This surely is trifling in a serious matter, if any thing can be so called; for even novices will not bear one to argue from a position of universal justice to a negation of particular justice ; mvich less shall we readily assent to him, who maintain that that particular justice is by no means distinguished from the universal rectitude of the divine nature, but that that rectitude is so called in respect of the egresses that it has, in consequence of the supposition of sin. But it is con- sonant with sound doctrine, " that that which is agreeable to the divine nature should be considered also as righteous and just;" and this Socinus acknowledges. We agree that it is agreeable to the divine nature to do good to sinners, but at the same time we dare not deny that the right of God is, that those who transgTess are worthy of death ; both which properties of his nature he hath very clearly demonstrated in the satisfaction of Christ, " whom he hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins;" whom, while the heretic rejecteth, he walketh in darkness, a stranger to the true and saving knowledge of God, and engaged wholly in his own vain imagina- tions.
But Socinus, as if having achieved some great exploit, at length I That is, by consequence. — Tb.
574 A DISSERTATION ON DIVINE JUSTICE. [PART II.
thus concludes: "That punitory justice is not a virtue inherent in God, or a divine quaUty or property, but the effect of his will ; and that that justice by Avhich God always punishes impenitent sinners is so called, not properly, but by accident, namely, because it is agreeable to true justice or rectitude." We have already considered the arguments that he has produced in support of this opinion; whether they be of such weight that they should induce us to deny this justice, and whether to punish sinners be essential and proper to God or only accidental, let the reader, from what hath been said on the subject, determine. So much for our first skirmish with Socinus.
CHAPTEE XI.
The arguments of Socinus against punitory justice weighed — A false hj^othesis of his — Sins, in what sense they are debts — The iirst argument of Socinus, in which he takes for granted what ought to have been proved — A trifling suj)- position substituted for a proof — Whether that excellence by virtue of which God punishes sins be called justice in the Scriptures — The severity of God, what — Our opponent's second argument — It labours under the same deficienc}' as the first — It is not opposite to mercy to punish the guilty — The niorcy of God, what — There is a distinction between acts and habits — Our opponent confounds them — The mercy of God infinite, so also his justice — A distinc- tion of the divine attributes — In pardoning sins through Jesus Christ, God hath exercised infinite justice and infinite mercy — The conclusion of the con- test with Socinus.
In the third part and first chapter of his treatise, being determined to contend to his utmost against the satisfaction of Christ, he main- tains " That God, consistently with his right, could pardon our sins without any real satisfaction received for them;" and he endeavours to support the assertion chiefly by the following argument, — namely, " That God is our creditor, that our sins are debts which we have contracted with him, but that every one may yield up his right, and more especially God, who is the supreme Lord of all, and extolled in the Scriptures for his liberality and goodness." Hence, then, it is evident that God can pardon sins without any satisfaction received; and that he is inclined to do so, he uses his best endeavours after- ward to prove.
But because he foresaw that his first supposition, the foundation of his whole future reasoning, Avas too much exposed and obnoxious to the divine justice, he labours hard in the first chapter to remove that out of the way entirely. Let us attend, then, to his reasoning, and follow him step by step: for if he have not insuperably, and beyond all confutation, proved that God can forgive sins without a satisfaction, what he afterward argues concerning the will, liberality,
ARGUMENTS OF SOCINUS WEIGHED. 575
and mercy of God will become of no weight or consideration; yea, the foundation being destroyed, the whole edifice or Babylonish tower mtist instantly tumble to the ground. He thus proceeds : —
" But you will say, ' It is necessary that God should take care to satisfy his justice, which he cannot even himself renounce, unless he in a manner deny himself.' "
Ans. You are right, Socinns. We do affirm, agreeably to the holy Scriptures, that the justice of God is in such a manner natural to him, that if it be necessary that he should preserve the glory of his essential attributes undiminished, he cannot but indispensably exact the punishment of every sin and transgression of his law, and render a just recompense of reward to all sinners, or to their surety; and, therefore, w^e contend that without a satisfaction made no one could obtain the remission of sins and eternal salvation. Let us see, Socinus, what you have to oppose to this.