We choose not to enter any farther on the arguments which this learned writer advances, either in his disputations against Lubbertus, or in his answers to his arguments; partly as they coincide with those mentioned before, and have been considered in the vindication of the argument taken from the consideration of God's hatred against siu; and partly as they militate only against a natural and absolute necessity, which in the present case we do not assert.
1 God's will of giving to every man his own was from everlasting, justice being an essential attribute of his unchangeable nature; but it is only after the supposition of a rational being that had sinned, tliat he must necessarily, — that is, from the very principles of his nature, — exercise that will towards sinnera, and give them the wages of sin, namely, death. — Ta. The Latin is ; " Cum prior res ipsa sit, posterior aliquarum rerum, vcl in actu prime vel secundo, modus seu affectio," — " Since the former is the thing itself, the latter a mode or affection of some things," etc Ed.
PISCATOR DEFENDED. 603
CHAPTER XVI.
Piscator's opinion of this controversy — How far we assent to it — Twisse's arguments < militate against it — How God punishes from a natural necessity — How God is a " consuming fire" — God's riglit, of what kind — Its exercise necessary, from some thing supposed — Whence the obligation of God to exercise it arises — Other objections of Twisse discussed.
The consideration of what our justly celebrated antagonist hath advanced against Piscator/ whom he declares to hold the first place among the theologians of the present day, and to shine as far superior to the rest as the moon doth to the lesser stars, shall put an end to this dispute. He has chosen Piscator's notes upon his Collation of Vors- tius,^ as the subject of his consideration and discussion. In general we are inclined to give our voice in favour of the sentiments of Pis- cator; but as the disciples of Christ ought to call none on earth master in matters of religion, we by no means hold ourselves bound to support all the phrases, arguments, or reasons that he may have used in defence of his opinion. Setting aside, then, all anxious search after words, expressions, and the muiutise of similes, which I could wish this distinguished writer had paid less attention to, we will endeavour to repel every charge brought against our common and principal cause, and to place this truth, which we have thus far defended, as we are now speedily hastening to a conclusion, beyond the reach of attacks and trouble from its adversaries.
The first arg-ument, then, of Piscator, to which he replies, is taken from that comparison made in Heb. xii. 29, between God in respect of his vindicatory justice and a "consuming fire." From this passage Piscator concludes, " That as fire, from the property of its nature, cannot but burn combustible matter when applied to it, and that by a natural necessity; so God, from the perfection of his justice, cannot but punish sin when committed, — that is, when presented before that justice." What he asserts, with regard to a natural and absolute necessity, we do not admit; for God neither exerciseth nor can ex- ercise any act towards objects without himself in a natural manner, or as an agent merely natural. He, indeed, is a fire, but rational and intelligent fire. Although, then, it be no less necessary to him to punish sins than it is to fire to burn the combustible matter applied to it, the same manner of operation, howeve'r, accords not to him as to fire, for he worketh as an intelligent agent ; that is, with a concomi- tant liberty in the acts of his will, and a consistent liberty in the acts of his understanding. We agree, then, with Piscator in his conclusion,
1 A learned professor of divinity at Herborn. He was born at Strasburg lo4G, and died 1626. He was the author of several commentaries, controversial treatises, and a translation of the Bible into German. — Ed.
2 "InCollationem Vorstii." The translation is not very intelligible. Torstius wrote a work with this title, " Parasceue ad amicam coUationem cum Jo. Piscatore," and Owen refers to Piscator's notes upon it. — En.
604 A DISSERTATION ON DIVINE JUSTICE. [PART II.
though not in his manner of leading his proof.^ The objections made to it by the learned Twisse we shall try by the standard of truth.
First, then, he maintains, and with many laboured arguments, that God doth not punish sin from a necessity of nature, which excludes every kind of liberty But whom do these kinds of arguments affect? They apply not at all to us ; for Piscator himself seems to have un- derstood nothing else by a " natural necessity" than that necessity which we have so often discussed, particularly modified : for he says, that " God doth some things by a natural necessity, because by na- ture he cannot do otherwise." That is, sin being supposed to exist, from the strict demands of that justice which is natural to him, he cannot but punish it, or act otherwise than punish it; although he may do this without any encroachment on his liberty, as his intel- lectual will is inclined to happiness by a natural inclination, yet wills happiness with a concomitant liberty; for it would not be a will should it act otherwise, as freedom of action is the very essence of the will. But the arguments of Twisse do not oppose this kind of neces- sity, but that only which belongs to inanimate, merely natural agents, which entirely excludes all sorts of liberty, properly so called.