A letter from George Whitefield to John Wesley
George Whitefield to John Wesley: "No, dear Sir, you mistake." A Letter from George Whitefield to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley IN ANSWER TO MR. WESLEY’S SERMON ENTITLED "Free Grace"
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be (Iain Murray has written
PREFACE
I am very well aware what different effects publishing this letter against the dear Mr. Wesley’s produce. Many of my friends who are strenuous advocates for universal redemption will offended. Many who are zealous on the other side will be much rejoiced. They who are and are carried away with carnal reasoning will wish this matter had never been brought The reasons I have given at the beginning of the letter, I think are sufficient to satisfy all desire therefore that they who hold election would not triumph, or make a party on one such thing)—and that they who are prejudiced against that doctrine be not too much concerned the other.
Known unto God are all his ways from the beginning of the world. The great day will permits dear Mr. Wesley and me to be of a different way of thinking. At present, I shall that matter, beyond the account which he has given of it himself in the following letter, from his own dear hands: My dear Brother,
I thank you for yours, May the 24th. The case is quite plain. There are bigots both for predestination it. God is sending a message to those on either side. But neither will receive it, unless from own opinion. Therefore, for a time you are suffered to be of one opinion, and I of another. come, God will do what man cannot, namely, make us both of one mind. Then persecution will be seen whether we count our lives dear unto ourselves, so that we may finish our dearest brother,
Ever yours,
J. WESLEY
Thus my honoured friend, I heartily pray God to hasten the time, for his being clearly enlightened doctrines of divine revelation, that we may thus be closely united in principle and judgment affection. And then if the Lord should call us to it, I care not if I go with him to prison, and Silas, I hope we shall sing praises to God, and count it our highest honour to suffer lay down our lives for the brethren.
WHITEFIELD’S LETTER TO WESLEY Bethesda Reverend and very dear Brother,
God only knows what unspeakable sorrow of heart I have felt on your account since I it be my infirmity or not, I frankly confess, that Jonah could not go with more reluctance now take pen in hand to write against you. Was nature to speak, I had rather die than do faithful to God, and to my own and others’ souls, I must not stand neutral any longer. I that our common adversaries will rejoice to see us differing among ourselves. But what of God are in danger of falling into error. Nay, numbers have been misled, whom God upon by my ministry, and a greater number are still calling aloud upon me to show also show that I know no man after the flesh, and that I have no respect to persons, any further my duty to my Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. This letter, no doubt, will lose me many friends: and for this cause perhaps God has laid me, even to see whether I am willing to forsake all for him, or not. From such considerations my duty to bear an humble testimony, and earnestly to plead for the truths which, I am revealed in the Word of God. In the defence whereof I must use great plainness of speech, friends upon earth with the greatest simplicity, faithfulness, and freedom, leaving the consequences God. For some time before, and especially since my last departure from England, both in public preaching and printing, you have been propagating the doctrine of universal redemption how Paul reproved Peter for his dissimulation, I fear I have been sinfully silent too long. with me, dear and honoured Sir, if now I deliver my soul, by telling you that I think in ’Tis not my design to enter into a long debate on God’s decrees. I refer you to Dr. Edwards which, I think is unanswerable—except in a certain point, concerning a middle sort between which he himself in effect afterwards condemns.
I shall only make a few remarks upon your sermon, entitled Free Grace." And before I itself, give me leave to take a little notice of what in your Preface you term an indispensable it public to all the world. I must own, that I always thought you were quite mistaken upon The case (you know) stands thus: When you were at Bristol, I think you received a letter charging you with not preaching the gospel, because you did not preach up election. Upon the answer was "preach and print." I have often questioned, as I do now, whether in so the Lord. A due exercise of religious prudence, without [the drawing of] a lot, would have matter. Besides, I never heard that you enquired of God, whether or not election was a But, I fear, taking it for granted [that election was not a biblical truth], you only enquired silent or preach and print against it.
However this be, the lot came out "preach and print"; accordingly you preached and printed my desire, you suppressed the publishing of the sermon whilst I was in England; but you world after my departure. O that you had kept it in! However, if that sermon was printed apt to think, one reason why God should so suffer you to be deceived, was, that hereby might be laid upon me, faithfully to declare the Scripture doctrine of election, that thus fresh opportunity of seeing what was in my heart, and whether I would be true to his cause not but grant, he did once before, by giving you such another lot at Deal. The morning I sailed from Deal for Gibraltar [2 February 1738], you arrived from Georgia. an opportunity to converse with you, though the ship was not far off the shore, you drew set forward to London. You left a letter behind you, in which were words to this effect: by the wind which was carrying you out, brought me in, I asked counsel of God. His answer This was a piece of paper, in which were written these words, "Let him return to London." When I received this, I was somewhat surprised. Here was a good man telling me he had would have me return to London. On the other hand, I knew my call was to Georgia, and of London, and could not justly go from the soldiers, who were committed to my charge. friend to prayer. That passage in 1 Kings 13 was powerfully impressed upon my soul, Prophet was slain by a lion when he was tempted to go back (contrary to God’s express Prophet’s telling him God would have him do so. I wrote you word that I could not return immediately.
Some months after, I received a letter from you at Georgia, wherein you wrote words to God never before gave me a wrong lot, yet, perhaps, he suffered me to have such a lot was in your heart." I should never have published this private transaction to the world, call me to it. It is plain you had a wrong lot given you here, and justly, because you tempted And thus I believe it is in the present case. And if so, let not the children of God who are friends, and also advocates for universal redemption, think that doctrine true—because compliance with a lot given out from God.
This, I think, may serve as an answer to that part of the Preface to your printed sermon, "Nothing but the strongest conviction, not only that what is here advanced is the truth as that I am indispensably obliged to declare this truth to all the world." That you believe be truth, and that you honestly aim at God’s glory in writing, I do not in the least doubt. cannot but think you have been much mistaken in imagining that your tempting God, by manner you did could lay you under an indispensable obligation to any action, much less against the doctrine of predestination to life.
I must next observe, that as you have been unhappy in printing at all upon such an imaginary have been as unhappy in the choice of your text. Honoured Sir, how could it enter into text to disprove the doctrine of election out of Romans 8, where this doctrine is so plainly spoke with a Quaker upon this subject, and he had no other way of evading the force of than by saying, "I believe Paul was in the wrong." And another friend lately, who was against election, ingenuously confessed that he used to think St. Paul himself was mistaken, truly translated.
Indeed, honoured Sir, it is plain beyond all contradiction that St. Paul, through the whole speaking of the privileges of those only who are really in Christ. And let any unprejudiced before and what follows your text, and he must confess the word "all" only signifies those the latter part of the text plainly proves, what, I find, dear Mr. Wesley will, by no means, perseverance of the children of God: "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him Saints] how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Romans 8:32). [He shall particular, to enable us to persevere, and every thing else necessary to carry us home to kingdom. Had any one a mind to prove the doctrine of election, as well as of final perseverance, text more fit for his purpose than that which you have chosen to disprove it! One who suspect that you were aware of this, for after the first paragraph, I scarce know whether text] so much as once through your whole sermon. But your discourse, in my opinion, is as little to the purpose as your text, and instead of and more confirm me in the belief of the doctrine of God’s eternal election.
I shall not mention how illogically you have proceeded. Had you written clearly, you should have proved your proposition: "God’s grace is free to all." And then by way of inference exclaimed against what you call the horrible decree. But you knew that people (because has so much abounded among us) were generally prejudiced against the doctrine of reprobation thought if you kept up their dislike of that, you could overthrow the doctrine of election doubt, the doctrine of election and reprobation must stand or fall together. But passing by this, as also your equivocal definition of the word grace, and your false free, and that I may be as short as possible, I frankly acknowledge: I believe the doctrine view, that God intends to give saving grace, through Jesus Christ, only to a certain number, mankind, after the fall of Adam, being justly left of God to continue in sin, will at last which is its proper wages. This is the established doctrine of Scripture, and acknowledged as such in the 17th article England, as Bishop Burnet himself confesses. Yet dear Mr. Wesley absolutely denies it. But the most important objections you have urged against this doctrine as reasons why seriously considered, and faithfully tried by the Word of God, will appear to be of no force be humbly and calmly reviewed, as to the following heads:
First, you say that if this be so (i.e., if there be an election) then is all preaching vain: it are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. Therefore, to save souls is void with regard to them. And it is useless to them that are not elected, be saved. They, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be damned. The end void with regard to them likewise. So that in either case our preaching is vain, and your 10, paragraph 9.
O dear Sir, what kind of reasoning—or rather sophistry—is this! Hath not God, who hath a certain number, appointed also the preaching of the Word as a means to bring them to election in any other sense? And if so, how is preaching needless to them that are elected, designated by God himself to be the power of God unto their eternal salvation? And since elect and who reprobate, we are to preach promiscuously to all. For the Word may be useful, elect, in restraining them from much wickedness and sin. However, it is enough to excite in preaching and hearing, when we consider that by these means, some, even as many to eternal life, shall certainly be quickened and enabled to believe. And who that attends, reverence and care, can tell but he may be found of that happy number?
Second, you say that the doctrine of election and reprobation directly tends to destroy of all the ordinances of God. For (says the dear mistaken Mr. Wesley) "it wholly takes to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture. The hope of future reward, and fear hope of heaven, and the fear of hell, et cetera."
I thought that one who carries perfection to such an exalted pitch as dear Mr. Wesley does, true lover of the Lord Jesus Christ would strive to be holy for the sake of being holy, and love and gratitude, without any regard to the rewards of heaven, or fear of hell. You remember, Scougal says, "Love’s a more powerful motive that does them move." But passing by this, rewards and punishments (as they certainly are) may be motives from which a Christian up to act for God, how does the doctrine of election destroy these motives? Do not the good works they do, the greater will be their reward? And is not that encouragement enough and cause them to persevere in working for Jesus Christ? And how does the doctrine of holiness? Who ever preached any other election than what the Apostle preached, when through sanctification of the Spirit?" (2 Thessalonians 2:13). Nay, is not holiness made a mark preach it? And how then can the doctrine of election destroy holiness? The instance which you bring to illustrate your assertion, indeed, dear Sir, is quite impertinent. sick man knows that he must unavoidably die or unavoidably recover, though he knows reasonable to take any physic at all." Dear Sir, what absurd reasoning is here? Were you so, did not the bare probability or possibility of your recovering, though you knew it was you must live or die, encourage you to take physic? For how did you know but that very means God intended to recover you by?
Just thus it is as to the doctrine of election. I know that it is unalterably fixed (one may damned or saved; but since I know not which for a certainty, why should I not strive, though of nature, since I know not but this striving may be the means God has intended to bless, into a state of grace?
Dear Sir, consider these things. Make an impartial application, and then judge what little conclude the 10th paragraph, page 12, with these words: "So directly does this doctrine of holiness in general, to hinder unholy men from ever approaching thereto, or striving "As directly," you say, "does the doctrine tend to destroy several particular branches of meekness, love, et cetera." I shall say little, dear Sir, in answer to this paragraph. Dear been disputing with some warm narrow-spirited men that held election, and then he infers narrowness of spirit was owing to their principles? But does not dear Mr. Wesley know God, who are predestinarians, and yet are meek, lowly, pitiful, courteous, tender- hearted, spirit, and hope to see the most vile and profligate of men converted? And why? because themselves by an act of his electing love, and they know not but he may have elected those the most abandoned.
But, dear Sir, we must not judge of the truth of principles in general, nor of this of election from the practice of some that profess to hold them. If so, I am sure much might be said appeal to your own heart, whether or not you have not felt in yourself, or observed in others, spiritedness, and some disunion of soul respecting those that hold universal redemption your own rule, universal redemption is wrong, because it destroys several branches of meekness, love, et cetera. But not to insist upon this, I beg you would observe that your aside by the force of the Apostle’s argument, and the language which he expressly uses "Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye."
Here we see that the Apostle exhorts them to put on bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness long-suffering, et cetera, upon this consideration: namely, because they were elect of God. experientially felt this doctrine in their hearts feel that these graces are the genuine effects of God. But perhaps dear Mr. Wesley may be mistaken in this point, and call that passion which truths. You know, dear Sir, the Apostle exhorts us to "contend earnestly for the faith once (Jude 3). Therefore you must not condemn all that appear zealous for the doctrine of election or persecutors, just because they think it their duty to oppose you. I am sure, I love you Christ, and think I could lay down my life for your sake; but yet, dear Sir, I cannot help your errors upon this important subject, because I think you warmly, though not designedly, it is in Jesus. May the Lord remove the scales of prejudice from off the eyes of your mind according to true Christian knowledge!
Third, says your sermon, "This doctrine tends to destroy the comforts of religion, the et cetera." But how does Mr. Wesley know this, who never believed election? I believe they who agree with our 17th article, that "the godly consideration of predestination, and election sweet, pleasant, unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing their heavenly things, as well because it does greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God," et This plainly shows that our godly reformers did not think election destroyed holiness or As for my own part, this doctrine is my daily support. I should utterly sink under a dread were I not firmly persuaded that God has chosen me in Christ from before the foundation now being effectually called, he will allow no one to pluck me out of his almighty hand.
You proceed thus: "This is evident as to all those who believe themselves to be reprobate, it; all the great and precious promises are lost to them; they afford them no ray of comfort." In answer to this, let me observe that none living, especially none who are desirous of they are not of the number of God’s elect. None but the unconverted, can have any just it. And would dear Mr. Wesley give comfort, or dare you apply the precious promises children’s bread, to men in a natural state, while they continue so? God forbid! What if and reprobation does put some upon doubting? So does that of regeneration. But, is not means to put them upon searching and striving; and that striving, a good means to make election sure? This is one reason among many others why I admire the doctrine of election and am convinced have a place in gospel ministrations and should be insisted on with faithfulness and care. tendency to rouse the soul out of its carnal security. And therefore many carnal men cry universal redemption is a notion sadly adapted to keep the soul in its lethargic sleepy condition, many natural men admire and applaud it. Your 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs come next to be considered. "The witness of the Spirit," "experience shows to be much obstructed by this doctrine."
But, dear Sir, whose experience? Not your own; for in your journal, from your embarking return to London, you seem to acknowledge that you have it not, and therefore you are this matter. You must mean then the experience of others. For you say in the same paragraph, who have tasted of that good gift, who yet have soon lost it again," (I suppose you mean again) "and fallen back into doubts and fears and darkness, even horrible darkness that Now, as to the darkness of desertion, was not this the case of Jesus Christ himself, after unmeasurable unction of the Holy Ghost? Was not his soul exceeding sorrowful, even And was he not surrounded with an horrible darkness, even a darkness that might be felt, cried out, "My God! My God! why hast thou forsaken me?" And that all his followers are liable to the same, is it not evident from Scripture? For, says tempted in all things like as we are" (Hebrews 4:15) so that he himself might be able to succour tempted (Hebrews 2:18). And is not their liableness thereunto consistent with that conformity which his members are to bear (Php 3:10)? Why then should persons falling into darkness, received the witness of the Spirit, be any argument against the doctrine of election?
"Yet," you say, "many, very many of those that hold it not, in all parts of the earth, have uninterrupted witness of the Spirit, the continual light of God’s countenance, from the moment believed, for many months or years, to this very day." But how does dear Mr. Wesley know consulted the experience of many, very many in all parts of the earth? Or could he be sure advanced without sufficient grounds, would it follow that their being kept in this light believing the doctrine of election? No, this [doctrine], according to the sentiments of our confirms and establishes a true Christian’s faith of eternal salvation through Christ," and both sure and steadfast, when he walks in darkness and sees no light; as certainly he may, received the witness of the Spirit, whatever you or others may unadvisedly assert to the Then, to have respect to God’s everlasting covenant, and to throw himself upon the free that God who changeth not, will make him lift up the hands that hang down, and strengthen But without the belief of the doctrine of election, and the immutability of the free love it is possible that any should have a comfortable assurance of eternal salvation. What could whose conscience is thoroughly awakened, and who is warned in good earnest to seek wrath to come, though he should be assured that all his past sins be forgiven, and that he if notwithstanding this, he may hereafter become a child of the devil, and be cast into hell assurance yield any solid, lasting comfort to a person convinced of the corruption and and of the malice, subtlety, and power of Satan? No! That which alone deserves the name faith is such an assurance as emboldens the believer, under the sense of his interest in distinguishing give the challenge to all his adversaries, whether men or devils, and that with regard to present, attempts to destroy—saying with the Apostle, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:33-39).
This, dear Sir, is the triumphant language of every soul that has attained a full assurance assurance can only arise from a belief of God’s electing everlasting love. That many have in Christ today, but take no thought for, or are not assured they shall be in him tomorrow rather their imperfection and unhappiness than their privilege. I pray God to bring all such eternal love, that they may no longer build upon their own faithfulness, but on the unchangeableness whose gifts and callings are without repentance. For those whom God has once justified, I observed before, dear Sir, it is not always a safe rule to judge of the truth of principles And therefore, supposing that all who hold universal redemption in your way of explaining faith, enjoyed the continual uninterrupted sight of God’s countenance, it does not follow their principle. For that I am sure has a natural tendency to keep the soul in darkness for creature thereby is taught that his being kept in a state of salvation is owing to his own sandy foundation is that for a poor creature to build his hopes of perseverance upon? Every every surprise by temptation, must throw him "into doubts and fears, into horrible darkness, may be felt."
Hence it is that the letters which have been lately sent me by those who hold universal lifeless, dry and inconsistent, in comparison of those I receive from persons on the contrary settle in the universal scheme, though they might begin in the Spirit, (whatever they may ending in the flesh, and building up a righteousness founded on their own free will: whilst hope of the glory of God, and build upon God’s never-failing promise and unchangeable sensible presence is withdrawn from them. But I would not judge of the truth of election by the experience of any particular persons: me in this foolishness of boasting) I think I myself might glory in election. For these five received the witness of God’s Spirit; since that, blessed be God, I have not doubted a quarter saving interest in Jesus Christ: but with grief and humble shame I do acknowledge, I have since that. Though I do not—dare not—allow of any one transgression, yet hitherto I have expect that while I am in this present world I ever shall be) able to live one day perfectly and sin. And since the Scriptures declare that there is not a just man upon earth (no, not highest attainments in grace) that doeth good and sinneth not (Ecclesiastes 7:20), we are sure of all the children of God. The universal experience and acknowledgement of this among the godly in every age is confute the error of those who hold in an absolute sense that after a man is born again he Especially since the Holy Spirit condemns the persons who say they have no sin as deceiving being destitute of the truth, and as making God a liar (1 John 1:8, 1 John 1:10). I have been also in manifold temptations, and expect to be often so before I die. Thus were the Apostles and themselves. Thus was Luther, that man of God, who, as far as I can find, did not peremptorily, election; and the great John Arndt was in the utmost perplexity, but a quarter of an hour he was no predestinarian. And if I must speak freely, I believe your fighting so strenuously against the doctrine of vehemently for a sinless perfection are among the reasons or culpable causes, why you liberties of the gospel, and from that full assurance of faith which they enjoy, who have and daily feed upon God’s electing, everlasting love. But perhaps you may say, that Luther and Arndt were no Christians, at least very weak meanly of Abraham, though he was eminently called the friend of God: and, I believe, after God’s own heart. No wonder, therefore, that in a letter you sent me not long since, no Baptist or Presbyterian writer whom you have read knew anything of the liberties of Bunyan, Henry, Flavel, Halyburton, nor any of the New England and Scots divines? See, spiritedness and want of charity arise from your principles, and then do not cry out against account of its being "destructive of meekness and love."
Fourth, I shall now proceed to another head. Says the dear Mr. Wesley, "How uncomfortable that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were to everlasting burnings?" But who ever asserted, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings? Do not they who believe God’s dooming burnings, also believe, that God looked upon them as men fallen in Adam? And that the the punishment first regarded the crime by which it was deserved? How then are they doomed preceding fault? Surely Mr. Wesley will own God’s justice in imputing Adam’s sin to his after Adam fell, and his posterity in him, God might justly have passed them all by, without Son to be a saviour for any one. Unless you heartily agree to both these points, you do aright. If you do own them, then you must acknowledge the doctrine of election and reprobation and reasonable. For if God might justly impute Adam’s sin to all, and afterwards have might justly pass by some. Turn on the right hand, or on the left; you are reduced to an And, if you would be consistent, you must either give up the doctrine of the imputation the amiable doctrine of election, with a holy and righteous reprobation as its consequent. believe it or not, the Word of God abides faithful: "The election hath obtained it, and the (Romans 11:7). Your 17th paragraph, page 16, I pass over. What has been said on the 9th and 10th paragraphs, alteration, will answer it. I shall only say, it is the doctrine of election that most presses works. I am willing to suffer all things for the elect’s sake. This makes me to preach with know salvation does not depend on man’s free will, but the Lord makes willing in the day make use of me to bring some of his elect home, when and where he pleases.
But, Fifth, you say, "This doctrine has a direct manifest tendency to overthrow the whole For," say you, "supposing that eternal, unchangeable decree, one part of mankind must Christian revelation were not in being."
But, dear Sir, how does that follow? Since it is only by the Christian revelation that we God’s design of saving his church by the death of his Son. Yea, it is settled in the everlasting salvation shall be applied to the elect through the knowledge and faith of him. As the pro
53:11, "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many." How then has the doctrine direct tendency to overthrow the whole Christian revelation? Who ever thought that God’s that seed-time and harvest should never cease, could afford an argument for the neglect Or that the unchangeable purpose of God, that harvest should not fail, rendered the heat influence of the heavenly bodies unnecessary to produce it? No more does God’s absolute chosen preclude the necessity of the gospel revelation, or the use of any of the means through determined the decree shall take effect. Nor will the right understanding, or the reverent ever allow or suffer a Christian in any case to separate the means from the end, or the end And since we are taught by the revelation itself that this was intended and given by God home his elect, we therefore receive it with joy, prize it highly, use it in faith, and endeavour all the world, in the full assurance, that wherever God sends it, sooner or later, it shall the elect within its call.
How then, in holding this doctrine, do we join with modern unbelievers in making the unnecessary? No, dear Sir, you mistake. Infidels of all kinds are on your side of the question. Socinians arraign God’s sovereignty and stand up for universal redemption. I pray God sermon, as it has grieved the hearts of many of God’s children, may not also strengthen most avowed enemies!
Here I could almost lie down and weep. "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph" (2 Further, you say, "This doctrine makes revelation contradict itself." For instance, say you, doctrine interpret that text of Scripture, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, as implying literal sense, hated Esau and all the reprobates from eternity!" And, when considered as they not objects of his hatred? And might not God, of his own good pleasure, love or show the elect—and yet at the same time do the reprobate no wrong? But you say, "God is love." love, unless he shows the same mercy to all?
Again, says dear Mr. Wesley, "They infer from that text, ’I will have mercy on whom I God is merciful only to some men, viz the elect; and that he has mercy for those only, the whole tenor of the Scripture, as is that express declaration in particular, ’The Lord is and his mercy is over all his works.’" And so it is, but not his saving mercy. God is loving to every man: he sends his rain upon good. But you say, "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). No! For every one, whether that believeth on Jesus, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him. "But he that believeth damned" (Mk. 16:16). For God is no respecter of persons, upon the account of any outward circumstance in life whatever; nor does the doctrine of election in the least suppose him sovereign Lord of all, who is debtor to none, he has a right to do what he will with his favours to what objects he sees fit, merely at his pleasure. And his supreme right herein asserted in those passages of Scripture, where he says, "Moses, I will have mercy on whom and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Rom. 9:15, Exod. 33:19).
Further, from the text, "the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said elder shall serve the younger" (Rom. 9:11-12)—you represent us as inferring that our predestination way depends on the foreknowledge of God. But who infers this, dear Sir? For if foreknowledge signifies approbation, as it does in then we confess that predestination and election do depend on God’s foreknowledge. But foreknowledge you understand God’s fore-seeing some good works done by his creatures reason of choosing them and therefore electing them, then we say that in this sense predestinat way depend on God’s foreknowledge. But I referred you, at the beginning of this letter, to Dr. Edwards’s Veritas Redux, which also in a late letter, with Elisha Coles on God’s Sovereignty. Be pleased to read these, and sermons of Mr. Cooper of Boston in New England (which I also sent you) and I doubt your objections answered. Though I would observe, that after all our reading on both sides never in this life be able to search out God’s decrees to perfection. No, we must humbly comprehend, and with the great Apostle at the end of our enquiries cry out, "O the depth wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?" (Rom. 11:33-34)— he was admiring God’s sovereignty, "Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight" However, it may not be amiss to take notice, that if those texts, "The Lord is . . . not willing perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9) and "I have no pleasure in the but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezek. 33:11)—and such like—be taken then no one will be damned. But here’s the distinction. God taketh no pleasure in the death of sinners, so as to delight but he delights to magnify his justice, by inflicting the punishment which their iniquities righteous judge who takes no pleasure in condemning a criminal, may yet justly command that law and justice may be satisfied, even though it be in his power to procure him a reprieve.
I would hint further, that you unjustly charge the doctrine of reprobation with blasphemy, of universal redemption, as you set it forth, is really the highest reproach upon the dignity the merit of his blood. Consider whether it be not rather blasphemy to say as you do, "those that are saved, but also for those that perish." The text you have misapplied to gloss over this, see explained by Ridgely, Edwards, Henry; omit answering your texts myself so that you may be brought to read such treatises, which, show you your error. You cannot make good the assertion that Christ died for them that (as Peter Bohler, one of the Moravian brethren, in order to make out universal redemption, confessed in a letter) that all the damned souls would hereafter be brought out of hell. I is thus minded. And yet unless this can be proved, universal redemption, taken in a literal the ground. For how can all be universally redeemed, if all are not finally saved?
Dear Sir, for Jesus Christ’s sake, consider how you dishonour God by denying election. salvation depend not on God’s free grace, but on man’s free-will. And if thus, it is more Christ would not have had the satisfaction of seeing the fruit of his death in the eternal preaching would then be vain, and all invitations for people to believe in him would also But, blessed be God, our Lord knew for whom he died. There was an eternal compact the Son. A certain number was then given him as the purchase and reward of his obedience he prayed (Jn. 17:9), and not for the world. For these elect ones, and these only, he is now their salvation he will be fully satisfied.
I purposely omit making any further particular remarks on the several last pages of your your name, dear Sir, been prefixed to the sermon, I could not have been so uncharitable author of such sophistry. You beg the question, in saying that God has declared, (notwithstanding suppose, some will be damned) that he will save all— i.e., every individual person. You solid proof you have none) that God is unjust, if he passes by any, and then you exclaim decree": and yet, as I before hinted, in holding the doctrine of original sin, you profess justly have passed by all.
Dear, dear Sir, O be not offended! For Christ’s sake be not rash! Give yourself to reading. grace. Down with your carnal reasoning. Be a little child; and then, instead of pawning have done in a late hymn book, if the doctrine of universal redemption be not true; instead perfection, as you have done in the preface to that hymn book, and making man’s salvation free will, as you have in this sermon; you will compose a hymn in praise of sovereign distinguishing will caution believers against striving to work a perfection out of their own hearts, and reverse of this, and entitle it "Free Grace Indeed." Free, not because free to all; but free, withhold or give it to whom and when he pleases.
Till you do this, I must doubt whether or not you know yourself. In the meanwhile, I cannot censuring the clergy of our church for not keeping to their articles, when you yourself positively deny the 9th, 10th and 17th.
Dear Sir, these things ought not so to be. God knows my heart, as I told you before, so but a single regard to the honour of Christ has forced this letter from me. I love and honour when I come to judgment, will thank you before men and angels, for what you have, under soul.
There, I am persuaded, I shall see dear Mr. Wesley convinced of election and everlasting me with pleasure to think how I shall behold you casting your crown down at the feet of were filled with a holy blushing for opposing the divine sovereignty in the manner you But I hope the Lord will show you this before you go hence. O how do I long for that day! pleased to make use of this letter for that purpose, it would abundantly rejoice the heart Sir, Yours affectionate, though unworthy brother and servant in Christ, GEORGE WHITEFIELD.
NOTE 1. This refers to a work by Dr. John Edwards of Cambridge, not Jonathan Edwards, the famous American pastor-theologian.