« הקודםהמשך »
The opinions of Socinus considered. What he thought of our present question,
viz, that it is the hinge on which the whole controversy, concerning the sa-
tisfaction of Christ turns. His vain boasting, as if having disproved this vin-
dicatory justice, he had snatched the prize from his adversaries. Other clear
proofs of the satisfaction of Christ. That it is our duty to acquiesce in the re-
vealed will of God. The truth not to be forsaken. Mercy and justice not
opposite. Vain distinctions of Socinus concerning divine justice. The con-
sideration of these distinctions. His first argument against vindicatory jus-
Twiss's first argument. Its answer. A trifling view of the divine attributes.
Whether God could, by his absolute power forgive sins without a satisfaction :
to let sins pass unpunished, implies a contradiction; and that twofold. What
these contradictions are. Whether God may do, what man may do. Whe-
ther every man may renounce his right. Whether God cannot forgive sins
because of his justice. The second argument. Its answer. Distinctions of
necessity. God doth no work, without himself, from absolute necessity. Con-
ditional necessity. Natural necessity twofold. God doth not punish to the
extent of his power, but to the extent of his justice. God always acts with a
concomitant liberty. An argument of the illustrious Vossius considered. God
a consuming fire, but an intellectual one. An exception of Twiss’s. Whe-
ther independent of the divine appointment, sin would merit punishment. In
punishment, what things are to be considered. The relation between obe-
dience as to reward, and disobedience as to punishment not the same. The ,
comparison between mercy and justice, by Vossius improperly instituted 454
Twiss's third argument. A dispensation with regard to the punishment of sin,
what, and of what kind. The nature of punishment, and its circumstances.
The instance of this learned opponent refuted. The considerations of renew-
ing and punishing, different. How long, and in what sense God can dispense
with the punishment due to sin.' God the supreme governor of the Jewish
polity: also, the Lord of all. The fourth argument of Twiss. The answer.
Rutherford reviewed. ` An oversight of that learned man. His opinion of pu-
nitory justice. He contends that divine justice exists in God freely. The
consideration of that assertion. This learned writer and Twiss disagree. His
first argument. Its answer. The appointment of Christ to death twofold.
The appointment of Christ to the mediatorial office, an act of supreme do-
minion. The punishment of Christ an act of punitory justice. An argument
of that learned man, easy to answer. The examination of the same. The
learned writer proves things not denied; passes over things to be denied.
What kind of necessity we ascribe to God in punishing sins. A necessity
opon a condition supposed. What the suppositions are upon which that
necessity is founded. A difference between those things which are necessary
by a decree, and those which are so fro the dis nature. The second ar-
gument of that learned man. His obscure manner of writing pointed out.
Justice and mercy different in respect of their exercise. What it is to owe the
good of punitory justice to the universe. This learned inan's third argument.