Wesley Corpus

Treatise The Consequence Proved

AuthorJohn Wesley
Typetreatise
YearNone
Passage IDjw-treatise-the-consequence-proved-003
Words400
Reign of God Trinity Free Will
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?