DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9550#0329
NUMBER IV.
279
of their sin. Thus by offering himself as a stcrifice,
he washed away their transgressions with his blood,
without expecting any sacrifice to be made to him, for
the satisfaction of his Justice ; while God the Holy
Ghost, again, took no part whatever in the performance
of the sacrifice, either as the Satisfier or the Satified,
and remained quite neutral. Hence, is it not evident,
that God the Father is more strict about the observance
of Justice than God the Son ? that God the Father was
Jess liable to the influence of Mercy than God the Son ?
and that God theHoly Ghost manifested neither Mercy
nor Justice in the sacrificial atonement ? Do not these
circumstances completely overthrow the doctrine which
these Gentlemen preach, viz. that G)d the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost are equally just and merciful ?
Secondly. They ascribe to God the attribute of
justice according to the human notion of that attribute,
/. e. as a just judge'can never be so influenced by his'
mercy as to forgive a man guilty of capital crimes,
without infiictiong upon him the punishment of death ;
so God never can violate justice through the influence
of his mercy in forgiving sins unto death, without
inflicting extreme punishment. Supposing, then, for,
the sake of argument, that divine justice can be viewed
according to the standard of the human notion of
justice, I ask whether it is consistent with the human
notion of justice to release millions of men each guilty
of sins unto death, after inflicting death upon another
person, (whether God or man) who never participated
in their sins, even though that person had voluntarily
proposed to embrace death ? or whether it is not a great
violation of justice, according to the human notion of
279
of their sin. Thus by offering himself as a stcrifice,
he washed away their transgressions with his blood,
without expecting any sacrifice to be made to him, for
the satisfaction of his Justice ; while God the Holy
Ghost, again, took no part whatever in the performance
of the sacrifice, either as the Satisfier or the Satified,
and remained quite neutral. Hence, is it not evident,
that God the Father is more strict about the observance
of Justice than God the Son ? that God the Father was
Jess liable to the influence of Mercy than God the Son ?
and that God theHoly Ghost manifested neither Mercy
nor Justice in the sacrificial atonement ? Do not these
circumstances completely overthrow the doctrine which
these Gentlemen preach, viz. that G)d the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost are equally just and merciful ?
Secondly. They ascribe to God the attribute of
justice according to the human notion of that attribute,
/. e. as a just judge'can never be so influenced by his'
mercy as to forgive a man guilty of capital crimes,
without infiictiong upon him the punishment of death ;
so God never can violate justice through the influence
of his mercy in forgiving sins unto death, without
inflicting extreme punishment. Supposing, then, for,
the sake of argument, that divine justice can be viewed
according to the standard of the human notion of
justice, I ask whether it is consistent with the human
notion of justice to release millions of men each guilty
of sins unto death, after inflicting death upon another
person, (whether God or man) who never participated
in their sins, even though that person had voluntarily
proposed to embrace death ? or whether it is not a great
violation of justice, according to the human notion of