Treatise The Consequence Proved
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | treatise |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-treatise-the-consequence-proved-003 |
| Words | 400 |
Was ever anything like this? Yes, I have read something
like it: When Tiberius had determined to destroy Sejanus
and all his family, as it was unlawful to put a virgin to death,
what could be done with his daughter, a child of nine years
old? Why, the hangman was ordered first to deflour, and
then to strangle, her ! Yet even good Tiberius did not order
her to be strangled “because she had been defloured!” If
so, it had been a parallel case; it had been just what is here
affirmed of the Most High. 8. One word more: “I will obviate,” says Mr. T., “a
fallacious objection, How is reprobation reconcilable with the
doctrine of a future judgment? There needs no pains to
reconcile these two.” No pains ! Indeed there does; more
pains than all the men upon earth, or all the devils in hell,
will ever be able to take. But go on: “In the last day,
Christ will pass sentence on the non-elect, (1.) Not for
having done what they could not help; but, (2.) For their
wilful ignorance of divine things; (3.) For their obstinate
unbelief; (4.) For their omissions of moral duty; and,
(5.) For their repeated iniquities and transgressions.”
He will condemn them, (1) “Not for having done what
they could not help.” I say, Yes; for having sinned against
God to their lives’ end. But this they could not help. He
had himself decreed it; he had determined they should
continue impenitent. (2) “For their wilful ignorance of
divine things.” No; their ignorance of God, and the things
of God, was not wilful, was not originally owing to their own
will, but to the sovereign will of God; his will, not theirs,
was the primary cause of their continuing in that ignorance. (3) “For their obstinate unbelief.” No; how can it be
termed obstinate, when they never had a possibility of
removing it? when God had absolutely decreed, before they
were born, that they should live and die therein? (4.) “For
their omissions of moral duty;” that is, for not loving God
and their neighbour, which is the sum of the moral law. Was it then ever in their power to love God and their
neighbour? No; no more than to touch heaven with their
hand. Had not God himself unalterably decreed, that they
should not love either God or man?