« AnteriorContinuar »
without any trouble, though no satisfaction v or received, without the least diminution without any affront or dishonour to any jury or disgrace to himself, consistent with of his right, dominion, and justice, freely p those whom he might will to save; what could be given, pray then, why he shoul easily remissible to the charge of his mo? their account subject him to such dreadfu
While Socinians do not acknowledge whole of this dispensation and mystery they assign, they will be unable, to all t probable reason, why a most merciful a expose a most innocent and holy mar Son, by way of eminence, and who self into the world in a preternatural i selves acknowledge, to afflictions a kind, while among the living he point' of life; and at last to acruel, ignomini
I very well know that I cannot genious'or quick-sighted; but re?i not ashamed to confess my dulnt see that God, consistent with th and glory entire, could, without pardon sins, as if justice did i or that Christ had died ir set him forth to be a propi declaration of his sin-puni that justice be dernonstr require 1 or, if the a minution of it? If
acknowledge, 'that God can
bstinately wicked, without in
ss, and perfection, of his nature.'
id,' say they, 'will not suffer it.'
hat, I ask, which can regard cer
f transgression or sin, and will
on or sin itself?
sin either because he simply wills
lat sin should be punished. If be
, then the will of God is the alone
of a sinful creature. But he himself
ry, viz. that man's ruin is of himself;
; destroyed thyself; but in me is thy
ce does not require that the things which
mere good pleasure should come to pass,
hey should not come to pass. But if it be
:iat sins should be punished, than that they
punished, it is certain that the non-punish
pardon of sin is more agreeable to the goodness,
ind compassion of God, than the infliction of
; how then comes it to pass, that disregarding
butes, he should freely will that which no essen
srty of his nature requires? If then sin be sin, be
d wills it; if the transgression of the law deserve
nent because God wills it; and the punishment be at
nflicted because God wills it; the order of things,
he original, just, P Hos. xiii. 9.
might so phrase ii will; and in this being supposed, t ners, it could not upon the surety; '■ at present, becau sideration of the There are yd ing the truth on not to enter on be tiresome t<
judged worth « and annex the
and the exerc A second
him to be go
how could I
he himself v
is the livin
and that h
elf should have been pleased to bruise him, to put him
,i ief; that he made his own sword to awake against him,
forsook him ;s that God, I say, should have done these
such like things, without being induced to it by any
jssary cause, let those who can, comprehend and ex
'objections of the adversaries answered. The Racovian catechism particularly considered. The force of the argument for the satisfaction of Christ, from punitory justice. The catechists deny that justice to be inherent in God. And also sparing mercy. Their first argument weighed and refuted. Justice and mercy are not opposite. Two kinds of the divine attributes. Their second and third arguments, with the answers annexed.
It is now time to meet the objections of the adversaries, and so at length put an end to this dispute, as far as regards the subject matter of it, already drawn out to such a length, and yet farther to be continued. We must first then encounter the Socinians themselves, on whose account we first engaged in this undertaking; and afterward we shall compare notes with a few learned friends. But as "very lately the Racovian catechism of these heretics hath been repeatedly printed among us, we shall first consider what is to be met with there in opposition to the truth which we assert.
The Socinians grant in that catechism of theirs, the argument for the satisfaction of Christ, drawn from the nature of this punitory justice • to be plausible in appearance;' yea, they must necessarily acknowledge it to be such as that they cannot even in appearance oppose it, without being guilty of the dreadful sacrilege of robbing God of his essential attributes; and therefore they deny either this justice or sparing mercy to be naturally inherent in God; and they endeavour to defend the robbery by a three-fold argument. Their first is this: 'as to mercy, that it is not inherent in
« See Isa. liii. 10.