Universal Redemption of Mankind, Chapter 7 · Argument 26
Arg. 26. A proceſſu Judiciali & cauſa condemnationis.
If Chriſt himſelf ſhall therefore condemn men in Judgment, becauſe they received him not as their Lord-Redeemer, or becauſe they abuſed the fruits of his Death, ſuffered for them, then he died for All men: But Chriſt will condemn men in Judgment becauſe they received him not as their Lord-Redeemer, or becauſe they abuſed the ſaid fruits of his Death: Therefore he died for All-men.
That he will condemn all the Unbelievers that heard his Goſpel, becauſe they did not believe in him nor receive him for their Redeemer and Saviour, and Lord to Reign over them, nor reſt on him for Salvation, is confeſſed by all, and paſt diſpute, Luke 21. 27. Joh. 1. 10, 11, 12▪ & 3. 18. 1 Joh. 5. 11. 2 Theſ. 1. 8. & 2. 10, 11, 12▪ Mar. 16. 16. Job. 5. 22. Mat. 25. per totum.
That all men ſhall be judged according to their well or ill uſage of the Talents of Mercy beſtowed on them, and repenting or not repenting in the day of Grace, is plain in Mat. 25. in the Parable of the ten Virgins and of the Talents. I have proved before that theſe Talents are Grace (i. e. Miſerecordiae contra meritum, effectus) and procured by Chriſts ſatisfaction, and not given without Chriſts ſatisfaction.
The conſequence therefore of the Major propoſition is evident. For ſhall any man dare, (without better proof) to affirm that Chriſt will ſit as Lord-Redeemer in Judgment, and condemn moſt of the World to everlaſting flames, for refuſing a Redeemer that was not their Redeemer? and for not believing in him to ſave them by his death, who never died for them? and for not reſting for Salvation, on him that never made the leaſt ſatisfaction for them, and therefore was not a ſufficient ſtay to reſt on; and for not believing, where, if they had believed, Faith would do no good. And where it is objected (as before) they ſhould have believed, that it might have been a ſign to them that Chriſt died for them. I anſwer (beſides what I anſwered before) 1. It being firſt granted that Chriſt did not dye for them, then if they had believed it would have been no ſign that he died for them, for it cannot be a ſign of that which was not. And Chriſts dying or not dying for them, for it cannot be a ſign of that which was not. 2. Never Judge did paſs ſentence upon a ſign inſtead of a cauſe: or make the want of a ſign to be the cauſe of condemnation. Then the principal cauſe ſhould be [non Redimi:] that Chriſt died not for us, and the ſignal (which is our not believing) muſt be the leſs principal, And ſo the Sentence ſhould paſs thus [I adjudge thee to Hell Fire, for not being redeemed by my blood, and conſequently for not having that faith which might have been a ſign that I redeemed thee.] But who dare feign Chriſt Jeſus to paſs ſuch a Sentence; Saith Abraham far be it from thee, to deſtroy the Righteous with the Wicked! ſhall not the Judge of all the World do righteouſly?
Alſo how could Chriſt condemn Pagans or any for not improving his Talents of Mercy, if they had none? And if Chriſt died not for them, they had none. For I have proved, it could not come any other way: Grace, as I ſaid, proper to the Goſpel, is [Mercy contrary to Merit] as Grace to the firſt man new created, was, [Mercy without Merit] now common or ſpecial Goſpel Grace (contrary to merit) comes all from Chriſts Blood, and can come no otherwiſe. The Law came by Moſes, but Grace and Truth came by Jeſus Chriſt, of his fulneſs we all receive, and Grace for Grace. All the gifts in the Church, of Tongues, Miracles, caſting out Devils, Healing, Propheſying (all which, thoſe may have that ſhall periſh) are yet from one and the ſame Spirit, even the Spirit of the Son, procured by his Blood. In him it is that God bleſſeth us with all ſpiritual bleſſings (common or ſpecial.) Now if men have none of the Talents which Chriſt's Death hath purchaſed them, how can he condemn them for abuſing that which they had not?
I know, ſome reply, that God may condemn and torment his Creature without any fault, if he pleaſe, and that juſtly, becauſe his Will is the rule of Juſtice. To which I anſwer as he is Dominus Abſolutus he may do with his own as he pleaſe, and therefore may torment the Creature as he pleaſe (at leaſt he might have done, before he undertook to diſpoſe of them as Rector according to his Laws) but as he is Ruler of the Rational Creature, he will not, and therefore cannot condemn or puniſh any but for ſin; ſeeing every puniſhment is eſſential for a fault. And therefore if God ſhould torment the undeſerving Creature, it would be but an Affliction or meer Suffering (which is the matter of Puniſhment without the form) but no puniſhment: And therefore it would be neither juſt nor unjuſt, being not capable of either Title: But to ſay that God as Judge can condemn or puniſh a man without deſert, is plain Blaſphemy.