But, " That punitory justice," say they, " which yow assign as the source of punishment, is opposite to mercy." How, I say, can that be ? Punitory justice, essentially considered, is the very perfection and rectitude of God itself, essentially considered; and the essence of mercy, so to speak, is the same. But the essence of God, which is most simple, is not opposed to itself. Moreover, both have their actual egresses by means of the acts of the divine will, which is always one alone and self-consistent. Objectively considered, I ac- knowledge they have different but not contrary effects; for to punish the impenitent guilty, for whom no satisfaction hath been made, is not contrary to the pardoning of those who believe and are penitent, through the blood of the Mediator, which was shed for the remission of sins. In one word, it is not necessary that, though actions be con- trary, the essential principles should also be contrary ' De ProviJ., caj). xxii. assort. G, p. 345.
RACOVIAN CATECHISM REFUTED. 663
But they again urge, " Wisdom is naturally inherent in God, and he never doeth any thing contrary to it ; for whatsoever he doeth, he doeth all things wisely/' We answer, It hath been proved before tliat the punishment of sin is not contrary to mercy. But they lu^ge something farther, and insinuate that God not only cannot act con- trary to his wisdom, but that in every work he exerciseth it: "What- soever he doeth," say they, " he doeth wisely." But the nature of all the divine attributes, in respect of their exercise, is not the same : for some create and constitute an object to themselves, as power and wisdom, which God must necessarily exercise in all his works; some require an object constituted for their egress, and for these it is suffi- cient that no work be done that is opposite or derogatory to their honour; of this kind are mercy and justice, as was said before.
Thus far concerning mercy.
The objections that they bring against justice are easily answered. " If justice be naturally inherent in God," say they, " then he could let no sin pass unpunished," We readily grant that God passes by no sin unpunished, nor can do it. He forgives our sins, but he doth not absolutely let them pass unpunished. Every sin hath its just re- compense of reward, either in the sinner or the surety ; but to pardon sin for which justice hath been satisfied is no wise contrary to justice. That the nature of justice and mercy, in respect of their relation to their object, is different, hath been shown before. Such is their first argument; the second follows, which is this: —
" That justice which the adversaries oppose to mercy," say they, " whereby God punisheth sins, the sacred Scriptures nowhere point out by the name of 'justice," but call it the ' anger and fury of God.'"
We answer, in the first place, that it is a very gross mistake that we oppose justice to mercy. These catechists have need themselves to be catechised. In the second place, let those who shall please to consult the passages formerly mentioned and explained on this head, determine whether the sacred Scriptures call this justice^ by its own proper name or not ? In the third place, anger and fury are, in reality, as to their effects, reducible to justice; hence that which is called "wrath," or "anger," in E,om. i. ]8, in the 32d verse is called "judgment."^ Such is their second; and now follows the third argument: —
" When God forgives sins, it is attributed in Scripture to his justice. ' If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.' 'Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to de-
1 This point is treated at great length, and clearly proved, in the tlxird chapter.— Tr.
2 The original word means a just sentence, or righteous judgment — Tk.
564i A DISSERTATION ON DIVINE JUSTICE. [PART II.
clare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ; to declare, I say, at this time his righteous- ness : that he might be just, and the justifier of him which beUeveth in Jesus.' "^ We answer, that we have already shown at great length that justice, universally taken, is the perfection and rectitude of God, and has various egresses, both in words and in deeds, according to the constitution of the objects about which it may be employed; hence effects distinct, and in some measure different, are attributed to the same divine virtue. But the justice on account of which God is said to forgive sins is the justice of faithfulness, Avhich has the foun- dation of its exercise in this punitory justice: which being satisfied, God, who cannot lie, promises the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ; which promise, beyond all doubt, he will perform, because he is faithful and just.^ And thus vanishes in smoke all that these un- happy catechists have scraped together against this divine truth.
CHAPTER IX.
Crellius taken to task — His first mistake — God doth not punish sins as being en- dowed with supreme dominion — The first argument of CreUius — The answer — The translation of punisliment upon Christ, in what view made by God — Whether the remission of sins, witliout a satisfaction made, could take place without injury to any one — To whom punishment belongs — Whether every one can resign his right — Right twofold — The right of debt, what ; and what that of government — A natural and positive right — Positive right, what — A de- scription also of natural right — Concessions of Crellius.