And the venom hereof hath so infected the minds of many, in these latter days, that they have even rejected the whole mystery of the gospel, and taken up with a religion which hath more of Judaism, Mohammedanism, and Gentilism in it, than of Christianity. And indeed if it be so, that in the remission of sins there is no respect unto the Lord Christ, but only that he hath declared it, and showed the way whereby we may attain it, it must be acknowledged that there is no righteousness in God requiring the punishment of sin; as also, that it was merely from an act of the will and pleasure of God that by any sins we deserve everlasting punishment. For neither, then, was the sanction of the law, or the constitution of the penalty of its transgression, any act of justice in God, but of his will absolutely, which might not have been; and so, notwithstanding the state and condition wherein we were created, and our moral de- pendence on God, and God’s government over us, man might have sinned, and sinned a thousand times, and broken the whole law, and yet have been no way liable unto punishment,—namely, if God had so pleased; and it was as free unto him to reward sin as to
-
116 NECESSITY OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXIX.
punish it. For if you allow any reason to the contrary from the nature and order of things themselves, and our relation unto God as rational creatures, made meet to be subject unto him in a way of moral obedience, you introduce a necessity of punishment from the righteousness of God, which is denied. And on this supposition, upon an alike act of the will of God, sin might have been made to be virtue, and obedience sin, and so it might have been the duty of man to have hated God, and to have opposed him to the uttermost of his power; for all the merely free acts of God’s will might have been otherwise, and contrary to what they are. And if you say it could not be so in this case, because the nature of God and his righteousness required it should be otherwise, you grant all that is contended for. This false supposition made way for the twofold righteousness which Socinus feigns in God; and the instances which he gives in the confirmation of it respect only God’s actual punish- ing of sin and sinners in this world, some sooner, and some after more forbearance, which none deny to proceed from his sovereign will and pleasure.
19. The same author in the same place betakes himself to another plea, and will not allow that God doth at all punish sin because he is just, or that his so domg is an act of justice in him; for so he speaks, lib. i. cap. i. p. 1: “Ea res quee ad Deum relata, misericor- diz opponitur, non justitia appellatur, sed vel severitas, vel ira, vel indignatio, vel furor, vel vindicta, vel simili alio quopiam nomine nuncupatur.” Ans. There are no things in God that are opposite or contrary one unto another; and this sophism was before dis- covered. Nay, anger and fury, though they denote not any thing in God, but outward effects from that which is in him, are not op- posed to mercy; for mercy being a virtue and a divine perfection, whatever is contrary unto it is evil. Only, as they denote effects of justice, they are diverse from the outward eftects of mercy. This therefore proves not that that, from whence it is that God punisheth sin, is not justice; which must be proved, or this man’s cause is lost. I do acknowledge that both P1¥ and dimesootvg are variously used in the Scripture when applied unto God, or do signify things of a distinct consideration ; for upon the supposition of the rectitude of the divine nature in all things, righteousness may be variously exercised, yea, it is so in all that God doth. Hence Socinus gives sundry instances where God is said to be righteous in acts of mercy and goodness, as very many may be given; for besides that the rec- titude, equality, and holiness, which are in all his ways, are known from his righteousness in the declaration that he makes of himself and his dealings with men, in a way of goodness, kindness, benignity, - and mercy, there is universally a supposition of his promise of grace
SECT. 19, 20.] ON THE SUPPOSITION OF SIN AND GRACE. AL
in Jesus Christ, the accomplishment whereof depends on his righte- ousness; which therefore may be pleaded, even when we pray for mercy, as it is often by David. For the faithfulness of God in ful- filling his promises, whether in the pardon of our sins or the re- warding of our obedience, is his righteousness in his word. Thence is he “justified in his sayings,’ Rom. iii. 4; that is, he is declared righteous in the fulfilling his promises and threatenings. Yet this hinders not but that God is just when he “taketh vengeance;” that is, when he doth so and in his so doing, Rom. iii. 5.
That anger and fury are not properly in God all do acknowledge. The outward effects of the righteousness of God in the punishing of sin are so expressed, to declare the certainty and severity of his judgments. To say that God prescribes a penalty unto the trans- gression of his law, and executeth accordingly, merely in anger, wrath, or fury, is to ascribe that unto him which ought not to be done unto any wise law-maker or governor among men. Nor will it follow that because God is said to punish sin in anger and wrath, therefore he punisheth sin only because he will, and not because he is just, or that his justice doth not require that sin be punished. Yea, it thence follows that the justice of God is the cause of the punishment of sin ; for to act in anger and fury any otherwise than as they are effects of justice is vicious and evil. God doth not, therefore, punish sin because he is angry; but to show the severity of his justice, he maketh an appearance of anger and wrath in punishing. These things belong to the outward manner, and not the inward principle of inflicting punishment.