(
October 23, 1740
)
George
Whitefield (1714-1770)
was one of the greatest preachers of all time;
he was used by God to usher in the tremendous revivals which shook the very
foundations of 18th century British and American life. In 34
years Mr Whitefield preached 18,000 sermons to over 10,000,000 people.
Although remaining within the structure of the (episcopalian)
Church of England all his life, he associated with all who knew and loved
the Lord Jesus Christ. A firm believer in the doctrines of grace and
predestination, and in the power of Christ to save all who come to Him,
Whitefield’s preaching was the means of conversion of thousands on both
sides of the Atlantic.
A
LETTER TO THE
REV.
MR. JOHN WESLEY
IN
ANSWER TO HIS SERMON
entitled
"FREE
GRACE"
"But when Peter was come to
Antioch,
I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Galatians
2. 11.
PREFACE
I
am very well aware what different effects publishing this letter against the
dear Mr. Wesley's Sermon will produce. Many of my friends who are strenuous
advocates for universal redemption will immediately be offended. Many who
are zealous on the other side will be much rejoiced. They who are lukewarm
on both sides and are carried away with carnal reasoning will wish this
matter had never been brought under debate. The reasons I have given at the
beginning of the letter, I think are sufficient to satisfy all of my conduct
herein. I desire therefore that they who hold election would not triumph, or
make a party on one hand (for I detest any such thing) – and that they who
are prejudiced against that doctrine be not too much concerned or offended
on the other. Known unto God are all his ways from the beginning of the
world. The great day will discover why the Lord permits dear Mr. Wesley and
me to be of a different way of thinking. At present, I shall make no enquiry
into that matter, beyond the account which he has given of it himself in the
following letter, which I lately received from his own dear hands:
London,
August
9, 1740
My
dear Brother,
I thank you for yours, May the 24th. The case is
quite plain. There are bigots both for predestination and against it. God is
sending a message to those on either side. But neither will receive it,
unless from one who is of their own opinion. Therefore, for a time you are
suffered to be of one opinion, and I of another. But when his time is come,
God will do what man cannot, namely, make us both of one mind. Then
persecution will flame out, and it will be seen whether we count our lives
dear unto ourselves, so that we may finish our course with joy. I am, my
dearest brother,
Ever yours,
J. WESLEY
Thus my honoured friend, I heartily pray God to
hasten the time, for his being clearly enlightened into all the doctrines of
divine revelation, that we may thus be closely united in principle and
judgment as well as heart and affection. And then if the Lord should call us
to it, I care not if I go with him to prison, or to death. For like Paul and
Silas, I hope we shall sing praises to God, and count it our highest honour
to suffer for Christ's sake, and to lay down our lives for the brethren.
Bethesda in
Georgia, Dec. 24, 1740
Reverend
and very dear Brother,
God only knows what unspeakable sorrow of heart
I have felt on your account since I left
England
last.
Whether it be my infirmity or not, I frankly confess, that Jonah could not
go with more reluctance against
Nineveh,
than I now take pen in hand to write against you. Was nature to speak, I had
rather die than do it; and yet if I am faithful to God, and to my own and
others' souls, I must not stand neutral any longer. I am very apprehensive
that our common adversaries will rejoice to see us differing among
ourselves. But what can I say? The children of God are in danger of falling
into error. Nay, numbers have been misled, whom God has been pleased
to work upon by my ministry, and a greater number are still calling aloud
upon me to show also my opinion. I must then show that I know no man after
the flesh, and that I have no respect to persons, any further than is
consistent with 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 this difficult task upon
me, even to see whether I am willing to forsake all for him, or not. From
such considerations as these, I think it my duty to bear an humble
testimony, and earnestly to plead for the truths which, I am convinced, are
clearly revealed in the Word of God. In the defence whereof I must use great
plainness of speech, and treat my dearest friends upon earth with the
greatest simplicity, faithfulness, and freedom, leaving the consequences of
all to God.
For some time before, and especially since my
last departure from
England,
both in public and private, by preaching and printing, you have been
propagating the doctrine of universal redemption. And when I remember
how Paul reproved Peter for his dissimulation, I fear I have been sinfully
silent too long. O then be not angry with me, dear and honoured Sir, if now
I deliver my soul, by telling you that I think in this you greatly err.
'Tis not my design to enter into a long debate
on God's decrees. I refer you to Dr. Edwards his Veritas Redux [1],
which, I think is unanswerable—except in a certain point, concerning a middle
sort between elect and reprobate, which he himself in effect afterwards
condemns.
I shall only make a few remarks upon your
sermon, entitled Free Grace." And before I enter upon
the discourse itself, give me leave to take a little notice of what in your
Preface you term an indispensable obligation to make it public to all the
world. I must own, that I always thought you were quite mistaken upon that
head. The case (you know) stands thus: When you were at
Bristol,
I think you received a letter from a private hand, charging you with not
preaching the gospel, because you did not preach up election. Upon this you
drew a lot: the answer was "preach and print." I have often
questioned, as I do now, whether in so doing, you did not tempt the Lord. A
due exercise of religious prudence, without [the drawing of] a lot, would
have directed you in that matter. Besides, I never heard that you enquired
of God, whether or not election was a gospel doctrine. But, I fear, taking
it for granted [that election was not a biblical truth], you only enquired
whether you should be silent or preach and print against it. However this
be, the lot came out "preach and print"; accordingly you
preached and printed against election. At my desire, you suppressed the
publishing of the sermon whilst I was in
England;
but you soon sent it into the world after my departure. O that you had kept
it in! However, if that sermon was printed in answer to a lot, I am apt to
think, one reason why God should so suffer you to be deceived, was, that
hereby a special obligation might be laid upon me, faithfully to declare the
Scripture doctrine of election, that thus the Lord might give me a fresh
opportunity of seeing what was in my heart, and whether I would be true to
his cause or not; as you could 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.
Instead of giving me an opportunity to converse with you, though the ship
was not far off the shore, you drew a lot, and immediately set forward to
London.
You left a letter behind you, in which were words to this effect: "When
I saw [that] God, by the wind which was carrying you out, brought me in, I
asked counsel of God. His answer you have enclosed." 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 cast a lot, and that God would have me
return to
London.
On the other hand, I knew my call was to
Georgia,
and that I had taken leave of
London,
and could not justly go from the soldiers, who were committed to my charge.
I betook myself with a friend to prayer. That passage in 1 Kings 13 was
powerfully impressed upon my soul, where we are told that the Prophet was
slain by a lion when he was tempted to go back (contrary to God's express
order) upon another Prophet's telling him God would have him do so. I wrote
you word that I could not return to
London.
We sailed immediately. Some months after, I received a letter from you at
Georgia,
wherein you wrote words to this effect: "Though God never before gave
me a wrong lot, yet, perhaps, he suffered me to have such a lot at that
time, to try what was in your heart." I should never have published
this private transaction to the world, did not the glory of God call me to
it. It is plain you had a wrong lot given you here, and justly, because you
tempted God in drawing one. And thus I believe it is in the present case.
And if so, let not the children of God who are mine and your intimate
friends, and also advocates for universal redemption, think that
doctrine true—because you preached it up in 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, wherein you say, "Nothing
but the strongest conviction, not only that what is here advanced is the
truth as it is in Jesus, but also that I am indispensably obliged to declare
this truth to all the world." That you believe what you have written to
be truth, and that you honestly aim at God's glory in writing, I do not in
the least doubt. But then, honoured Sir, I cannot but think you have been
much mistaken in imagining that your tempting God, by casting a lot in the
manner you did could lay you under an indispensable obligation to any
action, much less to publish your sermon 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 warrant, so you
have been as unhappy in the choice of your text. Honoured Sir, how could it
enter into your heart to choose a text to disprove the doctrine of election
out of Romans 8, where this doctrine is so plainly asserted? Once I spoke
with a Quaker upon this subject, and he had no other way of evading the
force of the Apostle's assertion than by saying, "I believe Paul was in
the wrong." And another friend lately, who was once highly prejudiced
against election, ingenuously confessed that he used to think
St. Paul
himself was mistaken, or that he was not truly translated.
Indeed, honoured Sir, it is plain beyond all
contradiction that St. Paul, through the whole of Romans 8, is speaking of
the privileges of those only who are really in Christ. And let any
unprejudiced person read what goes before and what follows your text, and he
must confess the word "all" only signifies those that are in
Christ. And the latter part of the text plainly proves, what, I find, dear
Mr. Wesley will, by no means, grant. I mean the final perseverance of
the children of God: "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him
up for us all, [i.e., all Saints] how shall he not with him also
freely give us all things?" (Rom.
8:32
). [He shall give us] grace, in particular, to
enable us to persevere, and every thing else necessary to carry us home to
our Father's heavenly kingdom.
Had any one a mind to prove the doctrine of election,
as well as of final perseverance, he could hardly wish for a text
more fit for his purpose than that which you have chosen to disprove it! One
who did not know you would suspect that you were aware of this, for after
the first paragraph, I scarce know whether you have mentioned [the 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 warping, does but more 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 first, honoured Sir, have
proved your proposition: "God's grace is free to all." And then by
way of inference [you might have] exclaimed against what you call the
horrible decree. But you knew that people (because Arminianism,
of late, has so much abounded among us) were generally prejudiced against
the doctrine of reprobation, and therefore thought if you kept up
their dislike of that, you could overthrow the doctrine of election
entirely. For, without 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 definition of the word free,
and that I may be as short as possible, I frankly acknowledge: I believe the
doctrine of reprobation, in this view, that God intends to give saving
grace, through Jesus Christ, only to a certain number, and that the rest of
mankind, after the fall of Adam, being justly left of God to continue in
sin, will at last suffer that eternal death which is its proper wages.
This is the established doctrine of Scripture,
and acknowledged as such in the 17th article of the Church of 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 you reject it, being seriously
considered, and faithfully tried by the Word of God, will appear to be of no
force at all. Let the matter be humbly and calmly reviewed, as to the
following heads:
First,
you say, "if this be so (i.e., if there be an election) then is
all preaching vain: it is needless to them that are elected; for they,
whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. Therefore, the
end of preaching to save souls is void with regard to them. And it is
useless to them that are not elected, for they cannot possibly be saved.
They, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be damned. The end
of preaching is therefore void with regard to them likewise. So that in
either case our preaching is vain, and your hearing also vain." Page
10th, paragraph 9th.
O dear Sir, what kind of reasoning—or rather
sophistry—is this! Hath not God, who hath appointed salvation for a
certain number, appointed also the preaching of the Word as a means to bring
them to it? Does anyone hold election in any other sense? And if so, how is
preaching needless to them that are elected, when the gospel is designated
by God himself to be the power of God unto their eternal salvation? And
since we know not who are elect and who reprobate, we are to preach
promiscuously to all. For the Word may be useful, even to the non-elect, in
restraining them from much wickedness and sin. However, it is enough to
excite to the utmost diligence in preaching and hearing, when we consider
that by these means, some, even as many as the Lord hath ordained to eternal
life, shall certainly be quickened and enabled to believe. And who that
attends, especially with 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 holiness, which is the end of all the ordinances of God. For (says
the dear mistaken Mr. Wesley) "it wholly takes away those first motives
to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture. The hope of future
reward, and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven, and the fear of hell,
&c."
I thought that one who carries perfection to
such an exalted pitch as dear Mr. Wesley does, would know that a true lover
of the Lord Jesus Christ would strive to be holy for the sake of being holy,
and work for Christ out of love and gratitude, without any regard to the
rewards of heaven, or fear of hell. You remember, dear Sir, what Scougal
says, "Love's a more powerful motive that does them move." But
passing by this, and granting that rewards and punishments (as they
certainly are) may be motives from which a Christian may be honestly stirred
up to act for God, how does the doctrine of election destroy these motives?
Do not the elect know that the more good works they do, the greater will be
their reward? And is not that encouragement enough to set them upon, and
cause them to persevere in working for Jesus Christ? And how does the
doctrine of election destroy holiness? Who ever preached any other election
than what the Apostle preached, when he said, "
Chosen through
sanctification of the Spirit?" (2 Thess. 2:13). Nay, is not holiness
made a mark of our election by all that 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. For you say, "If a
sick man knows that he must unavoidably die or unavoidably recover, though
he knows not which, it is not reasonable to take any physic at all."
Dear Sir, what absurd reasoning is here? Were you ever sick in your life? If
so, did not the bare probability or possibility of your recovering, though
you knew it was unalterably fixed that you must live or die, encourage you
to take physic? For how did you know but that very physic might be the 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 say) that I must be
damned or saved; but since I know not which for a certainty, why should I
not strive, though at present in a state of nature, since I know not but
this striving may be the means God has intended to bless, in order to bring
me into a state of grace? Dear Sir, consider these things. Make an impartial
application, and then judge what little reason you had to conclude the 10th
paragraph, page 12, with these words: "So directly does this doctrine
tend to shut the very gate of holiness in general, to hinder unholy men from
ever approaching thereto, or striving to enter in thereat."
"As directly," you say, "does the
doctrine tend to destroy several particular branches of holiness, such as
meekness, love, et cetera." I shall say little, dear Sir, in answer to
this paragraph. Dear Mr. Wesley perhaps has been disputing with some warm
narrow-spirited men that held election, and then he infers that their warmth
and narrowness of spirit was owing to their principles? But does not dear
Mr. Wesley know many dear children of God, who are predestinarians, and yet
are meek, lowly, pitiful, courteous, tender- hearted, kind, of a catholic
spirit, and hope to see the most vile and profligate of men converted? And
why? because they know God saved themselves by an act of his electing love,
and they know not but he may have elected those who now seem to be the most
abandoned. But, dear Sir, we must not judge of the truth of principles in
general, nor of this of election in particular, entirely from the practice
of some that profess to hold them. If so, I am sure much might be said
against your own. For I appeal to your own heart, whether or not you have
not felt in yourself, or observed in others, a narrow-spiritedness, and some
disunion of soul respecting those that hold universal redemption. If
so, then according to your own rule, universal redemption is wrong,
because it destroys several branches of holiness, such as meekness, love, et
cetera. But not to insist upon this, I beg you would observe that your
inference is entirely set aside by the force of the Apostle's argument, and
the language which he expressly uses in Colossians 3:12-13: "Put on
therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies,
kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one
another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against 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 of
mind, meekness, long-suffering, et cetera, upon this consideration: namely,
because they were elect of God. And all who have experientially felt this
doctrine in their hearts feel that these graces are the genuine effects of
their being elected of God.
But perhaps dear Mr. Wesley may be mistaken in
this point, and call that passion which is only zeal for God's truths. You
know, dear Sir, the Apostle exhorts us to "contend earnestly for the
faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Therefore you must not
condemn all that appear zealous for the doctrine of election as
narrow-spirited, or persecutors, just because they think it their duty to
oppose you. I am sure, I love you in the bowels of Jesus Christ, and think I
could lay down my life for your sake; but yet, dear Sir, I cannot help
strenuously opposing your errors upon this important subject, because I
think you warmly, though not designedly, oppose the truth, as it is in
Jesus. May the Lord remove the scales of prejudice from off the eyes of your
mind and give you a zeal according to true Christian knowledge!
Thirdly, says your sermon, "This doctrine
tends to destroy the comforts of religion, the happiness of Christianity,
&c."
But how does Mr. Wesley know this, who never
believed election? I believe they who have experienced it will agree with
our 17th article, that "the godly consideration of predestination, and
election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, unspeakable comfort to godly
persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ,
mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing
their minds to high and heavenly things, as well because it does greatly
establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation, to be enjoyed
through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards
God," &c.
This plainly shows that our godly reformers did
not think election destroyed holiness or the comforts of religion. As for my
own part, this doctrine is my daily support. I should utterly sink under a
dread of my impending trials, were I not firmly persuaded that God has
chosen me in Christ from before the foundation of the world, and that 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, or only suspect or fear
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 salvation, can know that they
are not of the number of God's elect. None but the unconverted, can have any
just reason so much as to fear it. And would dear Mr. Wesley give comfort,
or dare you apply the precious promises of the gospel, being children's
bread, to men in a natural state, while they continue so? God forbid! What
if the doctrine of election and reprobation does put some upon
doubting? So does that of regeneration. But, is not this doubting a good
means to put them upon searching and striving; and that striving, a good
means to make their calling and their election sure? This is one reason
among many others why I admire the doctrine of election and am convinced
that it should have a place in gospel ministrations and should be insisted
on with faithfulness and care. It has a natural tendency to rouse the soul
out of its carnal security. And therefore many carnal men cry out against
it. Whereas universal redemption is a notion sadly adapted to keep the soul
in its lethargic sleepy condition, and therefore so many natural men admire
and applaud it.
Your 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs come next to
be considered. "The witness of the Spirit," you say,
"experience shows to be much obstructed by this doctrine." But,
dear Sir, whose experience? Not your own; for in your journal, from your
embarking for
Georgia
, to
your return to
London
, you
seem to acknowledge that you have it not, and therefore you are no competent
judge in this matter. You must mean then the experience of others. For you
say in the same paragraph, "Even in those who have tasted of that good
gift, who yet have soon lost it again," (I suppose you mean lost the
sense of it again) "and fallen back into doubts and fears and darkness,
even horrible darkness that might be felt, et cetera." Now, as to the
darkness of desertion, was not this the case of Jesus Christ himself, after
he had received an unmeasurable unction of the Holy Ghost? Was not his soul
exceeding sorrowful, even unto death, in the garden? And was he not
surrounded with an horrible darkness, even a darkness that might be felt,
when on the cross he 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 the Apostle, "He was tempted in all
things like as we are" (Heb
4:15
) so that he himself might be able to succour
those that are tempted (Heb.
2:18
).
And is not their liableness thereunto consistent with that conformity to him
in suffering, which his members are to bear (Phil.
3:10
)? Why then should persons falling into
darkness, after they have 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 enjoyed the uninterrupted witness of the Spirit, the continual light of
God's countenance, from the moment wherein they first believed, for many
months or years, to this very day." But how does dear Mr. Wesley know
this? Has he consulted the experience of many, very many in all parts of the
earth? Or could he be sure of what he hath advanced without sufficient
grounds, would it follow that their being kept in this light is owing to
their not believing the doctrine of election? No, this [doctrine], according
to the sentiments of our church, "greatly confirms and establishes a
true Christian's faith of eternal salvation through Christ," and is an
anchor of hope, both sure and steadfast, when he walks in darkness and sees
no light; as certainly he may, even after he hath received the witness of
the Spirit, whatever you or others may unadvisedly assert to the contrary.
Then, to have respect to God's everlasting covenant, and to throw himself
upon the free distinguishing love of that God who changeth not, will make
him lift up the hands that hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees. But
without the belief of the doctrine of election, and the immutability of the
free love of God, I cannot see how it is possible that any should have a
comfortable assurance of eternal salvation. What could it signify to a man
whose conscience is thoroughly awakened, and who is warned in good earnest
to seek deliverance from the wrath to come, though he should be assured that
all his past sins be forgiven, and that he is now a child of God; if
notwithstanding this, he may hereafter become a child of the devil, and be
cast into hell at last? Could such an assurance yield any solid, lasting
comfort to a person convinced of the corruption and treachery of his own
heart, and of the malice, subtlety, and power of Satan? No! That which alone
deserves the name of a full assurance of faith is such an assurance as
emboldens the believer, under the sense of his interest in distinguishing
love, to give the challenge to all his adversaries, whether men or devils,
and that with regard to all their future, as well as 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 is he that condemneth?
It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the
right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate
us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution,
or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake
we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved
us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor
height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from
the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus my Lord" (Rom. 8:33-39).
This, dear Sir, is
the triumphant language of every soul that has attained a full assurance of
faith. And this assurance can only arise from a belief of God's electing
everlasting love. That many have an assurance they are in Christ today, but
take no thought for, or are not assured they shall be in him tomorrow—nay
to all eternity—is rather their imperfection and unhappiness than their
privilege. I pray God to bring all such to a sense of his eternal love, that
they may no longer build upon their own faithfulness, but on the
unchangeableness of that God whose gifts and callings are without
repentance. For those whom God has once justified, he also will glorify. I
observed before, dear Sir, it is not always a safe rule to judge of the
truth of principles from people's practice. And therefore, supposing that
all who hold universal redemption in your way of explaining it, after
they received faith, enjoyed the continual uninterrupted sight of God's
countenance, it does not follow that this is a fruit of their principle. For
that I am sure has a natural tendency to keep the soul in darkness for ever,
because the creature thereby is taught that his being kept in a state of
salvation is owing to his own free will. And what a sandy foundation is that
for a poor creature to build his hopes of perseverance upon? Every relapse
into sin, every surprise by temptation, must throw him "into doubts and
fears, into horrible darkness, even darkness that may be felt." Hence
it is that the letters which have been lately sent me by those who hold
universal redemption are dead and lifeless, dry and inconsistent, in
comparison of those I receive from persons on the contrary side. Those who
settle in the universal scheme, though they might begin in the Spirit,
(whatever they may say to the contrary) are ending in the flesh, and
building up a righteousness founded on their own free will: whilst the
others triumph in hope of the glory of God, and build upon God's
never-failing promise and unchangeable love, even when his sensible presence
is withdrawn from them. But I would not judge of the truth of election by
the experience of any particular persons: if I did (O bear with me in this
foolishness of boasting) I think I myself might glory in election. For these
five or six years I have received the witness of God's Spirit; since that,
blessed be God, I have not doubted a quarter of an hour of a saving interest
in Jesus Christ: but with grief and humble shame I do acknowledge, I have
fallen into sin often since that. Though I do not—dare not—allow of any
one transgression, yet hitherto I have not been (nor do I expect that while
I am in this present world I ever shall be) able to live one day perfectly
free from all defects and sin. And since the Scriptures declare that there
is not a just man upon earth (no, not among those of the highest attainments
in grace) that doeth good and sinneth not (Eccl. 7:20 ), we are sure that this
will be the case of all the children of God. The universal experience and
acknowledgement of this among the godly in every age is abundantly
sufficient to confute the error of those who hold in an absolute sense that
after a man is born again he cannot commit sin. Especially since the Holy
Spirit condemns the persons who say they have no sin as deceiving
themselves, as being destitute of the truth, and as making God a liar (1 Jn.
1:8, 10). I have been also in heaviness through manifold temptations, and
expect to be often so before I die. Thus were the Apostles and primitive
Christians themselves. Thus was Luther, that man of God, who, as far as I
can find, did not peremptorily, at least, hold election; and the great John
Arndt was in the utmost perplexity, but a quarter of an hour before he died,
and yet he was no predestinarian. And if I must speak freely, I believe your
fighting so strenuously against the doctrine of election and pleading so
vehemently for a sinless perfection are among the reasons or culpable
causes, why you are kept out of the liberties of the gospel, and from that
full assurance of faith which they enjoy, who have experimentally tasted,
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 ones. I
know you think meanly of Abraham, though he was eminently called the friend
of God: and, I believe, also of David, the man after God's own heart. No
wonder, therefore, that in a letter you sent me not long since, you should
tell me, "that no Baptist or Presbyterian writer whom you have read
knew anything of the liberties of Christ." What? Neither Bunyan, Henry,
Flavel, Halyburton, nor any of the New England
and Scots divines? See, dear Sir, what
narrow-spiritedness and want of charity arise from your principles, and then
do not cry out against election any more on account of its being
"destructive of meekness and love."
Fourthly, I shall now
proceed to another head. Says the dear Mr. Wesley, "How uncomfortable a
thought is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding
offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting
burnings?"
But who ever
asserted, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding
offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting
burnings? Do not they who believe God's dooming men to everlasting burnings,
also believe, that God looked upon them as men fallen in Adam? And that the
decree which ordained the punishment first regarded the crime by which it
was deserved? How then are they doomed without any preceding fault? Surely
Mr. Wesley will own God's justice in imputing Adam's sin to his posterity.
And also, after Adam fell, and his posterity in him, God might justly have
passed them all by, without sending his own Son to be a saviour for
any one. Unless you heartily agree to both these points, you do not believe
original sin aright. If you do own them, then you must acknowledge the
doctrine of election and reprobation to be highly just and reasonable. For
if God might justly impute Adam's sin to all, and afterwards have passed by
all, then he might justly pass by some. Turn on the right hand, or on
the left; you are reduced to an inextricable dilemma. And, if you would be
consistent, you must either give up the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's
sin, or receive the amiable doctrine of election, with a holy and righteous
reprobation as its consequent. For whether you can believe it or not, the
Word of God abides faithful: "The election hath obtained it, and the
rest were blinded" (Rom. 11:7).
Your 17th paragraph, page 16, I pass
over. What has been said on the 9th and 10th paragraphs, with a little
alteration, will answer it. I shall only say, it is the doctrine of election
that most presses me to abound in good works. I am willing to suffer all
things for the elect's sake. This makes me to preach with comfort, because I
know salvation does not depend on man's free will, but the Lord makes
willing in the day of his power, and can make use of me to bring some of his
elect home, when and where he pleases. But,
Fifthly, You say,
"This doctrine has a direct manifest tendency to overthrow the whole
Christian religion. For," say you, "supposing that eternal,
unchangeable decree, one part of mankind must be saved, though the Christian
revelation were not in being."
But, dear Sir, how does that follow?
Since it is only by the Christian revelation that we are acquainted with
God's design of saving his church by the death of his Son. Yea, it is
settled in the everlasting covenant that this salvation shall be applied to
the elect through the knowledge and faith of him. As the prophet says in
Isaiah 53:11, "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant
justify many." How then has the doctrine of election a direct tendency
to overthrow the whole Christian revelation? Who ever thought that God's
declaration to Noah, that seed-time and harvest should never cease, could
afford an argument for the neglect of plowing or sowing? Or that the
unchangeable purpose of God, that harvest should not fail, rendered the heat
of the sun, or the influence of the heavenly bodies unnecessary to produce
it? No more does God's absolute purpose of saving his chosen preclude the
necessity of the gospel revelation, or the use of any of the means through
which he has determined the decree shall take effect. Nor will the right
understanding, or the reverent belief of God's decree, ever allow or suffer
a Christian in any case to separate the means from the end, or the end from
the means. And since we are taught by the revelation itself that this was
intended and given by God as a means of bringing home his elect, we
therefore receive it with joy, prize it highly, use it in faith, and
endeavour to spread it through all the world, in the full assurance, that
wherever God sends it, sooner or later, it shall be savingly useful to all
the elect within its call. How then, in holding this doctrine, do we join
with modern unbelievers in making the Christian revelation unnecessary? No,
dear Sir, you mistake. Infidels of all kinds are on your side of the
question. Deists, Arians, and Socinians arraign God's sovereignty and stand
up for universal redemption. I pray God that dear Mr. Wesley's sermon, as it
has grieved the hearts of many of God's children, may not also strengthen
the hands of many of his most avowed enemies! Here I could almost lie down
and weep. "O tell it not in Gath! Publish it not in the streets of
Askelon; lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice, lest the sons of
unbelief should triumph!"
Further, you say,
"This doctrine makes revelation contradict itself." For instance,
say you, "The assertors of this doctrine interpret that text of
Scripture, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, as implying that God,
in a literal sense, hated Esau and all the reprobates from eternity!"
And, when considered as fallen in Adam, were they not objects of his hatred?
And might not God, of his own good pleasure, love or show mercy to Jacob and
the elect—and yet at the same time do the reprobate no wrong? But you say,
"God is love." And cannot God be 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 will
have mercy,' that God is merciful only to some men, viz the elect; and that
he has mercy for those only, flatly contrary to which is the whole tenor of
the Scripture, as is that express declaration in particular, 'The Lord is
loving to every man, 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 the evil and upon the good. But you say, "God is no
respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34
). No! For every one, whether Jew or Gentile, that
believeth on Jesus, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him. "But
he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16 ).
For God is no respecter of persons, upon the account of any outward
condition or circumstance in life whatever; nor does the doctrine of
election in the least suppose him to be so. But as the sovereign Lord of
all, who is debtor to none, he has a right to do what he will with his own,
and to dispense his favours to what objects he sees fit, merely at his
pleasure. And his supreme right herein is clearly and strongly asserted in
those passages of Scripture, where he says, "Moses, I will have mercy
on whom I will have mercy, 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
evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of
works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her [Rebekah], The elder
shall serve the younger" (Rom. 9:11-12)—you represent us as inferring
that our predestination to life in no way depends on the foreknowledge of
God. But who infers this, dear Sir? For if foreknowledge signifies
approbation, as it does in several parts of Scripture, then we confess that
predestination and election do depend on God's foreknowledge. But if
by God's foreknowledge you understand God's fore-seeing some good works done
by his creatures as the foundation or reason of choosing them and therefore
electing them, then we say that in this sense predestination does not any
way depend on God's foreknowledge. But I referred you, at the beginning of
this letter, to Dr. Edwards's Veritas Redux, which I recommended to
you also in a late letter, with Elisha Coles on God's Sovereignty. Be
pleased to read these, and also the excellent sermons of Mr. Cooper of
Boston
in New England (which
I also sent you) and I doubt not but you will see all your objections
answered. Though I would observe, that after all our reading on both sides
the question, we shall never in this life be able to search out God's
decrees to perfection. No, we must humbly adore what we cannot comprehend,
and with the great Apostle at the end of our enquiries cry out, "O the
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how
unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath
known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?" (Rom.
11:33 -34)—or with our Lord, when he was
admiring God's sovereignty, "Even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in
thy sight" (Matt. 11:26 ).
However, it may not
be amiss to take notice, that if those texts, "The Lord is . . . not
willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"
(2 Pet. 3:9) and "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but
that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezek. 33:11)—and such
like—be taken in their strictest sense, then no one will be damned.
But here's the
distinction. God taketh no pleasure in the death of sinners, so as to
delight simply in their death; but he delights to magnify his justice, by
inflicting the punishment which their iniquities have deserved. As a
righteous judge who takes no pleasure in condemning a criminal, may yet
justly command him to be executed, 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,
whereas the doctrine of universal redemption, as you set it forth, is
really the highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of God, and the
merit of his blood. Consider whether it be not rather blasphemy to say as
you do, "Christ not only died for 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; and I purposely omit answering
your texts myself so that you may be brought to read such treatises, which,
under God, would show you your error. You cannot make good the assertion
that Christ died for them that perish without holding (as Peter Bohler, one
of the Moravian brethren, in order to make out universal redemption, lately
frankly confessed in a letter) that all the damned souls would hereafter be
brought out of hell. I cannot think Mr. Wesley is thus minded. And yet
unless this can be proved, universal redemption, taken in a literal sense,
falls entirely to 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. You
plainly make salvation depend not on God's free grace, but on man's
free-will. And if thus, it is more than probable, Jesus Christ would not
have had the satisfaction of seeing the fruit of his death in the eternal
salvation of one soul. Our preaching would then be vain, and all invitations
for people to believe in him would also be in vain.
But, blessed be God,
our Lord knew for whom he died. There was an eternal compact between the
Father and the Son. A certain number was then given him as the purchase and
reward of his obedience and death. For these he prayed (Jn. 17:9), and not
for the world. For these elect ones, and these only, he is now
interceding, and with their salvation he will be fully satisfied.
I purposely omit
making any further particular remarks on the several last pages of your
sermon. Indeed had not your name, dear Sir, been prefixed to the sermon, I
could not have been so uncharitable as to think you were the author of such
sophistry. You beg the question, in saying that God has declared,
(notwithstanding you own, I suppose, some will be damned) that he will save
all— i.e., every individual person. You take it for granted (for
solid proof you have none) that God is unjust, if he passes by any, and then
you exclaim against the "horrible decree": and yet, as I
before hinted, in holding the doctrine of original sin, you profess to
believe that he might justly have passed by all.
Dear, dear Sir, O be
not offended! For Christ's sake be not rash! Give yourself to reading. Study
the covenant of grace. Down with your carnal reasoning. Be a little child;
and then, instead of pawning your salvation, as you have done in a late hymn
book, if the doctrine of universal redemption be not true; instead of
talking of sinless perfection, as you have done in the preface to
that hymn book, and making man's salvation to depend on his own free will,
as you have in this sermon; you will compose a hymn in praise of sovereign
distinguishing love. You will caution believers against striving to work a
perfection out of their own hearts, and print another sermon the reverse of
this, and entitle it "Free Grace Indeed." Free, not because
free to all; but free, because God may 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 but
blame you for censuring the clergy of our church for not keeping to their
articles, when you yourself by your principles, 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 I declare again, nothing but a single regard
to the honour of Christ has forced this letter from me. I love and honour
you for his sake; and when I come to judgment, will thank you before men and
angels, for what you have, under God, done for my soul.
There, I am
persuaded, I shall see dear Mr. Wesley convinced of election and everlasting
love. And it often fills me with pleasure to think how I shall behold you
casting your crown down at the feet of the Lamb, and as it were filled with
a holy blushing for opposing the divine sovereignty in the manner you have
done.
But I hope the Lord
will show you this before you go hence. O how do I long for that day! If the
Lord should be pleased to make use of this letter for that purpose, it would
abundantly rejoice the heart of, dear and honoured Sir,
Yours
affectionate, though unworthy brother and
servant in Christ,
GEORGE
WHITEFIELD.
Reference
“George Whitefield’s
Journals,” published by The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985. pp. 569-588.
