Universal Redemption of Mankind, Chapter 7 · Argument 27
Arg. 27. A condemnandorum inexcuſabilitate.
If Chriſt died not for all, then the condemned would not be left without any juſt excuſe, But the condemned ſhallbe left without a juſt excuſe, therefore Chriſt died for All.
The Minor is plain in Scripture. All mouths ſhall be ſtopped, and all the World be guilty before God, Rom. 3. 19. And Chriſt ſaith, They have no Cloak for their ſin. See Rom. 1. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c.
And for the conſequence of the Major, there is enough ſaid to prove it before. And further let me add for explication a few words. Excuſe is contrary to Accuſation: As there are therefore divers ſorts of Accuſation, ſo is there of Excuſation: Men may be Accuſed at the Bar of God. 1. Upon the grounds afforded in the Law of Works. 2. Or according to the Mediators new Law, or the Law of Grace. According to the Law of Works men may be accuſed. 1. Of violating the Precept. 2. Of being liable to the penalty: For the firſt of theſe no man on Earth hath any juſt excuſe, for all have ſinned, and muſt confeſs it, and he that ſaith he hath no ſin is a lyer. 2. If any man be accuſed of being liable to penalty according to the tenour of the Law of Works, this alſo muſt be confeſſed and hath no excuſe: no not for them that Chriſt died for in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, or that are Juſtified. 2. And for Accuſation in the reference to the Law of Grace, either men will be accuſed, 1. Of not performing the duties of that Law, as commanded. 2. Or of not performing the condition of it, as it is a condition. 3. Or of being liable to the penalty, 1. Privative. 2. Poſitive. 1. For the firſt, all men muſt confeſs that they are guilty: For though in the Law of Nature the Duty commanded, and the condition, were the ſame, yet in the Law of Grace, the Duty commanded is of larger extent than the condition. For perfect obedience is commanded, though only faith and ſincere obedience be the condition: Only the Duty commanded is the matter about which ſincere obedience, which is part of the condition is exerciſed. Now here no man can excuſe himſelf by ſaying that he hath done all that Chriſt commanded him: But the non-redeemed may excuſe themſelves for not doing it: For againſt every part of the Precepts proper to the Goſpel, they have excuſe, as will appear anon, when we ſpeak of the conditions. 2. The condition of the new Law or Covenant is, Faith working by Love, Repentance. Thankfulneſs and ſincere Obedience. He that performeth not theſe muſt periſh. Now if an unredeemed perſon ſhall be accuſed for not performing theſe, though he muſt confeſs the non-performance, yet he hath theſe reaſons to give for his excuſe. 1. Where there is no gift, there can be no condition, in proper ſenſe, of obtaining: But Chriſts blood was not given to us, and conſequently not the proper fruits of it. Therefore 2. How could we believe in, or receive Chriſt as our Redeemer, who never Redeemed us? Or truſt to his Blood for Juſtification, which was never ſhed for us? And therefore would not have been ſufficient to ſave us, had it been poſſible for us to have believed in it, or had we actually believed? Moreover believing to Juſtification, is but the accepting or receiving Chriſt as an offered Saviour and Head, or as conditionally given us, viz. if we will receive him (this is commonly confeſt:) now how can there be a receiving or accepting without a giving? Is there any contradiction more palpable? We therefore to whom Chriſt was not given could not receive him: and if he were not given for us, he could not be given to us: ſeeing the latter doth preſuppoſe the former. 3. Repentance to Life preſuppoſeth ſome hope of Life given (I mean, ſpem poſſibilitatis, & probabilitatis, & ſi non ſpem certitudinis.) But there is no hope given to any, but in and by the blood of Jeſus Chriſt ſhed for them: for there is no other name by which they can be ſaved; without this hope we might have an Infernal deſpairing tormenting Repentance, but could not poſſibly have a Repentance unto Life, or ſuch as could be to us any means of our recovery (as all Goſpel Repentance is.) And it was not in our power to give hope to our ſelves by cauſing Chriſts blood to be ſhed for us, had we been never ſo willing. 4. How could we love God as merciful in Redeeming us, or love Chriſt as our Redeemer when we knew him not to be our Redeemer; and it now appears he never was our Redeemer. 5. How could we love the Brethren as our members of the ſame body, and our fellow-redeemed ones (which is the new commandment) when they were none of our Brethren in that ſenſe, nor could we prove that they ſhould be ſo? 6. Why ſhould we be thankful to Chriſt for Redeeming us, when he did not at all redeem us, Should we be thankful for nothing? 7. How could we obey Chriſt as our Lord-redeemer, who was not our Lord-redeemer? How could we hear him as ſuch, and call on him as ſuch, or truſt him as ſuch,? If his offices are all of equal extent, and it be certain that he was no Prieſt to us, as not offering himſelf a ſacrifice for us at all; then he could be no King or Prophet to us. And why then ſhould we obey a King that is not our King? Or, Why then ſhould we hear that Prophet who was no Prophet to us?
3. And then as to the laſt accuſation; if men be accuſed as being lyable or obliged to the penalty, for non-performance of the condition; or for want of a Saviour: Every true Believer hath two things to anſwer for his full Juſtification: 1. That Chriſt hath ſatisfied for him (and therefore the Laws obligation is juſtly diſſolved.) 2. That he hath himſelf performed the condition of the new Covenant? (and therefore hath part in Chriſts ſatisfaction, and is not to be condemned as an Unbeliever) or ungrateful Rebel, and therefore ought not to be deprived of the reward or benefit given, (which is deliverance from the Curſe of the Law and the guilt of ſin and deſerved puniſhment, together with a greater ſuperadded glory:) Nor yet to ſuffer the poſitive penalty (which is both the Non-liberation from the foreſaid miſery, and the greater torment threatned to unbelievers.) Now the unredeemed may all plead that the ſaid penalties are not due to them. 1. Becauſe no redeemer did ever ſatisfie for them; and they could not ſatisfie for themſelves, nor cauſe Chriſt to ſatisfie for them; which is ever preſuppoſed to their own believing; ſeeing believing is but to give them a right to the ſatisfaction and benefits of Chriſt, and not to be our righteouſneſs as of worth in it ſelf; now all the believing in the World would not make that ſatisfaction to be for me, which was never made for me, but only for another, no more than believing that another man hath paid my debt, would make it true; or make a payment to be for me which was only for another: As Mr. Perkins ſaith [and leaſt any ſhould imagine that the very act of Faith in apprehending Chriſt juſtifieth, we are to underſtand that Faith doth not apprehend by power from it ſelf, but by virtue of the Covenant: If a man believe the Kingdom of France to be his, it is not therefore his: Yet if he believe Chriſt and the Kingdom of Heaven by Chriſt to be his, it is his indeed: Not ſimply becauſe he believes, but becauſe he believes upon promiſe and commandment; for in the tenor of the covenant God promiſeth to impute the obedience of Chriſt to us if we believe.] Vol. 1. True Gain. page 662. So that the unbeliever hath this excuſe, that his believing ſuppoſed the Gift and Promiſe, and he could not by believing have made ſatisfaction to Gods Juſtice (Faith having no ſuch worth, nor being ordained to that end) nor yet could he get intereſt in a ſatisfaction never made for him: Nor would God have imputed ſuch a ſatisfaction or obedience to him, had he never ſo much believed. Indeed he deſerves the miſery threatned by the firſt Law for ſin againſt the Creator, or for ſin as ſin; but not the penalty proper to the new Law; either privative conſiſting in non-liberation, or poſitive, as in ſorer puniſhment. 2. Beſides he is excuſed by the former reaſons which excuſe him for non-performance of the conditions; for then he cannot be puniſhed for that non-performance. If the Devils were accuſed for not believing in Chriſt as their Redeemer, and conſequently being obliged to the penalties of the new Covenant, would not they have all this excuſe?