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.


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.
Lubbertus's argu-

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

end of the defence of Lubbertus

« VorigeDoorgaan »