George Whitefield to John Wesley: "No, dear Sir, you mistake."
 |
 |
A Letter
from
George Whitefield
to the
Rev. Mr. John Wesley
"Free Grace"
(Iain Murray has written an excellent article explaining the historical background of this exchange between Whitefield and Wesley.)
PREFACE
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:
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.
WHITEFIELD'S LETTER TO WESLEY
Reverend and very dear Brother,
od 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:
irst, you say that
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 10, paragraph 9.
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?
econd, 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, et cetera."
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!
hird, says your
sermon, "This doctrine tends to destroy the comforts of religion, the
happiness of Christianity, et cetera."
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," et cetera.
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 our 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."ourth, 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.
ut, Fifth, 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.
"Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the
daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the
uncircumcised triumph" (2 Sam. 1:20).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 seemed 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,
EORGE 
HITEFIELD.
NOTE
1. This refers to a work by Dr. John Edwards of Cambridge, not Jonathan Edwards, the famous American pastor-theologian. (Return to text.)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 on your way out? | |
Copyright © 2001 by Phillip R. Johnson. All rights reserved. | |||||
hits