledges some mode of distributive justice, and Pesantius^ follows his opinion.
But Gabriel, on the same*^ distinction, asserts commutative justice to be inherent in God ; for there is a certain equality, as he says, between God and man, from the acceptation of God the receiver. Proudly enough said, indeed !
But what shall we say of these triflers ? They resemble those advocates in Terence, whose opinion, after Demipho, embarrassed by the cheats of Phormio the sycophant, had asked, he exclaims, "Well done, gentle- men; I am now in a greater uncertainty than before!" so intricate were their answers, and resembling the practices of the Andabatse.''
Hence, Francis Suarez himself, after he had reviewed the opinions of the schoolmen concerning the justice of God, bids adieu to them all, declaring, " That the expressions of Scripture had greater weight with him than their philosophic human arguments," Opusc. vi. de Just. Div. sec. 1. But with much labour and prolixity he insists that both distributive and commutative justice are to be ascribed to God,
1 Palud. on the Sent., book iv. dist. 46.
* Thomas, first page of qiiest. 21, and Cajetan, ii. 2, q. 61, a. 4.
3 Ethics, book viii. chap. 8. * On dist. 46.
' In ii. 2, Thomas. " A work to which he alludes. — Te.
^ A kind of fencers who fought on horseback hood-winked. — Te.
502 A DISSERTATION ON DIVINE JUSTICE. [PAIIT I.
that SO he might pave the way for that rotten fiction concerning the merits of Roman Catholics with God, — a doctrine which, were even all his suppositions gi'anted, appears not to follow, much less to be confirmed/ This opinion of Suarez concerning vindicatory justice, as it is deservedly famous in scholastic theology, we think proper to lay before you in few words.
In his discourses concerning the justice of God,^ he contends that the affection^ of punishing, which he calls " a perfection elicitive^ of the act of punishing," is properly and formally inherent in God ; and it is so because it hath a proper object, namely, to punish the guilt of sin, which is honourable ; nor does it include any imperfec- tion; and, therefore, that some formal and proper divine attribute ought to correspond to that effect.
He farther maintains that this affection of punishing is neither commutative nor distributive justice. His conclusions here I do not oppose, though I cannot approve of many of his reasonings and argu- ments. In fine, he contends that vindicatory justice in God is the same with universal, or legal, or providential justice, which we call the justice of government. But he makes a dishonourable and base conclusion from a distinction about the persons punished, namely, into such as are merely passive sufferers, and such as spontaneously submit themselves to punishment, that they may satisfy the puni- tory justice of God ; reasoning in such a manner, that after he has forced the whole doctrine concerning the commutative and distribu- tive justice of God to become subservient to that sacrilegious and proud error concerning the merits of man with God, and even of one from the supererogation of another,® he strenuously endeavours to establish a consistency between this doctrine of vindicatory justice and a fiction not less impious and disgraceful to the blood of Christ, which " cleanseth us from all sin," about penal satisfaction, to be performed by such ways and means as God hath never prescribed, or even thought of
" Ut tui-pitei" atrum
Desinat in pisccm mulier formosa superae." — Ilor.
Dismissing these bunglers (who know not the righteousness of God), then, from our dissertation, let us attend to the more sure word of prophecy. That word everywhere asserts God to be just, and possessed of such justice as denotes the universal rectitude and perfection of his divine nature. His essence is most wise, most per- fect, most excellent, most merciful, most blessed ; that, in fine, is the justice of God, according to the Scriptures, namely, considered abso- lutely and in itself Nor would the holy Scriptures have us to un-