« السابقةمتابعة »
of what kind. Definitions of the philosophers and lawyers. Divisions of
the justice of government. A caution respecting these. Vindicatory justice.
The opinions of the partisans. An explication of the true opinion. Who
the adversaries are. The state of the controversy farther considered
A series of arguments in support of vindicatory justice. First, from the Scrip-
tures. Three divisions of the passages of Scripture. The first contains those
which respect the purity and holiness of God. The second, those which re-
spect God as the judge. What it is to judge with justice. The third, those
which respect the divine supreme right. A second argument is taken from
the general consent of mankind. A threefold testimony of that consent.
The first from the Scriptures. Some testimonies of the heathens. The se-
cond, from the power of conscience. Testimonies concerning that power.
The mark set upon Cain. The expression of the emperor Adrian, when at
the point of death. The consternation of mankind at prodigies. The horror
of the wicked, whom even fictions terrify. Two conclusions. The third tes-
timony, from the confession of all nations. A vindication of the argument
against Rutherford. The regard paid to sacrifices among the nations. Dif-
ferent kinds of the same. Propitiatory sacrifices. Some instances of them 364
The origin of human sacrifices. Their use among the Jews, Assyrians, Ger-
mans, Goths, the inhabitants of Marseilles, the Normans, the Francs, the
Tyrians, the Egyptians, and the ancient Gauls. Testimonies of Cicero and
Cæsar, that they were used among the Britons and Romans by the Druids.
A fiction of Appio, concerning the worship in the temple of Jerusalem. The
names of some persons sacrificed. The use of human sacrifices among the
Gentiles, proved from Clemens of Alexandria, Dionysius of Halicarnassia,
Porphyry, Philo, Eusebius, Tertullian, Euripides. Instances of human sa-
crifices in the Sacred Scriptures. The remarkable obedience of Abraham.
What the neighbouring nations might have gathered from that event. Why
human sacrifices were not instituted by God. The story of Iphigenia. The
history of Jephtha. Whether he put his daughter to death. The cause of
the difficulty. The impious sacrifice of King Moab. The abominable su-
perstition of the Rugiani. The craftiness of the devil. Vindications of the
The third argument. This divine attribute demonstrated in the works of Pro-
vidence. That passage of the apostle to the Romans, chap. i. 18. considered.
Anger, what it is. The definitions of the philosophers. The opinion of
Lactantius concerning the anger of God. Anger often ascribed to God in
the Holy Scriptures. In what sense this is done. The divine anger denotes,
1. The effects of anger. 2. The will of punishing. What that will is in
God. Why the justice of God is expressed by anger. The manifestation of
the divine anger, what it is. How it is revealed from heaven. The sum of
the argument. The fourth argument. Vindicatory justice revealed in the
cross of Christ. The attributes of God. How displayed in Christ. Heads
Another head of the first part of the dissertation. Arguments for the necessary
egress of vindicatory justice from the supposition of sin. The first argument.
God's hatred of sin, what. Whether God by nature hates sin, or because
he wills so to do. Testimonies from Holy Scripture. Dr. Twiss's answer.
The sum of it. The same obviated. The relation between obedience as to
reward, and sin as to punishment, not the same. Justice and mercy, in re-
spect of their exercise, different. The second argument. The description
of God in the Scriptures, in respect of sin. In what sense he is called a con-
suming fire. Twiss's answer refuted. The fallacies of the answer
The third argument. The non-punishment of sin is contrary to the glory of
God's justice. Likewise of his holiness and dominion. A fourth argument.
The necessity of a satisfaction being made by the death of Christ. No ne-
cessary cause, or cogent reason for the death of Christ, according to the ad-
versaries. The objection refuted. The use of sacrifices. The end of the
first part of the dissertation
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. Jus-
tice and mercy are not opposite. Two kinds of the divine attributes. Their
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-
Crellius taken to task. His first mistake. God doth not punish sins as being
endowed with supreme dominion. The first argument of Crellius. The an-
The translation of punishment upon Christ, in what view made by
God. Whether the remission of sins, without a satisfaction made, could take
place, without injury to him to whom punishment belongs. Whether every
one can resign his right. Right twofold. The right of debt, what: and what
that of government. A natural and positive right. Positive right, what: a
description also of natural right. Concessions of Crellius
tice. The solution of it. The anger and severity of God, what. Universal
and particular justice, in what they agree. The false reasoning and vain
The arguments of Socinus against punitory justice weighed. A false hypothesis
of his. Sins, in what sense they are debts. The first argument of Socinus,
in which he takes for granted what ought to have been proved. A trifling
supposition substituted for a proof. Whether that excellence, by virtue of
which God punishes sins, be called justice in the Scriptures. The severity
of God, what. Our opponent's second argument. It labours under the same
deficiency as the first. It is not opposite to mercy to punish the guilty.
There is a distinction between acts and habits. Our opponent confounds them.
The mercy of God infinite, so also is his justice. A distinction of the divine
attributes. In pardoning sins through Jesus Christ, God hath exercised infinite
justice and infinite mercy. The conclusion of the contest with Socinus 439
The progress of the dispute to the theologians of our own country. The supreme
authority of divine truth. Who they are, and what kind of men, who have
gone into factions about this matter. The Coryphoeus of the adversaries, the
very illustrious Twiss. The occasion of his publishing his opinion. The opi-
nion of the Arminians. The effects of the death of Christ, what. Twiss ac-
knowledges punitory justice to be natural to God. The division of the dispute
with Twiss. Maccovius's answers to the arguments of Twiss. The plan of
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.
comparison between mercy and justice, by Vossius improperly instituted
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.
Whether God can inflict punishment on an innocent person. In what sense
God is more willing to do acts of kindness than to punish. What kind of
willingness that assertion respects. The conclusion of the answer to Twiss's
The defence of Sibrandus Lubbertus against Twiss. The agreement of these
very learned men in a point of the utmost importance. A vindication of his
argument from God's hatred against sin. Liberality and justice different. A
sentiment of Lubbertus undeservedly charged with atheism. What kind of
necessity of operation we suppose in God: this pointed out. The sophisti-
cal reasoning of this learned writer. How God is bound to manifest any pro-
perty of his nature. The reasons of Lubbertus and Twiss's objections to the
same considered. That passage of the apostle, Rom. i. 32. considered and
vindicated. His mode of disputing rejected. The force of the argument
from Rom. i. 32. The righteous judgment of God, what. Our federal re-
presentative, and those represented by him, are one mystical body. An an-
swer to Twiss's arguments.; Exod. xxxiv. 7. The learned writer's answer
respecting that passage. A defence of the passage. Punitory justice a name
of God. Whether those for whom Christ hath made satisfaction, ought to be
called guilty. Psal. v. 5-7. the sense of that passage considered. From
these three passages the argument is one and the same.
ment from the definition of justice, weighed. How vindicatory justice is dis-
tinguished from universal. The natures of liberality and justice evidently
different. Punishment belongs to God. In inflicting punishment, God
vindicates his right. Will and necessity, whether they be opposite. The
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.
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
upon 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 from the divine 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.
Piscator's opinion of this controversy. How far we assent to it. Twiss's argu-
ments militate against it. How God punishes from a natural necessity. How
God is a consuming fire. God's right, of what kind. Its exercise necessary,
from some thing supposed. Whence the obligation of God to exercise it
arises. Other objections of Twiss discussed
The answer. Whether God could forbid sin, and not under the penalty of
eternal death. Concerning the management of punishment in human courts
from the divine appointment. The manner of it. What this learned author
understands by the internal courts of God. This learned author's fourth ar-
gument. All acts of grace have a respect to Christ. His fifth argument.
The answer. A dissertation on the various degrees of punishment. For
what reason God may act unequally with equals. Concerning the delay of
The conclusion of this dissertation. The use of the doctrine herein vindi-
cated. God's hatred against sin revealed in various ways. The dreadful
effects of sin all over the creation. Enmity between God and every sin.
Threatenings and the punishment of sin appointed. The description of sin
in the Sacred Scriptures. To what great miseries we are liable through sin.
The excellency of grace, in pardoning sin through Christ. Gratitude and
obedience due from the pardoned. An historical fact concerning Tigranes,
king of Armenia. Christ to be loved for his cross above all things. The
glory of God's justice revealed by this doctrine; and also of his wisdom and