From Reformation to Reformation

It is agreeable to add in the place of an ending what things are found concering this Attribute of God in the illustrious COCCEIUS’...

Now, as far as TWISSE is concerned, he makes use of four Arguments above all, in the passage cited, § 4, upon which observe: α. That...

Ἀνασκευὴ/refutation follows Κατασκευὴν, constructive reasoning; and so the order of Disputation requires that, after we have thus...

Johannes Crellius But, as Socinus teaches that it is consistent with the Divine Nature to inflict punishments on the impenitent, so also Crellius, de Attributis Dei, chapter XXIII, page 95b, in the place which we just now cited, confesses that neither the Holiness nor Majesty of God bears in every situation that His commandments might be violated with impunity. By this very thing he sufficiently acknowledges that the Divine Holiness requires that God exact punishments of the

Faustus Socinus For what is read in the Prælectione of chapter XVI, that this Righteousness is very rarely attributed to God, makes for this; while in the same Chapter he had written, that the Sacred Books do not even consider that worthy of the name, what is commonly wont to be called Righteousness. Therefore, he confesses what he had just denied, that sometimes Vindicatory Righteousness goes by that name in the Sacred Codex and is attributed to God: for that is not able to

William Twisse Even more Arguments on this matter could be produced, of which our Theologians everywhere make use, both against Socinus, and even against Twisse: such as, That God, unless this Righteousness be also Essential to Him, is able to be conceived of under the opposite of this Attribute, namely, as unjust. For what things depend upon the altogether free Will of God are able to be conceived of under their opposite: but to conceive of an unjust God is contradictory, Jo

Jacobus Trigland And thus indeed, what we promised at the beginning of the Disputation, we believe we have furnished; to demonstrate by giving a fourfold Argument that, not only does Vindicatory Righteousness truly suit God according to Sacred Scripture, but also this is Essential to Him, and so proper that by this He is not able to leave Sin altogether unpunished. But what things we were obliged to pursue more extensively according to our plan and purpose, the same I find re

Finally, the procession of texts is closed by that passage so frequently recited, Romans 3:25, 26, ὃν προέθετο ὁ Θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων, ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ· πρὸς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his right

But the Argument sought hence, which of itself appears to be quite trifling, will be strengthened (as I see it), when a consideration will have been added (so that I might now indeed dismiss other things that speak against the consummate Love of God the Father in giving the Son, and of Christ in offering Himself, John 3:16; 15:13; Romans 5:7, 8; 8:32; 1 John 3:16; etc.; and that appear to be more than a little enervated by the hypothesis of the hypothetical Necessity of Satis

And so nothing appears to remain, to which, as a sufficient, predisposing cause in God, we might trace all these sufferings, indeed, that death and curse, endured by Christ for us; after the sacrifices of the Law had foresignified that the shedding of blood was necessarily required for the expiation of sins, and that hence there was going to be a satisfaction by such a method in the future through a more worthy sacrificial victim for the sins of the Elect: nothing, I say, but

Faustus Socinus But those reasons that Socinus and those that follow his camp suggest certainly are not such: namely, confirmation of the doctrine preached by Him, an exhibition of an example of love and patience to be imitated by us, experience of the evils in which He would succour us, and finally the acquisition of the highest and royal dignity: see part I de Servatore, chapter II and following. Especially since He had abundantly confirmed His doctrine by His holiness of l

And indeed, all these things manifestly argue that the Divine Righteousness is so inexorable that it is not able to pardon the sinner, unless it be fully satisfied by a sufficient price of redemption. For, except a Necessity of this sort come between, both His Goodness, and His Wisdom, would appear to be injured through this means of salvation, which means God revealed to us as singular. And indeed, if God had been able to redeem us by a word or nod alone, as that Great CALVI

Finally, we were saying that the Fourth Argument was to be sought from the actual and stunning Effect of this Righteousness in the Death of the Surety, substituted in the place of the Elect, prefigured in the innumerable Types of the legal sacrifices. That is, as the whole Law, so also the Ceremonial Law, was subservient to the promise. Inasmuch as: Hence it was teaching that guilt was contracted through sin, which guilt was requiring the shedding of blood, with the Lawgiver

Not only by mouth, but also by action, did the Gentiles bear witness to this Righteousness of God in the offering of Sacrifices; of which how great the mass was, how religiously they engaged in them, what great labor and expenses they laid out upon them, everyone is abundantly aware. But whence that religion? to what end did all these have regard? Indeed, I would readily concede that the greatest part of this worship ought to be considered as received by tradition; if only it

But the testimonies of the Ancients are now to be esteemed so much the greater, since Divine authority agrees: thus Paul bears witness concerning the very Gentiles, whom God did not deem worthy of the revelation of His own Oracles, Romans 2:14, 15, ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῇ, οὗτοι, νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες, ἑαυτοῖς εἰσι νόμος· οἵτινες ἐνδείκνυνται τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν, συμμαρτυρούσης αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως, καὶ μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων

Nemesis Now, this voice of Conscience, seated deeply within all mortals, compelled the Gentiles firmly to establish that the Vengeance of the Divine Nature sooner or later pursues shameful acts, and that the impious certainly pay the penalty for them; whence they often introduce the very God as foretelling vengeance, and they invented Nemesis as the Goddess divinely punishing the wicked (the Goddess Nemesis, says AMMIANUS,[1] is an avenger of impious deeds, and a rewarder of

So stands the second Argument: the Third follows close behind, which will be no less suitable for the confirmation of our assertion. Namely, that our thesis is confirmed by the Testimony of the Conscience of all men and the unanimous Consent of Nations. More specifically, as the mind rightly delights in deeds, and, when one has properly performed his duty, the soul is imbued with a pleasing tranquility, with whatever more pleasant pleasure; so, contrariwise, after the perpetr

Johannes a Marck Let me add one passage that exhibits a luminous description of this Holiness, namely, Habakkuk 1:13, where it is not only said that God is not able to look upon evil/trouble, but even more, טְה֤וֹר עֵינַ֙יִם֙ מֵרְא֣וֹת רָ֔ע, He is of purer eyes than to behold evil; that is, He is not able to regard the evil of sin with pleasure, and, lest He be compelled to look upon it permanently, He is at length going to punish it; He is at least not going to admit the sin

Herman Witsius God Himself is introduced as speaking of His Holiness as requiring punishments in Psalm 50:21, Because I was acting as one deaf with thee doing these things, thou thoughtest that I was altogether as thyself, הֱֽיוֹת־אֶֽהְיֶ֥ה כָמ֑וֹךָ, I reprove thee and set in order before thine eyes; or I will reprove, etc. God here sets forth the reasoning of which the impious make use from the delay of the infliction of punishment: since punishment does not always immediate

We proceed to the Second Argument, which I promised was going to be taken from the Foundation of this Vindicatory Righteousness, which is God’s Divine Righteousness, or His Natural Holiness, which implies that His aversion to sin is to be demonstrated in act. This holiness, with the punishment of sin flowing from it necessarily, Joshua sets before the Israelites, Joshua 24:19, saying: Ye cannot serve Jehovah; that is, in the retaining of your Idols: or he thus indicates in a