" All along, from the beginning of this answer," says he, " I have sufficiently shown that that justice which you contend ought at all events to be satisfied is not inherent in God, but is the effect of his own will; for when God punishes sinners, that we may call this work of his by some worthy name, we say that he then exerciseth justice: wherefore, there is no need that God should either provide for the satisfaction of that justice or renounce it."
Ans. We have already considered what Socinus says in the be- ginning of his treatise against the justice of God. If I mistake not, Ave have shown that the heretic has lost his labour, and that it is far beyond his power to dethrone the Deity; for "he sitteth in the throne judging righteously."^ But Ave, diminutive beings, have not first, or of our own accord, maintained that God is just, and that he exer- ciseth justice in the punishment of sinners, " that Ave might call his Avork by some Avorthy name." But the Judge of all the earth him- self, the God of truth, in almost innumerable places, gives this testi- mony of himself in the sacred records; and these ought ahvays to be the only, as they are the infallible, guide of our judgments.
Distrusting, then, Avhat he had formerly asserted (or it being mani- festly of no Aveight), he attempts again by other sophisms to establish the reasoning Avhich he had formerly begun. And he thus proceeds: —
" But besides the arguments Avhich I have already used to prove that that justice is not inherent in God, it chiefly appears from this, that were it naturally resident in God, he could never pardon not even the least transgression to any one; for God never doth any thing, nor can do any thing, that is opposite to the qualities inherent in him. As, for instance, as Avisdom and equity are naturally inher- ent in God, that justice never doth or can do any thing contrary to Avisdom and equity, as Ave have seen above," etc.
' Ps. Ls. 4.
576 A DISSERTATION ON DIVINE JUSTICE. [PART II.
The intelligent reader can easily perceive that Socinus proves no- thing by this argument, but that he even absurdly adds heap upon heap to his own supposition ; or that with a bold effrontery, he takes for granted the thing to be determined. It is indeed our opinion, that God cannot pass the smallest sin unpunished; and that he can- not, because he can do nothing that is opposite to the qualities in- herent in him. But this our opponent brings forward as a great absurdity, that must bear against us in support of his own cause; but without even any appearance of a proof But we have before de- monstrated the state of the matter to be thus, — That God neither actually pardons any sin without a satisfaction made, nor can pardon it, without an infringement of his justice, by which he condemns sinners as worthy of death. So that as God never doth nor can do the things which are opposite to his equity and wisdom, so he neither doth nor can do those which are opposite to his justice. But to pardon the sins of believers on account of the satisfaction of Christ, " whom he hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness," is not opposite to his justice. But these seem absurdities to Socinus. And why should they not? for "we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foohshness." But "the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness."^
Yea, in common equity, nothing could be mentioned more inequit- able and unwise than this would be opposite to justice, — namely, not to pardon those sins for which that justice hath been amply satis- fied. And must, then, this heretic, not only for nothing, substitute his own most absurd, yea, execrable opinion, namely, " That Jesus Christ hath not made satisfaction for our sins, nor borne their punish- ment,"— that is, that he was not ''made sin for us, that sve might be made the righteousness of God in him," — an opinion neither proved, nor that will ever be proved to all eternity; but also insinuate it as a proof of another error, which that alone, it is evident, first begot in his mind? Indeed, I cannot sufficiently wonder that some, by the sophisms of such disputants, are so easily " removed imto another gospel," forsaking " him that called them into the grace of Christ."
"But that justice," says Socinus, "which, as we have seen before, in the sacred writings is not called 'justice,' but 'severity' or 'vengeance,' or by some such name, so far as it is opposed to mercy is nothing else but to punish sins ; but to punish sins and to pardon sins are entirely opposite to one another."
A fine painter's show-board, but void of truth.
At^s. What the adversary so often yelps out is totally without foundation, — namely, that that justice is never called by its proper
1 1 Cor. i. 18, 23, 24.
ARGUMENTS OF SOCINUS WEIGHED. 577
name in the Scriptures. It is not only called by its own name, but is also called "purity" and "holiness/' which are essential attributes of the Deity. It is called "severity," "vengeance," and "anger," but only improperly and analogically, and in respect of the effects which it produceth. What he asserts, too, of this justice, namely, that it is nothing else but to punish sin, — very improperly confounding a habit, an act, and an effect, — is altogether without foundation, and most ab- surd. "The LoED is just, and his judgments are righteous. The Judge of all the earth doeth right." And, in fine, it is false that this justice is opposed to mercy; for it is beyond any doubt that differ- ent operations and effects may, in different views, be ascribed to one and the same righteous principle. To punish sins and to pardon sins, unless spoken in the same point of view, are not opposed to one another. God, indeed, pardons to us those sins which he punished in our surety : which " foolishness of God is wiser than men."