From Reformation to Reformation

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

Finally, Vindicatory Righteousness is expressly asserted to be Essential to God in passages that speak of God’s Hatred, Anger, Vengeance, out of which to this Righteousness belongs the title of Avenging and Vindicatory. But, as from the things said above it is clearly evident that in a Judicial matter, and so with respect punishments inflicted, Righteousness is also attributed to God, which from Psalm 119:137; Revelation 19:11; Daniel 9:7; Acts 17:31; Romans 3:25, etc., is ab

Thirdly, we add passages in which God is considered as Judge, and hence Judiciary Righteousness is assigned to Him, no less with respect to exacting punishments, than with respect to distributing rewards: such is in Psalm 9:4, in which God is called שׁוֹפֵ֥ט צֶֽדֶק׃, the Judge of Righteousness, or the Just Judge, as the Targum translates it דינא זכאה, the Just Judge; in Psalm 11:5-7, the wicked and him that loveth violence His (that is, the Lord’s) soul hateth. He shall rain

No less accommodated solidly to prove this matter is the passage in Psalm 5:4-6; while it has regard partly to the Vindicatory Righteousness of God, partly to the Holiness of God, the Foundation of the former, when we set it forth here, the same will be able to be omitted in the following Argument. In this place, there are three negative predicates, and likewise three positive, each of which appears to contend with the others for the greater ἐνεργείᾳ, rhetorical vigor. Thou a

That Vindicatory Righteousness is expressly attributed to God in Sacred Scripture, we prove from ἐμφατικωτάτοις/forceful Passages; among which is Exodus 34:7, where God, proclaiming His own Name before Moses, among other things inserts, וְנַקֵּה֙ לֹ֣א יְנַקֶּ֔ה, and He will by no means acquit. The opinion of the most illustrious DE DIEU, referring these words to the description of Divine Goodness, through which even in anger He is mindful of compassion, and so translating the

But, lest we should appear to contend by number, more than by weight, of Arguments, we will bring into the arena only four or five, and those the weightiest, sought, 1. from the Testimonies of Scripture, whereby this very Punishing Righteousness is expressly claimed for God; 2. from the Foundation of this Vindicatory Righteousness in God’s Divine Righteousness, or Natural Sanctity; 3. from the Conscience of men and the Consent of all Nations to this opinion; 4. from the Effec

William Twisse But, so that we might declare the matter as it stands, all the Orthodox are not found thinking in exactly the same manner concerning this Question. Indeed, all these uphold both the Truth and the Necessity of Satisfaction against its enemies; but Some derive this Necessity from the eternal Decree of the Divine Will, acknowledging indeed the Fittingness of Punishment before the Decree, but not a Necessity of such a sort that God had not bee able to pardon to the

Socinus Socinus and his followers vigorously dispute the former, so that they might all the more easily dispute the Truth of the Satisfaction of Christ for our Sins with its Necessity removed, which hence is also validly argued. Therefore, thus Socinus, Prælectionibus, chapter XVI: That God, therefore, contrary to what some might think, is able by right to pardon our sins, without any satisfaction received from anyone for them, appears to be manifestly proven, etc. And, de Ch

ARISTOTLE formerly divided Righteousness/Justice into Universal and Particular: the former was embracing absolutely all the Virtues under itself, and thus deserved to be called general Virtue; but the latter had to do with the distribution of Rewards and Punishments, and with respect to these was also called Corrective. Thus indeed the Philosopher himself in his Ethics, book V, chapter I, Πάντα τὰ νόμιμα ἐστί πως δίκαια, All lawful acts are in some way just. While he was deve

While I was preparing myself for the writing of this little Disputation, I resolved to pause, fearing lest upon me should fall this Proverb, You do what has already been done: for, this Question concerning Vindicatory Righteousness, whether it was able to be said to be Essential to God, or not, seemed to me to be at hand in whatever Systems that include the Theological topic, and already thoroughly treated; and I did not really know that anything could be added by me to the e

That God alone is Independent is proven from what has previously been said. Therefore, to the extent that all other things possess perfection, they have dependence upon God; and so the whole of what they are, they are of God. Now, to each and every thing the right over its own affairs, and the power of disposing of them, belongs, to the extent that it is agreeable. Hence this prerogative is not to be denied to the Consummately Perfect Being. Neither does the dependent nature

They Object, 5. α. If Vindictive Righteousness is Natural to God, no sin is dismissed unpunished. But the consequent is false; for many Sins are remitted: Therefore the antecedent is false also. Response: I deny the Minor in the controverted sense; for Sins are punished either in the sinner himself, or in the substituted Surety: hence the Satisfaction of the Surety and the demonstration of divine Justice are closely conjoined with divine Grace and the Remission of sins, Ephes

They Object, 3. the Goodness of God, whether it come under the name of Mercy, or under the name of Patience. The Catechesis Racoviensis, chapter VIII, cited above, question 20: “If Mercy is in God by nature, God could not by any means punish any sin." Johannes a Marck I Respond with our AUTHOR, that all Punishment is not taken away; but, either, α. is transferred to the Surety through Mercy, or, β. is deferred through Patience. What, γ. our AUTHOR has in addition concerning t

John Calvin But there are also among Our Own, those that acknowledge only a hypothetical Necessity of Punishing Sins flowing from the divine Decree, in such a way that God by His absolute Power could have remitted the Punishment due to the sinner. Among these were Calvin himself and Twiss, above all the rest: who in this regard follow too closely the conceptions of the Scholastics concerning the Absolute Power of God; to whom it belonged from this matter to feign an absolute

Faustus Socinus This is to be maintained against the Socinians, who, so that they might be able more easily to deny the Truth of the Satisfaction of Christ, also deny Vindictive Righteousness as Essential to God, and hence the consequent Necessity of Satisfaction to divine Justice. Socinus, at the beginning of book III de Christo Servatore, opera, tome 2, page 186, “I shall never be so injurious to my God, that I would dare to think, even indeed in a dream, that my sins, with

And so it is not at all strange that our Symbolic Formulæ also consider the Punishment of sinners as necessary, not by virtue of the divine Good Pleasure indifferently free, but by the very Righteousness of God requiring this. Thus the Heidelburg Catechism has it, question XI, “Is not God then also merciful? Answer: God is indeed merciful, but in such a way that He is also just; therefore His justice requires, that sin which is committed against the most high Majesty of God,