' Ilcb. X. 1. There tlic apostle argues for tlic necessity of the satisfaction of Christ, ■which lie could not if the guilt of sin could have been taken away by any other way ■whatever. ^ — Tb.
a See Isa liii. 10.
EACOVIAN CATECHISM REFUTED. 561
PART II.
CHAPTER VIII.
01)jections of the adversaries answered — The Racovian catechism particularly con- sidered— The force of the argument for the satisfaction of Christ from puni- tory justice — The catechists deny that justice to be inherent in God ; and also sparing mercy — Their first argument weighed and refuted — Justice and mercy are not opposite — Two kinds of the divine attributes — Their second and third arguments, with the answers annexed.
It is now time to meet the objections of the adversaries, and so at length put an end to this dispute, as far as regards the subject- matter of it, ah-eady drawn out to such a length, and yet farther to be continued. We must first, then, encounter the Socinians them- selves, on whose account we first engaged in this undertaking; and afterward we shall compare notes with a few learned friends. But as very lately the Racovian Catechism^ of these heretics hath been repeatedly printed among us, we shall first consider what is to be met with there in opposition to the truth which we assert.
The Socinians grant, in that catechism of theirs, the argument for the satisfaction of Christ, drawn from the nature of this punitory justice, to be "plausible in appearance;" yea, they must necessarily acknowledge it to be such as that they cannot, even in appearance, oppose it, without being guilty of the dreadful sacrilege of robbing God of his essential attributes, and, therefore, they deny either this justice or sparing mercy to be naturally inherent in God. And they endeavour to defend the robbery by a threefold argument. Their first is this : — " As to mercy, that it is not inherent in God, in the manner that they think,^ is evident from this consideration, that if it were naturally inherent ih God, God would not wholly punish any sin; as, in like manner, if that justice were naturally inherent in God, as they think, God could forgive no sin : for God can never do any thing against what is naturally inherent in him. As, for instance, as wisdom is naturally inherent in God, God never doeth any thing contrary to it, but whatsoever he doeth, he doeth all things wisely. But as it is manifest that God forgives and punishes sins when he
• The Racovian Catechism is generally said to have been compiled by Smalcius, from the writings which Faustus Socinus left behind him at his death. Other authorities, who seem to have investigated this point with particular care, hold that a catechism under this name was in existence before Socinus repaired to Poland. The catechism of Smalcius is now, however, commonly regai-dcd as the Racovian Catechism. An English translation of it was j.ablishcd by Biddle in 1652. It is fully reviewed and discussed in Owen's "Vindicife Evangelicoe," vol. xii. of his works. — Ed.
s Let the reader remember that the compilers of the Racovian Catechis-m are now speaking, and that the words " they think" allude to the sentiments of the orthodox. — Tk.
VOL. X. .36
562 A DISSERTATION ON DIVINE JUSTICE. [PART II.
will, it appears that sucli a kind of mercy and justice as they think of is not naturally inherent in God, but is the effect of his own will/' I answer, first, that we have laid it down as a fixed principle that mercy is essential to God ; and that the nature of it in God is the same with justice we willingly grant. Rutherford alone ^ hath as- serted that mercy is essential to God, but that this justice is a free act of the divine will. The falsity and folly of his assertion let him- self be answerable for; the thing speaks for itself. To speak the truth, justice is attributed to God properly and by way of habit, mercy only analogically and by way of affection ; and in the first covenant God paved no way for the disjalay of his mercy, but pro- ceeded in that which led straight to the glory of his justice: never- theless, we maintain the one to be no less naturally inherent in God than the other. " But if it were naturally inherent in God," say the catechists, " God would not punish any sin." Why? I say; mention some jolea. " Because," say they, " God cannot do any thing con- trary to what is naturally inherent in him ; but it is manifest that God punishes sin." But Avhose sins doth God punish? The sins of the impenitent, the unbelieving, the rebellious, for whose offences the justice of God hath never been satisfied. But is not this contrary to mercy? Let every just judge, then, be called cruel. The punish- ment of sin, then, is contrary to mercy, either in respect of the in- fliction of the punishment itself, or because it supposes in God a quality opposite to mercy. The contrariety is not in respect of the in- fliction of punishment, for between an external act of divine power and eternal attributes of Deity, no opposition can be supposed ; — nor can it be because punishment supposes some quality in God opposite to mercy, for that which is opposite to mercy is cruelty; but God is free from every suspicion of cruelty, yet he punishes the sins of the impenitent, as the Socinians themselves acknowledge.