Secondly, you say, “that it, [the doctrine of election and reprobation] directly tends to destroy that 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. ” page 11th.
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? Whoever preached any other election, than what the Apostle preached, when he said, “Chosen through sanctification of the Spirit?” 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 for take any physic at all,” page 11. Dear Sir, what absurd reasoning is here? Was 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, may one 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, in 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,” say you paragraph 11, “does the doctrine tend to destroy several particular branches of holiness, such as meekness, love, &c.” 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 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 particular redemption. If so, then according to your own rule, universal redemption is wrong, because it destroys several branches of holiness, such as meekness, love, &c. 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 expresly uses, Colossians iii. 12, 13. “Put on, therefore, (as the elect of God, holy and beloved) bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering, 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, &c. upon this consideration, namely, because they were elect of God. And all who have experimentally 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,” and therefore you must not condemn all that appear zealous for the doctrine of election, as narrow-spirited, or persecutors, 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, page 13, paragraph 12, “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 shews, 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, was 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 suffer none 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 rouze 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, paragraph 14, page 14.) experience shews 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, page the last, 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, &c.” 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 unto his brethren, that he might be able to succour those that are tempted.” And is not their liableness thereunto, consistent with that conformity to him in suffering, which his members are to bear? Why then should persons falling into darkness, after they have received the witness of the Spirit, be any argument against the doctrine of election? “Yes, 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, 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 stedfast, 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 are 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, subtilty, 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 justifies; who is he that condemns me? 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 me. Who shall separate me from the love of Christ? shall tribulation or distress, or persecution or famine, or nakedness, or peril or sword! Nay, in all these things I am more than conqueror, through him that loved me. For I am persuaded, that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor heighth nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate me from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus my Lord.”