But if modesty must be violated, all will agree that it ought to be violated in the cause of truth, and especially as I perceive that the authority of some theologians is of so great weight with many of our countrymen, that, not having duly weighed and pondered the matter, but relyipg on this, they go into the opinion contrary to that which we have undertaken to defend. Considering it of importance to weigh the arguments which these very illustrious men have used, although I know myself not only unequal to the task, but that, in marshalling the line for such a controversy, I am not deserving of even a third or fourth place from the van, having been only accus- tomed to the popular mode of declaiming ; however, I do not fear to engage in this undertaking, whatever it be, nothing doubting but that from my attempt, though weak, the readers will easily perceive that the truth might triumph gloriously, were any one furnished with better abilities to come forward in its defence.
But here, first of all the antagonists, and who, indeed, is almost equal to them all, the very learned Twisse^ opposes himself to us; concerning whose opinion in general a few things are to be pre- mised before we come to the answers of objections.
The consideration of Arminius' opinion concerning the efficacy of the death of Christ and its immediate bearing, gave occasion to this leai'ned man of publishing his own sentiments. Arminius contends,
' Tlioy agree that the satisfaction by Chi-ist is the way of salvation revealed in the Scriittures, bat that it is so because Goil willed it should be so, and deny that there was any necessity for such a satisfaction arising from the nature of divine justice. — Tk.
' Twiss, Vjnd. Cirat. lib. i. p. 2, sect. 25, digress,, 8.
PROGRESS OF THE DISPUTE IN BRITAIX. 585
" That Christ by his satisfaction onl}^ accomplished this much, that God now, consistently with the honour of his justice (as it had been satisfied), might jDardon sinners if he willed so to do."
This most absurd opinion, so highly derogatory to divine grace and the merit of the death of Christ, this illustrious man was inclined to differ from, so far that he maintained that that consideration, namely, "That God could forgive sins, his justice notwithstanding, as having been satisfied," had no place among the effects of Christ's death.
But Arminius is the only one, so far as I know, among our oppo- nents of this opinion ; and he himself, in asserting it, is scarcely uni- form and self-consistent. I may venture to affirm that of his fol- lowers there are none, unless it be some mean skulker, who swears by the words of his master. The opinion of Corvinus, which Twisse afterward discusses, is plainly different. Episcopius, likewise, after Arminius, the Coryphoeus of that cause, and by far its most noble chamj)ion, defends this very sentiment of this learned man. The Pelagian tribe have become reconciled with the Socinians, rather than brandish any more that very sharp-pointed weapon which cut the throat of their own desperate cause.
Nor can I at all see how this divine truth of ours should contri- bute to the support of Arminianism, as this illustrious writer seems to signify ; for is he who says that Christ by his death and satisfaction effected this, that God might forgive sins, his justice not opposing, bound also to affirm that he accomplished nothing farther? God for- bid. Yea, he who, without the consideration of the oblation of Christ, could not but punish sins, that oblation being made, cannot punish those sins for which Christ offered himself;^ yea, that he is more bound, in strict right and in justice, in respect of Jesus Christ, to confer grace and glory on all those for whom he died, I have in its proper season elsewhere demonstrated.
The learned Twisse grants that punitory or sin-avenging justice is natural to God, or that it is an essential attribute of the divine na- ture. This he very eloquently maintains; and several times, when it is introduced by the adversaries^ whom he selected to refute, he gives his suffrage in its favour. But what else is that justice but a constant will of punishing every sin, according to the rule of his right? The learned gentleman, then, grants that an immutably con- stant will of punishing every sin is natural to God: how, then, is it possible that he should not punish it? for who hath opposed his will?
There are two parts of the Twissian disputation. The first is con- tained in four principal arguments, supported by various reasons, in which he attacks this sentiment, — namely, " That God cannot with- out a satisfaction forgive sin." In the second, he endeavours to ' Rom. iii. 23-26. ' Namely, Piscator and Lubbcrtus.
586 A LISSERTATION ON DIVIDE JUSTICE. [PAr.T II.
answer the arguments of Piscator and Lubbertus in confirmation of this point; and he intersperses everjrwhere, according to his custom, a variety of new arguments on the subject. We shall briefly con- sider what this learned man hath done in both parts.
As to what relates to the first or introductory part, perhaps our labour may appear superfluous. The judicious Maccovius hath, with great success, performed this task, giving by no means trifling, but rather, for the most part, very solid answers to those four arguments, which Twisse calls his principal, and in a very plain and persiDicuous manner ; as was his general custom in all his writings.