My dear Brother, London, August 9, 1740. Thank you for yours, May the 24th. The cafe is quite plain. There are bigots both for predeftination and against it. God is fending a message to thofe on either fide. 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 perfecution will flame out, and it will be feen whether we count our lives dear unto ourselves, fa 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 fhould call us to it, I care not if I go with him to prifon, or to death. For like Paul and Silas, I hope we shall fing praises to God, and count it our highest honour to fuffer for Chrift's fake, and to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Bethesda in Georgia, Dec. 24, 1740. Reverend and very dear Brother,

Go

OD only knows, what unspeakable forrow of heart I have felt on your account, fince 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 other's fouls, I must not ftand neuter any longer. I am very apprehenfive, that our common adversaries will rejoice to fee us differing among ourfelves. But what can I say? The children of GoD are in danger of falling into error. Nay, numbers have been mifled, whom GOD has been pleased to work upon by my ministry, and a greater number are still calling aloud upon me, to fhew allo my opinion; I must then fhew, that I know no man after the flesh, and that I have no refpect to perfons, any

further

further than is confiftent with my duty to my Lord and Mafter, JESUS CHRIST.

This letter, no doubt, will lose me many friends and for this caufe, perhaps GOD has laid this difficult task upon me, éven to see whether I am willing to forfake all for him, or not. From fuch confiderations as thefe, I think it my duty to bear an humble teftimony, 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 fimplicity, faithfulness and freedom, leaving the confequences of all to GOD.

For fome time before, and especially fince my laft departure from England, both in public and private, by preaching and printing, you have been propagating the doctrine of univerfal redemption. And when I remember, how Paul reproved Peter for his diffimulation, I fear I have been finfully filent too long. O then be not angry with me, dear and honoured Sir, if now I deliver my foul, 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, which, I think, is unanfwerable, except in a certain point, concern ing a middle fort between elect and reprobate, which he himfelf in effect afterwards condemns.

I fhall only make a few remarks upon your fermon, entitled Free-Grace And before I enter upon the difcourfe itself, give me leave to take a little notice of what, in your preface, you term an indifpenfible obligation, to make it public to all the world. I must own, that I always thought you were quite mistaken upon that head. The cafe (you know) ftands thus: When you was 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 queftioned, as I do now, whether in fo doing, you did not tempt the LORD. A due exercise of religious prudence, without a lot, would have directed you in that matter. Befides, I never heard that you enquired of God, whether or not election was a gofpel doctrine? But I fear, taking it for granted,

it was not, you only enquired, whether you should be filent, 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 defire, you fuppreffed the publishing the fermon whilft I was in England; but foon fent 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 reafon, why GOD fhould fo fuffer you to be deceived, was, that hereby a fpecial obligation might be laid upon me, faithfully to declare the fcripture 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 caufe or not; as you could not but grant, he did once before, by giving you fuch another lot at Deal. The morning I failed from Deal for Gibralter, you arrived from Georgia. Instead of giving me an opportunity to converfe with you, though the ship was not far off the fhore; you drew a lot, and immediately fet forwards to London. You left a letter behind you, in which were words to this effect. "When I faw GOD, by the wind which was carrying you out, brought me in, I asked counfel 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 fomewhat furprized. Here was a good man telling me, he had caft 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 foldiers, who were committed to my charge. I betook myfelf with a friend to prayer. That paffage in the firft book of Kings, chap. 13. was powerfully impreffed upon my foul, where we are told, "That the Prophet was flain by a lion, that was tempted to go back, (contrary to God's exprefs 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 failed 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 fuffered me to have fuch a lot at that time, to try what was in your heart." I fhould never have publifhed this private tranfaction to the world, did

not

not the glory of GoD call me to it. It is plain you had a wrong lot given you here, and juftly, because you tempted GOD in drawing one. And thus I believe it is in the prefent cafe. And if fo, 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 ferve as an answer to that part of the preface, to your printed fermon, wherein you fay, "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 indifpenfibly obliged to declare this truth to all the world." That you believe what you have written to be truth, and that you honeftly aim at GoD's glory in writing, I do not in the leaft doubt. But then, honoured Sir, I cannot but think you have been much mistaken, in imagining that your tempting GOD, by cafting a lot in the manner you did, could lay you under an indifpenfible obligation to any action, much less to publish your fermon against the doctrine of predeftination to life.

I must next observe, that as you have been unhappy in printing at all, upon fuch an imaginary warrant, so you have been as unhappy in the choice of your text. Honcured Sir, how could it enter into your heart, to chufe a text to disprove the doctrine of election, out of the 8th of the Romans, where this doctrine is fo plainly afferted, that once talking with a quaker upon this fubject, he had no other way of evading the force of the Apostle's affertion, than by faying, "I believe Paul was in the wrong." And another friend lately, who was once highly prejudiced against election, ingenuously confeffed, "that he used to think St. Paul himself was miftaken, or that he was not truly tranflated."

Indeed, honoured Sir, it is plain, beyond all contradiction, that St. Paul, through the whole eighth of the Romans, is fpeaking of the privileges of thofe only who are really in CHRIST. And let any unprejudiced perfon read what goes before, and what follows your text, and he must confefs the word ALL only fignifies thofe 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 perfeverance of the children of GOD." He that spared not his own Son,

but

Fray

God

grant

but delivered him up for us all, (i. e. all Saints) how fhall he not with him alfo freely give us all things." Grace, in particular, to enable us to perfevere, and every thing else neceffary 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 perfeverance, he could hardly wish for a text more fit for his purpose, than that which you have chosen to difprove it. One that does not know you, would suspect you yourfelf was fenfible of this: for after the first paragraph, I scarce know whether you have mentioned it so much as once, through your whole fermon.

But your discourse, in my opinion, is as little to the purpofe 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 fhall not mention how illogically you have proceeded. Had you written clearly, you should firft, honoured Sir, have proved your propofition, " that God's grace is free to all," and then by way of inference, exclaimed against what you call the horrible decree. But you knew that people (because arminianifm, of late, has fo much abounded among us) were generally prejudiced against the doctrine of reprobation, and there-fore thought if you kept up their diflike 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 paffing by this, as also your equivocal definition of the word grace, and your falfe definition of the word free, and that I may be as short as poffible, I frankly acknowledge, I believe the doctrine of reprobation, in this view, that God intends to give faving grace, through JESUS CHRIST, only to be of thea certain number, and that the reft of mankind, after the fall le of Adam, being juffly left of GOD to continue in fin, will at laft fuffer that eternal death, which is its proper wages.

for!

This is the cftablished doctrine of scripture, and acknowbolive ledged as fuch in the 17th article of the church of England, in it as Bishop Burnet himself confeffes; yet dear Mr. Wesley absolutely denies it.

But the most important objections, which you have urged against this doctrine, as reasons why you reject it, being seri

oufly