56Q A DISSERTATION ON DIVINE JUSTICK [PART II.
Judge of the world, is an opinion supported by no probable reason and by no testimony of Scripture. But let us hear what Crellius himself has to say. He thus proceeds: —
" He injures none, whether he punish or do not punish, if so be that the question is only respecting his right: for the punishment is not owing to the offending person, but he owes it, and he owes it to him upon whom the whole injury will ultimately redound ; who in this matter is God. But if you consider the matter in itself, every one has it in his power to prosecute his right, and likewise not to prosecute it, or to yield up of it as much as he pleases ; for this is the nature of a proper and sovereign right."
Ans. It is easy to be seen that the former fallacy diffuses its fibres through the whole of this reasoning: for the right, a dispensation with which he maintains to be lawful, he affirms to be a sovereign right, or the right of a lord and master. But this right is not the sub- ject in question. It is a ruler and judge to whom punishment be- longs, and who repays it. I would not, indeed, deny that God's supreme and sovereign right has a place in the matter of the satis- faction made by Christ in our stead : for although to inflict punish- ment be the office of a ruler and judge (that both these relations, namely, of a ruler and judge, are to be assigned to God, the Scrip- tures amply testify, — see chap, iii.), yet the very translation of guilt from us upon Christ, constituting him sin for us, is a most free act, and an act of supreme power ; unless, perhaps, the acceptance of the promise made by the surety belong of right to him as ruler, and there be no other act to be assigned to God.
But let us consider these arguments of Crellius severally. " He injures no one," says he, " whether he punish or not." But an omis- sion of the infliction of punishment, Avhere it is due, cannot take place without injury to that justice on which it is incumbent to inflict the punishment.^ For " he that justifieth the wicked is abomina- tion to the Lord ;" and a heavy woe is pronounced equally on them that "call evil good, and good evil."* It is true that God neither injures nor can injure any one, either in what he hath done or might do; for "who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again?" Nor is it less true that he will not, yea, that he cannot, do injury to his own justice, which requireth the punishment of every sin. An earthly judge may oftentimes spare a guilty person without injury to another, but not without injustice in himself Yea, Crellius asserts that God cannot forgive the sins of some sinners, namely, the contumacious, without injury to himself; for this, as he s{j,ys, would be umvorthy of God. But we are sure that every sin, without ex-
' The translation of the last clause is nniliipions. The words in the origir.al are, " Justitinc illius, ciii i wnas irrogare incuml)it," — '■ That justice ou which rests the obli- gation, which is bound, fb inflict the punishment." — Ed.
2 Trov. xvii. 15; Isa. v. 20.
CRELLIUS REFUTED. 567
ception, setting aside the consideration of the redemption by Clirist, would be attended with contumacy for ever. Were it not for that consideration, then, it would be unworthy of God to pardon the sins of any sinner.
Crellius adds : " Punishment is not owing to the sinner, but he owes it, and owes it to him on whom all the injury will ultimately redound ; who is God." But because punishment is not owing to the sinner, but he owes it to the ruler, it doth not follow that the ruler may not inflict that punishment. Punishment, indeed, is not so owing to the sinner that an injury would be done him were it not inflicted. The debt of a sinner is not of such a kind that he can ask or enforce the payment of it; and a debt, properly speaking, implies such a condition.^ But the sinner hath merited punishment in such a man- ner that it is just he should suffer it. But, again, the infliction of punishment belongs not to God as injured, as Crellius signifies, but as he is the ruler of all and the judge of sinners, to whom it be- longs to preserve the good of the ivhole, and the dependence of his creatures on himself
He thus proceeds : " But if you consider the thing in itself, every one has it in his power to prosecute his right, and likewise not to prosecute it, or to yield up of it as much as he pleases."
Ans. As Socinus himself, in his third book " Of the Saviour," chap, ii., hath afforded an opportunity to all our theologians who have opposed Socinianism of discussing this foolish axiom, " That every one may recede from his right," we shall answer but in few Avords to these positions of Crellius, and to the conclusions which he there draws as flowing from them.