be violated, and the majesty of the MOST HOLY be insulted, by a whole world of rebellious creatures, without any essential property of his nature inflexibly demanding, that their apostacy and crimes should be punished according to their demerit!

Must we consider that Sublime Being, who cast Satan, with all his revolted legions, down to hell, and reserves them in chains, under darkness, to the judgment of the great day-Who swept with the besom of destruction the antediluvian world-Who caused those abodes of lust and violence, the cities of the plain, to suffer the vengeance of eternal fireWho, for their enormous wickedness, exterminated the ancient Canaanitish nations-Who has pronounced an awful curse upon every transgression of his holy law-And, who delights in calling him self THE HOLY ONE;-must we consider HIM as having no essential property which requires that sin should meet with condign punishment? Are we, whenever he is viewed, in the history of Providence, as actually inflicting penal sufferings; or, with regard to a future state, as threatening punishment upon the ungodly, bound to conclude, that his conduct, in so doing, proceeds from his mere, sovereign pleasure? And must we maintain, as an article of our theological creed, that He who, on account of his purity, his jealousy, and his justice, is called A CONSUMING FIRE; is at the most complete liberty, on the ground of supreme, royal prerogative, to pardon and save the whole, or part, or whomsoever he pleases, of the human race; without any atonement for sin-without any manifestation of avenging justice-and without any dishonour to his character as a righteous Governor? Far be it!

Supposing the Supreme Ruler to punish sin merely because he is pleased so to do; and that he might, on the same ground of sovereign pleasure, without either the least injustice, or the smallest dishonour to his rectoral character, pardon all the sins of every transgressor in the world; it is hard to conceive, without impeaching the divine rectitude, of his making a single example of penal justice among all the posterity of Adam. Because, an inclination to punish, where pardoning mercy might have its completest exercise, without either the shadow of injustice, or of dishonour, attaching to the Divine Government; would have much more the appearance of malevolence, than of justice.

The Divine detestation of sin must be manifested, by the exercise of justice in the punishment of it. For, that God should, by his holiness, have an immutable aversion from sin, as sin, and never have a will to demonstrate that aversion by the infliction of penal sufferings, is inconceivable; and, according to all our modes of conception, impossible. Totally to forbear punishing, and entirely to cease hating, that which is absolutely evil, in the empire of God; are equally contrary to his nature-equally inconsistent with his supreme perfection-and equally subversive of his character, as Lord of the universe. For as he would cease to be essentially pure, were he to cease from lothing sin; so, did he cease to punish it, we cannot forbear concluding, that he would cease to lothe it. His abhorrence of moral evil arises, not from sovereign pleasure, but from eternal rectitude: and the punishment executed upon that evil, proceeds from him as the Sovereign and the Judge of the whole earth.

It is not consistent with the character of a righteous judge, of his mere pleasure, to suffer an offence condemned by that law which is the rule of judgment, to escape with impunity. For he who justifieth the wicked, equally as he who condemneth the righteous, is an abomination to the Lord. But, shall not the Judge of all the earth do right, or that which is just? Yes, the nature of God is a law to itself. As it is impossible for God to lie, because he is the Supreme Truth; so neither can he act unjustly, because he is Consummately Just. As he is in his Nature, such is he in the acts of his Will and as he is in his Name, such is he in his Conduct.

It is evident from the language of Paul, that no doctrine, however plausible, pleasing, or seemingly important, can stand before a well-grounded charge of tarnishing the excellence, or subverting the authority, of the moral law. For when the Apostle is anticipating an objection to the truth maintained by him, he states and refutes it thus: Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! yea, we establish the law. As if he had said, 'Let no one imagine that our design is, either to relax the precepts, or to vacate the sanction, of the moral law; nor yet, that our doctrine has any such tendency. No; we detest the thought, as a foul reflection on the Divine Legislator, and as having a pernicious aspect on the souls of men. So far from it, that we take the only effectual method of establishing the law. This we do by maintaining, that no one can be pardoned and accepted of God, except on the ground of its righteous precepts being perfectly performed, and its equitable sanc

C

tion completely satisfied, by the vicarious obedience, and the substitutionary sufferings, of our allsufficient Sponsor.' Thus ample provision is graciously made for the claims of divine law, and for the free justification of notorious transgressors. Sin is condemned and punished, in the person of Jesus the Surety;* that righteousness might be imputed, and life eternal granted, to every sinner who believes in him.

But, on the principle against which we contend, the law is not honoured, or established, either with regard to the obedience it requires, or the curse it denounces. Not the former: because all the natural descendants of Adam, without one exception, have broken the law, and stand convicted before God. Consequently, it has never been duly honoured in a course of obedience-it has never been completely treated as a perfectly good law, by any one descended from our original Father.-Not the latter: because the very thought of substitutionary obedience, and vicarious punishment, is treated by the Socinians with marked contempt. According to that obnoxious principle, therefore, were any of us pardoned and saved, it must be merely by the exercise of Supreme Prerogative, in defiance of the claims advanced by Divine Law, and in opposition to the rights of Eternal Justice.

Whenever the Most Holy punishes transgression, it must be either because that punishment is deserved and just; or merely because he is pleased to inflict it. If the former, it is the point for which we plead. If the latter, then is the sovereign will of God, rather than the criminal desert of sin, the

* Rom. viii. 8, Heb. vii, 22.

cause of endless perdition, to all that finally perish. -This, indeed, Socinus is daring enough to assert, when he says; I contend, that the origin of our damnation is derived, not from Divine Justice, but from the Free Will of God.'* A detestable and shocking assertion! directly contrary to that divine declaration, O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thy help.

This

Nothing is more sure, nor any thing more evident, than that the law of God condemns every transgressor to final ruin. For thus saith the High and Lofty One, whose name is HOLY: Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. awful sentence, admitting the requisitions of divine law to be righteous, and the sanction equitable, must be considered as the voice of Eternal Justice, awarding to sin its deserved punishment; and a punishment, therefore, which must be executed. For omniscient veracity must be equally far from denouncing a punishment which was never intended to be inflicted; as omnipotent rectitude from executing a penalty that was not deserved. The exercise of penal justice is, therefore, pledged in the curse of Jehovah's law; and, consequently, it must be displayed in its opposition to sin.

Various and multiplied are the modes of expression which are adopted in Sacred Scripture, to denote God's abhorrence of sin, its awful demerit, and the divine purpose respecting the punishment of it: a specimen of which is contained in the following extracts. Relative to God's abhorrence of

* In Dr. Owen, De Justitia Divina Diatriba, Cap, iii. Sect. 26. Cap. vii. Sect. 11, 14.