But let the pious reader judge whether our opponent, who hath presumed to call the highest mystery of the gospel, the alone founda- tion of the salvation of sinners, the darling jewel of our religion, the greatest testimony of the divine love, our victory over the devil, death, and hell, " a human fiction," had sufficient cause to annex so dreadful an omission to the conclusion of this so long continued debate. He adds, in the last place, —
" But as to mercy, that is, the pardon of sins, how dare they affirm that to be infinite, when it is evident from the whole of Scripture that God doth not always use it, but frequently exercise th vengeance
1 That is, as it relates to God, who is the sulncct of it. — Tk.
2 See 2 Thcss. i. 0, 8, U.
ARGUMENTS OF SOCINUS WEIGHED. 581
and severity? Why, but because tliey have so shockingly blundered, that they have not attended to this, that these are only different effects of the divine will, but are not any properties, and have per- suaded themselves that both of them are inherent in God. But how could they ever entertain such a persuasion, when, as we have said, the one destroys the other? But this they deny, and maintain that God exercised both of them perfectly in the salvation procured for us by Christ; which will more clearly appear, from what follows, to be not only false but ridiculous. Meantime, let them tell us, pray, when God punishes the guilty, but especially when he doth not even grant them time to repent, what kind of mercy he exerciseth to- wards these? But if God do many things in which not even any trace of that mercy appears, although he be said to be ' merciful and full of compassion' in Scripture, must we not say that he doth many things in which that justice is by no means discernible, to which he is said to be exceeding slow? We must then conclude, according to our opinion, that there is no such justice in God as expressly dictates the necessary punishment of sin, and which he hath not a power to renounce. And since this is the case, it is abundantly evident that there is no reason v/hy God cannot freely pardon the sins of whom- soever he may please, without any satisfaction received."
Ans. On these heads a few observations shall suffice: — 1. It is affirmed, without any show of reason, that mercy in God is not in- finite, because sometimes he exerciseth severity; that is, that God cannot be called merciful, if he punish any guilty and impenitent sinners. To prove mercy to be an essential property of God, it is sufficient that he exercises it towards any: for in this very matter, that ought to be set down as a natural perfection in God which is the proper and immediate source and ground of that operation : which attributes (mercy and justice) hdve no egress but towards objects placed in particular circumstances ; nor have they any effects Avithout some free act of the divine will intervening. See Bom. ix. 13. Nor does it any more follow that the effects of mercy ought to be in- finite if it be itself infinite, than that the works of God ought to be immense because immensity is an essential property of his nature.
2. By what argument will our opponent prove that the relation between mercy and justice is in such a manner the same, that be- cause God exerciseth no mercy towards some, — that is, so as to par- don their sins, — that therefore he should not account it necessary to exercise justice towards every sin? We have formerly mentioned in what view they are distinct, — namely, that God is bound to exercise mercy to none, but that he cannot but exercise his justice towards sinners (provided he be inclined to be just), if he would preserve his natural right and dominion over his creatures, and the holiness and purity of his nature uninjured and entire; for disobedience would
'5S2 A DISSERTATION ON DIVINE JUSTICE. [PART IT.
take av;ay all dependence of the creature on God, unless a compen- sation were made to him by a vicarious punishment. But, accord- ing to the sacred Scriptures, we maintain that God exercised both the one and the other, both justice and mercy, in justly punishing Christ, in mercifully pardoning sins, which he laid upon him, to us, Avho deserved everlasting punishment ; which things, though they may be ridiculous to Socinus (for " the things of the Spirit of God are foolishness" to him), no divine truth, however, of any kind whatever, is more frequently, more plainly, or more clearly declared in the sacred writings : " All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God ; 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 declare his righteousness for the remission of sius that are past, through the forbearance of God ; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus,'' Rom. iii. 23-26. But setting the consideration of Christ altogether aside, there is no doubt but that Socinus would carry off the prize in this contest. But while it is reckoned worth while to have any regard to him, it is easy to 2}ei- ceive that this heretic uses nothing but continued false reasonings and false conclusions; for it is made evident to us in Christ the Son, hov/ and by what means God, infinitely merciful and infinitely just, — acting on the principles of strict justice with some, and of mere grace with others, but in exercising both the one and the other, both jus- tice and mercy, in and through the Mediator, the one, indeed, in his own proper person, and the other towards those for wliom he Avas surety, — hath declared himself.