holiness of God, that he should become like unto the sinner, For, as his image consists in a holiness every way perfect, it is a contradiction that it should consist in sin; but if God was unwilling to punish sin, he would then become like unto the sinner. This is what we may learn from himself, Psal, 1, 21. when he would tell the sinner, thou thoughtest that I would not punish thy sin, he thus expresses it; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself." But, says he, I will shew the contrary. And how? I will reprove thee, or puer nish thee. And by that I will, in effect, shew, that I am not like unto thee. Whence I conclude, that not to punish sin, would very much resemble the sinner; on the contrary, to punish sin in its proper time, is to shew himself most unlike to the sinner. Unless then God reproves the sinner, he will be like unto him, and deny himself. For since God is a pat tern to man, and man was made in order that God may be glorified in him; and every thing that God hath made, bas a tendency to this, namely, that man may from them know what a God he is; if God should by no method shew that sin des prives man of communion with him and of his kingdomsenay, should he make the sinner eternally happy while it is the highest degree of punishment to be accounted unworthy of its God would certainly in that case testify himself not worthysto be loved, desired, and glorified, and that sin is not an object unworthy of man's delight. As it is then impossible that God should be altogether like unto the sinner, it is likewise so, that he should let sin go unpunished.

XXX. 5. Hence God says, he is sanctified when he pus nishes, Lev. x. 3. On which place, Crellius himself, de Vera Relig, lib, i. c. 28, makes this annotation, which some learned men explain (and himself agrees with them), “ I shall appear ne holy, that is, shall inflict punishment on them. The same thing he owns in the same chapter, that" neither the holiness, nor the majesty of God, can in any respect bear to have his commands violated with impunity. Such is the power of truth. that even the most obstinate are constrained to confess it! And the sense of this word is very evident, Ezek. xxxvii 16. where the punishment of Gog is foretold in these words "That the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee," viz. by thy punishnient, before their eyes more clearly still, Isa. v. 16 Cod that is holy, shall be sanctified in righteousness," by inflicting on sinners the punishments threatened in the foregoing verses, and by not pardoning the elect, but only on account of the righteousness of Christ, in whose sufferings and death he displayed his most unspotted holiness, and his hatred of sin, before the whole world, nay, even.

VOL. I.

before hell itself. It is therefore as necessary, that God should punish sin, as that he should be holy, lest he should seem to give up with his holiness. I shall conclude in the words of Joshua, xxiv. 19" for he is an holy God." What then? "He is a jealous God." And what does he infer hence?" He will not forgive your transgressions, nor your sins." And thus from his holiness flows his jealousy, from his jealousy his vengeance.

XXXI. Thirdly. This may also be inferred from that ́ attribute of God, which is usually called, vindictive justice. That it is the property of this to punish sin, the scriptures tell us in a thousand places; and heretics impudently cavil, when they assert it to be the work, not so much of divine justice, as of wrath and passion. They unadvisedly disjoin, what the apostle has conjoined, who speaks of the day of wrath, and of the rightecus judgment of God, Rom. ii. 5. And is God's wrath any other than that ready disposition of the divine mind to do that which his hatred of sin, justice towards the sinner, and his 'character as the supreme judge, do require? I omit a thousand other considerations which occur every where. `I shall rather shew where the stress of the whole lies. First, That this perfection is as natural to God, as infinity, holiness, omnipotence. Secondly, That in virtue of it, God cannot suffer sin to go unpunished.

XXXII. The former of these I thus prove. That perfection must belong to the nature and essence of God, and cannot be referred to the good pleasure of his will, if what is opposite to it cannot be conceived without a contradiction. But it is contradictory to conceive of God under any character opposite to that of just, or, as unjust, Job xxxiv. 10. But it is not contradictory, if I conceive of God even contrary to those things which depend on the mere good pleasure of his will: for instance, it was from the free will and pleasure of God, that he chose Israel for his peculiar people: if therefore I conceive of God, as having never been the God of Israel, I shall doubtless have formed a false conception, but nothing that, by an evident contradiction, destroys the nature of God. For he might have been God, and yet not the God of Israel; but if he had so pleased, the God of the Egyptians or Chaldeans. But whosoever says, that God is, and asserts that he is unjust, speaks contradictory things. For the first conception of the Deity is to be perfectly and infinitely good. But justice, in giving to every one his due, by a suitable compensation, belongs to this goodness: especially when we consider, that as he is the Lord of rational creatures, so he cannot but be their judge. Whoever therefore says that any is unjust, or not just, denies such to be God, of whom he thus speaks.

XXXIII. The latter I make out thus: The justice of God requires, that whatever is his righteous judgment, be done; for it is necessary that God do himself justice; who, properly speaking, owes nothing to any one but to himself. As that is the judgment (righteousness) of the law, Rom. viii. 4. which the law demands, and which, without injustice, cannot be denied the law: what God requires, is the judgment of God, and cannot be denied him, unless he would be unjust to himself. But it is the (judgment) of God, that they which do evil, are worthy of death, Rom. i. 32. And therefore there is a connection between- sin, and worthy of death, not only in vir tue of the will, but of the justice of God. Moreover, as the judgment of God is always according to truth, Rom. ii. 2. he must pronounce the person unworthy of life, and worthy of death, who is worthy of it, consequently condemn him, unless a satisfaction intervene. To act otherwise, would be unworthy the just God. The apostle intimates this, Rom. iii. 25, 26. declaring, that God set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." By which words he shews, if God should justify the wicked, and admit them to happiness without the atone ment of the blood of Christ, he would not be just, at least, his justice would not be displayed.

XXXIV. Jeremiah has a most memorable passage, in which God says, ch, ix. 29. "Shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord, and shall not my soul be avenged on such nation as this?" The meaning is, shall I be Jehovah, nay, shall I not deny myself, if I bear with those things in my people? It is impossible I should do this, and that in virtue of my soul, that is, of my very essential holiness and Deity. Should I have a divine soud, that is, a divine nature, and just, and not be avenged of sin ? For the soul of God denotes the most holy nature of God, or, which is the same, the essential holiness of God. As appears from comparing Amos iv. 2. with Amps vi. 8. In the former it is said, the Lord hath sworn by his it is holiness in the latter, the Lord hath sworn by (his soul) himself.

XXXV. Crellius therefore trifles, de vera Relig. lib. i. c. 28. when he ridiculously said, that to punish is God's foreign and strange work; as if to shew mercy was God's proper work, but to punish his strange work. To that end wresting, Isa. xxviii. 21." that he may do his work," which be thus translates, "his strange works; that he may work his work, foreign (or strange) is his work to him." We freely own, that by that foreign and

strange work, we ought to understand his vengeance against the rebellious Jews. But it is said to be strange and foreign, in a quite different sense from what this perverter of scripture would have it. It was strange and foreign, because altogether uncommon and extraordinary. For, it was a great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to that time, Matt. xxiv. 21. Likewise, because any would think it strange, that God should deal thus with his own covenant people, on whom he had multiplied so many favours, and make examples of them, in a manner he had not done to his enemies, who were strangers to his covenant. What he had done in mount Pera zim against the Philistines, 2 Sam. v. 21. and in the valley of Gibeon, could scarcely be compared to this. It is likewise so called, because such an extraordinary punishment from God (as strange and unusual things very commonly do) would fill any with such astonishment as they would be obliged to take notice of the hand of God in it. Thus the miseries of the Jews struck Titus himself with horror; and, on viewing the walls and towers of Jerusalera, confessed, that without God, such a city could never be taken. It is very remarkable what Philostratus relates in the life of Apollonius Tyanæus, lib. v. c. 14 When the neighbouring nations came, according to custom, to adorn Titus with crowns, for his conquest of the Jews; he said, that he deserved no such honour that he did not achieve those things, but only was the instrument of God, who was then displaying his wrath. In like manner also, because it was strange and foreign to the Israelites; who, that the Romans might not come and destroy their city, brought upon themselves the guilt of that wickedness against the Lord Jesus, which was the cause of so great a destruction. It was therefore strange and foreign, not to God, (for the text says no such thing,) but in itself and to men. Or if we would say, that it was altogether strange and foreign to God; it must be meant, because God delights not either in destruction, or in the destruction of his creatures, as such, but, (to speak after the manner of men,) is rather inclined to acts of goodness and mercy. But this is so far from being of service to the heretic, that, on the contrary, it furnishes us with a new and solid argument. Thus,

XXXVI. Fourthly. It is certain that penal evil, as such, is not in itself desirable, even to God, because it is connected with the destruction of his own work. "Is it good unto thee that thou shouldst oppress? that thou shouldst despise the work of thine hands?" Job x. 3. Nay, God confirms by an inviolable oath, that he has no pleasure in the death of the

'

wicked, Ezek. xxxiii. 11. It must then be something else, which renders

in it, desirable, that God declares, that he caults

in it, and derives great consolation from it, as being that alone which can, as it were, be sufficient to mitigate his grief, and appease his indignation occasioned by sin. Nothing can be imagined stronger than the scripture phrases on this subject, some of which I shall exhibit; Hos. x. 10. "It is in my de sire that I should chastise them. Amos v. 9. "That refreshes himself by desolation, (strengtheneth the spoiled) against the strong. Deut. xxviii. 36. "The Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you." Isa. i. 24. "I will ease me of my adversaries, and avenge me of my enemies." God, you see, desires to punish sinners. Whenever he pours out deso lation upon them, he refreshes (strengtheneth) himself; nor slightly only, but he both rejoices and exults; and that with such a joy as may be capable of mitigating the pain caused by sin, and consequently of yielding consolation to God. What can it be which makes that evil of the creature so de sirable to the Creator? What other but that by inflicting punishment, be preserves inviolable the glory of his supre macy, holiness, and justice, which sin would wholly obscure? For, all the usefulness of punishment (as Crellius himself speaks,) must needs regard God. But we can conceive here no advantage redounding to God, unless his rejoicing in the declaration of his glory, shining forth in that judgment, the justice of which the holy angels acknowledge with applause, Rev. xi. 17. and xvi. 5, 6. and even the damned themselves, though unwilling and gnashing their teeth, are constrained to confess. It is indeed impossible that God should set light by this his most excellent glory, of which he is so jealous. As it is then necessary, that God should prefer the destruction of his wicked creature to that of his own glory, so it is necessary that he should punish the wicked. God indeed loves his creatures, but he does, as he ought, much more himself. He would act inconsistent with that love, was he not to recover his glory, which his sinful creature has by hor rible sacrilege robbed him of, by inflicting punishment upon it.

t to

XXXVII. Fifthly, and lastly. We shall use arguments, ad hominem. Socinus owns, de Servato, P. i. c. 1. that “not pardon the impenitent is certainly right and agreeable to the divine nature," and consequently to rectitude and equity. Crellius, in like manner, de Vera Relig. lib. i. c. 23. says, that "it is unworthy of God to suffer the crimes of the ob