The other egress of this justice is in judgment, the last member of the divi.sions of which, above mentioned, — namely, that by which
' Or class.— Te.
DISTINCTIONS RESPECTING JUSTICE. 505
God punishes the crimes of rational beings, to whom a law hath been given, according to the rule of his right, — is the vindicatory justice of which we are treating.
Here again, reader, I would wish to put you in mind that I by no means assert many species of universal justice, or, so to speak, parti- cular or special justices, as distinct perfections in God, which others seem to do, but one only, — namely, the universal and essential recti- tude of the divine nature variously exercised ; and therefore I main- tain that this vindicatory justice is the very rectitude and perfection of the Deity.
Some of the schoolmen, however, agree with me in opinion; for Cajetan^ upon Thomas grants that vindicatory justice in a public person differs nothing from legal and universal justice; although he maintains that there is a peculiar species of justice in a private person, — a position which, I confess, I do not understand, since punishment, considered as punishment, is not the right of a private person. God certainly does not punisli us as being injured, but as a ruler and judge. But again, concerning this justice, another question arises. Whether it be natural to God, or an essential attribute of the divine nature, — that is to say, such that, the existence of sin being admitted, God must necessarily exercise it, because it supposes in him a constant and immutable will to punish sin, so that while he acts consistently with his nature he cannot do otherwise than punish and avenore it, — or whether it be a free act of the divine will, which he may exercise at pleasure? On this point theologians are divided. We shall consider what has been determined on the matter by the most notorious enemies of divine truth, and especially by those of our own times.
1. Then, they own, " That such a kind of justice is applicable'' to God, which were he always inclined to exercise, he might, consistently with right, destroy all sinners without waiting for their repentance, and so let no sin pass unpunished."
2. " That he will not pardon any sins but those of the penitent." Nor do they deny, so far as I know, —
3. " That God hath determined the punishment of sin by the rule of his right and wisdom." But they deny, —
1. That perfection by which God punishes sins either to be his justice or to be so called in Scripture, but only anger, fury, or fierce indignation,- -expressions denoting in the clearest manner the free- dom of the divine will in the act of punishing; although some of Socinus' followers, among whom is Crellius, have declared openly against him on this point. Again, they deny, —
2. That there is any such attribute in God as requires a satisfac- tion for sins, which he is willing to forgive, but maintain that he is
' Quest. 2, 2, quest. 108, a. 2. » Competere, " belongs."— Ed.
506 A DISSERTATION ON DIVINE JUSTICE. [PAET I.
entirely free to " yield up his claim of right," as they phrase it, at pleasure; that, therefore, divine justice ought, by no means, to be reckoned among the causes of Christ's death. Nay more, say they, " Such a kind of justice may be found in the epistles of Iscariot to the Pharisees" (they are the words of Gitichius ad Luc), "but is not to be found in the holy Scriptures."
Such are the opinions of those concerning whom we are disputing at this present day, whether they be heretics because they are not Chr-istians. Between their sentiments and ours on this point there is the widest difference; for we affirm the justice by which God punishes sin to be the very essential rectitude of Deity itself, exer- cised in the punishment of sins, according to the rule of his wisdom, and which is in itself no more free than the divine essence.
This kind of justice Faustus Socinus opposes with all his might in almost all his writings, but especially in his Theological Lectures of the Saviour, book i. chap. 1, etc. ; Moscorovius, also, on the Racovian Catechism, chap. viii. quest. 19; Ostorodius, a most absurd heretic, in his Institutions, chap, xxxi., and in his Disputations to Tradelius; Volkelius, of the True Religion, book v. chap. 21 ; also Crellius, the most acute and learned of all the adversaries, in that book which he wished to have prefixed to the Dissertations of Volkelius, chap, xxviii., and in his Vindications against Grotius, chap. i. ; in a little work, also, entitled, " Of the Causes of the Death of Christ," chap. xvi. He pursued the same object in almost all his other writings, both polemical and dogmatical, and likewise in his commentaries; — a very artful man, and one that employed very great diligence and learning in the worst of causes. Michael Gitichius has the same thing in view in his writings against Parseus, and in his dispute with Ludo- vicus Lucius in defence of his first argument; — a most trifling sophist, a mere copyist of Socinus, and a servile follower of his master. Of mightier powers, too, rise up against us Valentinus Smalcius against Franzius; and (who is said to be still alive) the learned Jonas Schlichtingius. All these, with the rest of that herd, place all their hopes of overturning the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ in opposing this justice.