Works of the Reverend George Whitefield, M.A.

Transcriber’s Notes

The cover image was provided by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

Punctuation has been standardized.

Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for easier reading.

The text may show quotations within quotations, all set off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been changed to alternate quote marks for improved readability.

This book was written in a period when many words had not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated with a Transcriber’s Note.

Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which they appear.

Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the text or to provide additional information for the modern reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣✤ symbols in the text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which they appear.

THE

WORKS

OF THE REVEREND

GEORGE WHITEFIELD, M.A.

Late of Pembroke-College, Oxford,
And Chaplain to the Right Honourable, the Countess of Huntingdon.

CONTAINING

All his SERMONS and TRACTS

Which have been already published:

WITH

A Select COLLECTION of LETTERS,

Written to his most intimate Friends, and Persons of Distinction, in England, Scotland, Ireland, and America, from the Year 1734, to 1770, including the whole Period of his Ministry.

ALSO

Some other Pieces on Important Subjects,

never before printed; prepared by Himself for the Press.

To which is prefixed,

An ACCOUNT of his LIFE,

Compiled from his Original Papers and Letters.

VOLUME IV.

LONDON:

Printed for Edward and Charles Dilly, in the Poultry;
and Messrs. Kincaid and Creech, at Edinburgh.

MDCCLXXI.

ANSWER
TO THE
BISHOP of LONDON’s
LAST
PASTORAL LETTER.

ANSWER
TO THE
BISHOP of LONDON’s
LAST
PASTORAL LETTER.

My Lord,

I NEED make no apology for troubling your Lordship with this. As your Lordship was pleased to make me the chief subject matter of your last Pastoral Letter, I think it my duty to answer in the best manner I can.

Your Lordship is highly to be commended, for the care you have taken in watching over the souls of those, who are committed to your Lordship’s charge. Lukewarmness and enthusiasm, are the two rocks against which even well-meaning people are in danger of splitting. All ought to be thankful to that pilot, who will teach them to steer a safe and middle course. I would gladly hope, that “a zeal for God in the discharge of your duty, and a hearty concern for the safety of souls,” moved your Lordship to write. These are the principles, I trust, which now excite me, to direct this answer to your Lordship. And, blessed be God, that I can write with somewhat of that love and meekness, which becomes a disciple of Jesus Christ, and with all that humility and reverence, which is due from a presbyter to a bishop of the church of God.

Lukewarmness and enthusiasm, my Lord, are certainly the bane of true christianity. I thank your Lordship again for your kind cautions against them. The only query is, “Whether there was any occasion for your Lordship’s warning the people of your diocese, against running into either of these extremes, upon account of any thing, I have either spoken or written?” Your Lordship thinks there was, and quotes passages out of my Journal to prove it; if it can be proved, I will ask public pardon, both of your Lordship and them, with all my heart.

As for your Lordship’s cautions against lukewarmness, I am not much concerned in them. You do not seem to point at me in particular; unless it is, where your Lordship (page 10.) informs your people, “That a diligent attendance on the duties of the station wherein Providence has placed them, is, in the strictest sense, the serving of God.” None but those, who condemn me unheard, can justly charge me with affirming to the contrary.

However, I beg leave to observe, that your Lordship, (page 8.) calls that a very imperfect state of christianity, which is no state of christianity at all. St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, 2 Corinthians chapter xiii. verse 5, says, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your ownselves.” And that they might have a certain rule, whereby to judge whether they were in the faith, truly so called, or not; he immediately adds, “Know ye not your ownselves, how that Christ Jesus is in you, except ye be reprobates?” So that, according to St. Paul’s rule, “He that finds, he has hitherto contented himself with a bare bodily attendance upon the public worship of God, and with following his daily employment on other days, and with abstaining from the more gross and notorious acts of sin, and from doing any hurt or injury to his neighbour, and has rested finally upon these, as the whole of what christianity requires of him;” is so far from being in a very imperfect state, as your Lordship is pleased to affirm, page 8. that he is in no state of christianity at all. No, my Lord, he is a reprobate, or, one who at present is out of a state of salvation, nor can he ever have any assurance that he is in a state of salvation, till he knows that Jesus Christ is in him, by the indwelling of his Holy Spirit. If I have mistaken your Lordship’s expression, I will freely beg your Lordship’s pardon.

Another thing, my Lord, to me seems darkly expressed, in page 18. (let not your Lordship be angry, for indeed I will endeavour to speak with all gentleness and humility): your Lordship’s words are these: “Nor need they any other evidence besides those good dispositions they find in their hearts, that the Holy Spirit of God co-operates with their honest endeavours to subdue sin and grow in goodness.” If by good dispositions, your Lordship only means good inclinations or desires, I deny that to be a sufficient evidence, that the Spirit of God co-operates with their honest endeavours to subdue sin and grow in goodness. For there is a great difference between good desires and good habits: many have one, who never attain the other. Many have good desires to subdue sin, and yet, resting in those good desires, sin has always had dominion over them. A person sick of a fever may desire to be in health, but that desire is not health itself. In like manner, many have good dispositions, or desires to be good, but that is not goodness itself. And consequently men need more evidence than good dispositions, to prove to themselves or others, “that the Holy Spirit of God co-operates with their honest endeavours to subdue sin.” If by good dispositions, your Lordship means good habits wrought in the heart by the Spirit of God, such as peace, love, joy, long-suffering, goodness, truth, &c. I then agree a man needs no other evidence: for these are the proper and genuine fruits of the Spirit itself.

Your Lordship immediately adds, “Nor that, persevering in their course, and praying to God for his assistance, and relying upon the merits of Christ for the pardon of all such sins, failings, and imperfections, as are more or less unavoidable in this mortal state.” I beg leave to ask your Lordship, whether this does not savour too much of the common divinity, That we are to do something for ourselves: or, in other words, that we have partly a righteousness of our own, and that Jesus Christ is to make up the deficiencies of that righteousness? What else can your Lordship mean, by saying, That we must rely on the merits of Christ for the pardon of “all such sins as are more or less unavoidable in this mortal state?” Did Jesus Christ come into the world, my Lord, only to save us from the guilt of such sins, as are more or less unavoidable in this mortal state? The scriptures every where affirm, that man hath no righteousness of his own, “That there is none righteous, no not one;—that all our righteousness is as filthy rags;” and that Jesus Christ died, not only to save us from the guilt of all such sins, failings, and infirmities, as are more or less unavoidable in this mortal state, but from all wilful sins, and also from that original corruption, which every man naturally engendered of the offspring of Adam, brings into the world with him. I hope I have not misunderstood, or overstrained your Lordship’s expression.

I come now to your Lordship’s caution against enthusiasm. For that, I suppose, your Lordship intended more particularly against me.

And here, my Lord, I beg leave to observe, That, in my opinion, your Lordship has by no means been clear enough in your definition of the word enthusiasm.

According to the fair rules of writing, was it not first incumbent on your Lordship to shew, that the word enthusiast had a good as well as a bad meaning: that it signifies no more than a person in God, and consequently every christian, in the proper sense of the word, is an enthusiast? For St. Peter writes, “That to us are given exceeding great and precious promises, that by these we might be partakers of the divine nature.”

And our church says, “If we receive the sacrament worthily, we are one with Christ, and Christ with us: we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us.” For which she has sufficient warrant from our Lord’s prayer, John xvii. 20, &c. “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, I in them, and they in me, that they may be made perfect in one: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in them.”

But indeed your Lordship’s definition of enthusiasm, when examined, does not convey any ill idea at all. “Enthusiasm, is a strong persuasion on the mind, that they are guided in an extraordinary manner, by immediate impulses and impressions of the Spirit of God.” Had your Lordship said, a strong but groundless persuasion, that they are guided in an extraordinary manner, it would have been to your Lordship’s purpose. But to affirm, without any restriction, that a strong persuasion that we are guided in an extraordinary manner by immediate impulses, is enthusiasm in the worst sense of the word, when your Lordship yourself says, (page 54.) “There is no doubt, but God, when he pleases, can work upon the minds of men by extraordinary influences,” to me seems a little inconsistent.

Your Lordship proceeds thus: “And this is owing chiefly to the want of distinguishing aright between the ordinary and extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit. The extraordinary operations were those, by which the apostles and others, who were entrusted with the first propagation of the gospel, were enabled to work miracles, and speak with tongues, in testimony, that their mission and doctrine were from God.”

I suppose, by extraordinary operations, your Lordship means the same as being guided in an extraordinary manner, just above. And if so, according to your Lordship’s own definition, I am no enthusiast. For I never did pretend to these extraordinary operations of working miracles, or speaking with tongues, in testimony that my mission and doctrine were from God; I only lay claim to the ordinary gifts and influences of the Spirit, which your Lordship (page 20.) says, “Still continue:” and what need was there then, my Lord, that the people of your Lordship’s diocese should be cautioned against enthusiasm upon my account?

But your Lordship farther adds, “The ordinary gifts, however real and certain in themselves, are no otherwise discernible, than by their fruits and effects.” Had your Lordship said, No otherwise discernible to others, than by their fruits and effects, it would have been right: but if your Lordship means, they are no otherwise discernible to ourselves, in my opinion, it is wrong; for it is possible, my Lord, for a person to feel and discern these ordinary gifts and influences of the Spirit in himself, when there is no opportunity of discovering them to others.

For instance, on supposition that your Lordship was assisted by the blessed Spirit, in writing your pastoral letter; might not your Lordship be sensible of an inward joy and complacency, wrought by that self-same Spirit, which was not then discernible to others? So is it possible for another to feel joy in the Holy Ghost, with the rest of his fruits, which at that time may not be discernible to others; and which they, who have never experienced the like, may not believe, though a man declare it unto them. I hope, my Lord, these reasonings carry with them their own evidence.

But to proceed: (pages 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.) your Lordship has taken pains to collect several passages out of the public liturgy, to prove the doctrine of regeneration, or our new birth, to be the doctrine of the Church of England. Your reason for so doing, appears (page 25.) “to arm your people against any suggestions, as if our church were so regardless of the doctrine of regeneration and new birth, as if there were need for any member of it, to seek elsewhere for a more spiritual service.” If this, my Lord, was intended to arm your people against any such suggestions made by me; indeed your Lordship does not do me justice. As your Lordship, I find, has done me the honour to peruse my Third Journal, your Lordship may remember this observation, (page 39.) that, after I had baptized an adult, I proved the necessity of the new birth, from the office of our church.

In my sermon, upon the indwelling of the Spirit of God, which I have made bold to send to your Lordship with this letter, you will find, I have quoted the expressions of our own church offices, to prove the doctrine of the new birth, as your Lordship does in your pastoral letter. My constant way of preaching is, first, to prove my propositions by scripture, and then to illustrate them by the articles and collects of the church of England. Those that have heard me, can witness, how often I have exhorted them to be constant at the public service of the church. I attend on it myself, and would read the public liturgy every day, if your Lordship’s clergy would give me leave. What further satisfaction can your Lordship require, that I do not suggest to your Lordship’s people, “as if our church were regardless of the doctrine of regeneration, and new birth, and as if there were need for any member of it, to seek elsewhere for a more spiritual service.”

In the following paragraph, your Lordship has the same insinuation, as though I wanted to introduce extempore prayer, and to lay aside the public liturgy of our church. For after your Lordship had been speaking against praying by the Spirit, and affirming that the scripture no where tells us, that prayer is the single work of the Spirit, your Lordship says to your people, “you have great reason to be thankful to God, for a public service prepared to your hands.” My Lord, I never said to the contrary. But does not your Lordship seem to insinuate at the same time, that we are not to depend on the Spirit of God, to enable us to pray extempore, either in public or private? That prayer is not the single work of the Spirit, without any co-operation of our own, I readily confess. But that the Spirit of God does assist true christians to pray extempore, now, as well as formerly, is undeniable, if the scriptures be true. For what says the Apostle? “We know not what to pray for, as we ought; but the Spirit itself helpeth our infirmities, and maketh intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered.” And this is founded upon a general promise, made to all God’s people, Zachariah xii. 10. “I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace, and of supplication.” And I believe, my Lord, we may appeal to the experience of all true christians, whether or no they did not find the Spirit of supplication, or a power of praying without a form, increase in proportion to the increase of God’s Grace or Holy Spirit in their hearts. This is all, my Lord, that I pretend to: and where is the impropriety of this, when your Lordship confesses in the same page, that “the Spirit of God does particularly assist us, in a due performance of religious offices?”

Further, as your Lordship seems to deny the immediate assistance of the Holy Spirit, in our particular addresses at the throne of Grace, so your Lordship seems to deny it also in our particular actions. “In like manner, (you say) we are firmly persuaded in general, that we live under the gracious influence of God’s Holy Spirit, and that he both excites and enables us to do good. But that this or that thought or action is an effect of the sole motion, or immediate impulse of the Spirit, without any co-operation of our own mind”—[My Lord, who ever [♦]affirmed, that there was no co-operation of our own minds, together with the impulse of the spirit of God?] Your Lordship adds, “or that the Holy Spirit, and our natural conceptions, do respectively contribute to this or that thought or action, in such a measure, or to such a degree; these are things we dare not say.” Indeed, my Lord, I do dare to say them. For if there be any such thing as a particular providence, why may we not expect particular direction from God’s Holy Spirit in particular cases? Does not our church, my Lord, teach us to pray, “that God’s Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts?” But your Lordship says, we dare not say this, because our Saviour has told us, that we know no more of the working of the Spirit, than we know of the wind, from whence it cometh, and whither it goeth. Neither need we know any more of them: but you must allow, that we know as much. Cannot your Lordship feel the wind then? Does not your Lordship know when it makes any impression upon your body? So easy it is for a spiritual man to know when the Holy Spirit makes an impression upon his soul. Without acknowledging this, all the expressions of being led by the Spirit, walking by the Spirit, and such like, must be only so many words without any real meaning. Your Lordship acknowledges, that the Holy Spirit does act in general, and why not in the particular actions of our lives also? For, can the one be without the other? Does it not frequently happen, my Lord, that the comfort and happiness of our whole lives, depend on one particular action? And where then, my Lord, is the absurdity of saying, that the Holy Spirit may even, in the minutest circumstance, direct and rule our hearts? I have been the more particular, my Lord, on this part of your Lordship’s letter, because if this be proved, many of your Lordship’s objections against my Journals, will fall to the ground.

[♦] “arffimed” replaced with “affirmed”

Page 27. Your Lordship has the following paragraph. “God forbid, that in this profane and degenerate age, every thing that has an appearance of piety and devotion, should not be considered in the most favourable light that it is capable of. But at the same time, it is surely very proper, that men should be called upon for some reasonable evidences of a divine Commission.”

I take it for granted, that I am one of those men, whom your Lordship thinks should be called upon for some reasonable evidence of a divine Commission.

But, my Lord, what reasonable evidence does your Lordship require? Did I not receive letters dimissory from your Lordship’s own hands to be ordained a priest? Did I not, when ordained deacon, affirm, “that I was inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost, to take upon me that office and ministration?” Did not my Lord of Gloucester, when he ordained me priest, say unto me, “Receive thou the Holy Ghost now committed unto thee, by the imposition of our hands, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?” And is not this, my Lord, a reasonable evidence that I act by a divine Commission? If this be not true, must not all those whom your Lordship, or the other Bishops ordain, act only by a human Commission? Nay, to use the words of Bishop Burnet in his Pastoral Letter, “must not they who are ordained, lie not only unto man but unto God, by saying, they are inwardly moved by the Holy Spirit?”

If your Lordship in any wise disputes my acting by a divine Commission, you disclaim your own divine right and authority; nor can you possibly avoid the dilemma, of either allowing my divine Commission, or denying your own.

After your Lordship has insinuated a demand for the evidences of my divine Commission, immediately follows these words; “when they tell us of extraordinary communications they have with God.”

If by extraordinary communications, your Lordship means the extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit, as working miracles, and speaking with tongues; your Lordship may assure yourself, I never pretended to any such thing. If, by extraordinary communications, your Lordship means more assistance and comforts from God, at some times, than I have at others, (which is all I mean by extraordinary communications) I own the charge? And what is there, my Lord, extraordinary in that?

Again, your Lordship says, (page 28.) “When they talk in the language of those, who have a special and immediate mission from God.”

And does your Lordship, and the rest of the Bishops, ordain any, without obliging them first to give good proofs, that they have a special call or immediate mission from God to the work of the ministry? If ever you so do, my Lord, do not your Lordships lay hands too suddenly upon men?

Page 29. Your Lordship writes thus. “When they profess to think and act under the immediate guidance of a divine Inspiration.”

And does not your Lordship think and act by the same rule? Why, otherwise, does your Lordship pray when you administer the holy Communion, “that God would cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of his Holy Spirit?”

Page 31. Your Lordship says, “when they speak of their preaching and expounding, and the effects of them, as the sole work of a divine Power.”

And would your Lordship have me ascribe any, the least thing to myself? The good that is done upon earth, doth not God do it himself? Does not the Apostle say, “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God?” And where then, my Lord, is the absurdity of ascribing the effects of expounding and preaching to the sole work of a divine Power?

Again, (page 33.) “When they boast of sudden and surprizing effects as wrought by the Holy Ghost, in consequence of their preaching.”

Where, my Lord, is the enthusiasm of such a pretension? Has your Lordship been a preacher in the church of England, for so many years, and have you never seen any sudden or surprizing effects, consequent upon your Lordship’s preaching? Was this my case, should I not have reason to doubt, my Lord, whether I had any more than a bare human commission? Or might I not take up the Prophet’s lamentation, “O my leanness, my leanness!” My Lord, the gospel, like its author, is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever; and, if preached as it ought to be, will prick numbers to the heart, and extort the cry of the trembling goaler, “What must I do to be saved!” as surely now, as it did seventeen hundred years ago.

These then are the sudden and surprizing effects, my Lord, I always desire to have, and I heartily pray God, your Lordship and all your clergy may always see such effects in consequence of their preaching.

(Page 34.) “When they claim the spirit of prophecy.”

What I have said about my success, God has been pleased to fulfil already. What I have said about sufferings, they who without cause are my enemies are fulfilling daily. And as for the promises mentioned in my Journal, I freely own there are some particular promises, which God has so strongly impressed, and does still impress on my heart, that I verily believe they will be fulfilled.

(Page 35.) “When they speak of themselves in the language, and under the character of Apostles of Christ, and even of Christ himself.”

If I am not to speak in an apostolical language, why did my Lord of Gloucester give me an apostolical commission, “whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained?” And I hope, my Lord, using the words which Jesus Christ used, is not taking upon me the character of Christ.

(Page 36.) “When they profess to plant and propagate a new Gospel, as unknown to the generality of ministers and people, in a christian country.”

’Tis true, my Lord, in one sense, mine is a new gospel, and will be always unknown to the generality of ministers and people, even in a christian country, if your Lordship’s clergy follow your Lordship’s directions. For what says your Lordship, (page 46.) “I hope, that when your ministers preach to you of justification by faith alone, which is asserted in the strongest manner by our church, they explain it in such a manner, as to leave no doubt upon your minds, whether good works are a necessary condition of your being justified in the sight of God.”

But pray, my Lord, where has the scripture made good works a necessary condition of our being justified in the sight of God? St. Paul says, “by grace ye are saved, through faith, not of works, and that, least any man should boast. For eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Your Lordship exhorts your clergy to preach justification by faith alone, and quotes the 11th article of our church, which tells us, “we are justified by faith only, and not for our own works or deservings.” At the same time, your Lordship bids them to explain it in such a manner, as to leave no doubt upon their minds, whether good works are a necessary condition of their being justified in the sight of God.” Your Lordship, in my opinion, could not well be guilty of a greater inconsistency. This, my Lord, is truly a new Gospel. I am sure it is not what the Apostles preached; and it is as contrary to the doctrine of the church of England, and the whole tenour of the gospel, as light is contrary to darkness. Had your Lordship insisted on your clergy’s preaching up good works as a necessary fruit and consequence, instead of a necessary condition of our being justified, your Lordship would have used your authority aright. For we are commanded to shew forth or declare to others, that we have a true faith by our works. And the 12th article of our church says, that “good works follow after justification;” and how then, my Lord, are they a necessary condition of our justification? No, my Lord, salvation (if the gospel be true) is the free gift of God through Jesus Christ. Faith is the means whereby that salvation is applied to our hearts, and good works are the necessary fruits and proof of that faith.

This, my Lord, is the doctrine of Jesus Christ, this is the doctrine of the church of England, and it is, because the generality of the clergy of the church of England do not preach this doctrine, that I am resolved, God being my helper, to continue instant in season and out of season, to declare it unto all men, let the consequences, as to my own private person, be what they will.

As for your Lordship’s blaming me for rashly censuring the clergy, for their practice, none are concerned, but my indolent, earthly-minded, pleasure-taking brethren (page 39.) And surely, your Lordship will not stand up in their defence. No, I hope your Lordship will not fail to rebuke them sharply. And as for your Lordship’s suspicions, page 50. (For your Lordship’s sake I would not mention them) I hope my life and doctrine will always prove them to be groundless.

Would time permit, I could now proceed to satisfy your Lordship more particularly about the case of Mr. Benjamin Seward: but as that is done in a letter sent to my Lord of Gloucester, and as I am now to embark in a few hours, I hope your Lordship will excuse me, if I only add my hearty prayers for your Lordship’s temporal and eternal welfare, and subscribe myself, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s obedient, though unworthy son and servant,

G. W.

Blendon, Monday,
August 13, 1739.

The letter above mentioned, as sent to the Bishop of Gloucester, was occasioned by the Bishop’s acquainting Mr. Whitefield, in a letter, “That he ought to preach only in that congregation to which he was lawfully appointed.” This produced the following answer.

My Lord,

I THANK your Lordship for your Lordship’s kind letter. My frequent removes from place to place prevented my answering it sooner. I am greatly obliged to your Lordship, in that you are pleased to watch over my soul, and to caution me against acting contrary to the commission given me at ordination. But if the commission we then receive, obliges us to preach no where but in that parish which is committed to our care, then all persons act contrary to their commission when they preach occasionally in any strange place: and consequently your Lordship equally offends, when you preach out of your own diocese. As for inveighing against the clergy, (without a cause) I deny the charge. What I say, I am ready to make good whenever your Lordship pleases. Let those that bring reports to your Lordship about my preaching, be brought face to face, and I am ready to give them an answer. St. Paul exhorts Timothy, “Not to receive an accusation against an elder under two or three witnesses.” And even Nicodemus could say, “The law suffered no man to be condemned unheard.” I shall only add, that I hope your Lordship will inspect into the lives of your other clergy, and censure them for being over-remiss, as much as you censure me for being over-righteous. It is their falling from their articles, and not preaching the truth as it is in Jesus, that has excited the present zeal of (those whom they in derision call) the Methodist preachers. Dr. Stebbing’s sermon, (for which I thank your Lordship) confirms me more and more in my opinion, that I ought to be instant in season and out of season. For to me, he seems to know no more of the true nature of regeneration, than Nicodemus did, when he came to Jesus by night. Your Lordship may observe, that he does not speak a word of original sin, or the dreadful consequences of our fall in Adam, upon which the doctrine of the new birth is entirely founded. No: like other polite preachers, he seems to think in the very beginning of his discourse, that St. Paul’s description of the wickedness of the heathen is only to be referred to them of past ages: whereas I affirm, we are all included as much under the guilt and consequences of sin, as they were; and if any man preach any other doctrine, he shall bear his punishment, whosoever he be. Again, my Lord, the Doctor entirely mistakes us, when we talk of the sensible operations of the Holy Ghost. He understands us just as those carnal Jews understood Jesus Christ, who, when our Lord talked of giving them that bread which came down from heaven, said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Indeed I know not that we do use the word sensible, when we are talking of the operations of the Spirit of God. But if we do, we do not mean, that God’s Spirit does manifest itself to our senses, but that it may be perceived by the soul, as really as is any sensible impression made upon the body. But to disprove this, the Doctor brings our Lord’s allusion to the wind in the third of St. John, which is one of the best texts he could urge to prove it. For if the analogy of our Lord’s discourse be carried on, we shall find it amounts to thus much: that although the operations of the Spirit of God can no more be accounted for, than how the wind cometh and whither it goeth; yet may they be as easily felt by the soul as the wind may be felt by the body. My Lord, indeed we speak what we know. But, says the Doctor, “These men have no proof to offer for their inward manifestations.” What proof, my Lord, does the Doctor require? Would he have us raise dead bodies? Have we not done greater things than these? I speak with all humility; has not God by our ministry raised many dead souls to a spiritual life? Verily, if men will not believe the evidence God has given that he sent us, neither would they believe though one rose from the dead. Besides, my Lord, the Doctor charges us with things to which we are entire strangers, such as the denying men the use of God’s creatures. Encouraging abstinence, prayer, &c. to the neglect of the duties of our stations. Lord, lay not this sin to his charge! Again, he says, “That I suppose Mr. Benjamin Seward to be a person believing in Christ, and blameless in his conversation, before what I call his conversion.” But this is a direct untruth: for it was through the want of a living faith in Jesus Christ, which he now has, that he was not a christian before, but a mere moralist. Your Lordship knows that our article says, “Works done without the Spirit of God, and true faith in Jesus Christ, have the nature of sin.” And such were all the works done by Mr. Benjamin Seward, before the time mentioned in my Journal. Again, my Lord, the Doctor represents, that as my opinion concerning quakers in general, which I only meant of those I had conversed with in particular. But the Doctor, and the rest of my reverend brethren, are welcome to judge me as they please.—Yet a little while, and we shall all appear before the great Shepherd of our souls. There, there, my Lord, shall it be determined, who are his true ministers, and who are only wolves in sheeps cloathing. Our Lord, I believe, will not be ashamed to confess us publicly in that day. I pray God we all may approve ourselves such faithful ministers of the New Testament, that we may be able to lift up our heads with boldness. As for declining the work in which I am engaged, my blood runs chill at the very thoughts of it. I am as much convinced, it is my duty to act as I do, as that the sun shines at noon-day. I can foresee the consequences very well. They have already in one sense thrust us out of the synagogues. By and by they will think it is doing God service to kill us. But, my Lord, if you and the rest of the bishops cast us out, our great and common Master will take us up. Though all men should deny us, yet will not he. And however you may censure us as evil doers, and disturbers of the peace, yet if we do suffer for our present way of acting, your Lordship at the great day will find, that we suffer only for righteousness sake. In patience therefore do I possess my soul. I willingly tarry the Lord’s leisure. In the mean while I shall continually bear your Lordship’s favours upon my heart, and endeavour to behave, so as to subscribe myself, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s obedient Son, and obliged servant,

George Whitefield.

A
LETTER
TO THE
RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES
OF
ENGLAND.

Written during the Voyage to Philadelphia, 1739; and particularly recommended to those who had then lately formed themselves into Religious Societies in Scotland.

A
LETTER, &c.

My dear Brethren in Christ,

THE Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews, chapter x. 23. exhorts them to hold fast the profession of their faith without wavering; and soon after adds, as a most effectual means to so desirable an end, “Let us consider one another to provoke unto love, and to good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.”

As christianity was not then the national religion, I suppose the assemblies here intended, were not such as our public congregations, but rather little private societies, or associations, or churches, as was the custom of the primitive christians, who, we are told, continued stedfastly in the Apostle’s doctrine, and in fellowship one with another.

This was the Apostle’s exhortation to the christians of those times; and I am fully persuaded there never was more occasion for renewing it, than the age wherein we live.

Nothing hath of late more alarmed the enemies of the cross of Christ, than the zeal that God hath stirred up in the hearts of many to put in practice this apostolical injunction. Balls, plays, horse-races, and such like unchristian and fatal entertainments, are countenanced and supported by public authority. And few as yet have had courage to speak, preach, or write for the suppressing them, so plainly and publicly as they ought; but, if the children of God meet (as they are required) to build up each other in their most holy Faith, almost every one’s mouth is opened against them. Nay, with grief it must be spoken, even many of our masters in Israel, who ought to be patterns, and promote every good word and work, are not content with countenancing the polite and sinful diversions of the age by their presence and approbation, but are generally most bitter in their invectives against religious societies. The former, though directly contrary to our baptismal vow, are deemed innocent, if not useful, by them: the latter, they are continually crying down (especially if any life or divine power be amongst them) as schismatical, seditious, and tending to destroy the present established constitution.

For these, and many such like reasons, I, as present with you in spirit, though absent in body, thought it my duty to put you in mind, zealously to persist in your obedience to the forementioned injunction once delivered to the saints; and so much the more, as in all probability the day of persecution nearer and nearer approaches.

God has given an harvest, and there has been a gathering in: a winnowing time will come. His fan is already in his hand. Yet a little while, and (if the work lately begun be carried on) I am persuaded he will throughly purge his flour. The shepherds must first be smitten; and next, endeavours will be used to scatter the sheep. The religious societies Satan has undoubtedly desired to have, that he may sift them as wheat. My brethren, watch and pray one for another, that you may be enabled to stand in such an hour of temptation, and having done all, to stand.

Be not ashamed of that wherein you ought to glory. Religious society is of divine extraction. As God made man, so God said, “It is not good that man should be alone: I will make a help meet for him.” Meet, as I take it, not merely for his body (man had few corporal wants in paradise) but chiefly and primarily for his better part the soul, that he might have one to converse with of his own species, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh.

It is true, man is now a fallen, but yet he is a social creature: and as the end of his coming into this world was to prepare for a better; so without doubt the chief end of society in general, and of religious society in particular, is, that we may be helps meet for each other in the great work of our salvation.

Upon this account it was, that the first christians so frequently assembled themselves together, when obliged to shut the doors for fear of the Jews; and their continuing in fellowship with each other, was one main reason why they continued stedfast in the apostles doctrine.

Take then, my brethren, the primitive christians for your examples: their practices are recorded for our learning. No power on earth can lawfully forbid or hinder your imitating them. In all such cases we must obey God rather than man; otherwise, we so far deny our holy profession, and are enemies to the cross of Christ: and though, because you have got a little out of the formal way, some blind zealots may brand you as schismatical; yet if you fear God, and truly honour the King, and are of the number of those who are quiet in the land, there is no reason can be urged against your societies, which will not equally hold good against all assembling together for religious purposes.

In this respect, a private prelate has no more authority than a private presbyter. If it be lawful for more than five to meet in a private vestry, it is equally lawful for more than five to meet in a private house; as is the practice of some of the societies who are under the government of those called the Twelve Stewards. If it be enquired of you, by what authority you use sometimes to pray without a premeditated form of words; you may enquire, “By what authority any one reads the church forms, who is not commissioned so to do, and that in any place but in the church,” where only they are appointed to be read, and only by one so commissioned? If they reply, “We have Doctor Woodward’s form;” you may answer them with this question, “What difference is there, in respect to others, between a person’s reading a form, which few that hear it know beforehand, and a person’s praying extempore, as the Holy Spirit gives him utterance?” If they laugh at the mention of “praying by the Spirit,” brethren, I hope you know better. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free; and be not afraid, by such a practice, to make innovations in the church, which does not confine its members to forms, but within the church walls, nor even there altogether. In private assemblies, such as yours, all are left to their liberty; and therefore, as many as would hinder you in this, at once discover their pitiable ignorance of that constitution they pretend to promote, and an unhappy estrangement from the spirit and privileges of the gospel.

How to improve your meetings, so as best to promote God’s glory, and the good of your own souls, ought to be your constant and chief concern: for as christians in general, so members of religious societies in particular, are as cities built upon a hill; and therefore it more highly concerns them to let their light so shine before men, that they seeing their good works, may glorify our Father who is in heaven.

Not that a communion of perfect saints is to be expected here on earth: or that you ought to be immediately offended, if some of your brethren should be overtaken with a fault. In this world, tares will be always springing up amongst the wheat. Many that are first, will be last, and the last first. Nay, it is well if some, like Judas, do not at length lay aside their profession, and openly betray our Master.

To prevent this, you ought to be very cautious, my brethren, whom you admit into fellowship with you. Examine them again and again, not barely whether they receive the sacrament, and go to church; but whether they be in the faith. Set them upon proving their own selves; and by no means receive them into your brotherhood, unless they can produce sufficient evidences of their having tasted the good word of life, and felt the powers of the world to come. This, some may object, is not a very good way to increase and multiply you as to number; but it is the best, the only way, to establish and increase a communion of true saints. And such a society, consisting of a few solid christians, is far preferable to one that is filled with a multitude of such as do not bring forth fruit unto holiness, but have only the fig-leaves of an outward profession. Formal hypocrites will do any society more harm than good: and however they may endure for a while, and receive the word with joy; yet, having no root in themselves, in time of temptation they will shamefully fall away.

Next to your care about admitting others, I think it highly concerns you, whenever you assemble, to remember the end of meeting, yourselves; and then (to use the words of the wise son of Sirach on another occasion) “you will never do amiss.” Now, the end of your meeting, brethren, is not that you may think yourselves more holy than your neighbours, much less to form a sect or party, or promote a schism or sedition in the church or state. No: such thoughts, I trust, are far from you: for they are earthly, sensual, devilish. And, if ever such designs should be set on foot, I earnestly pray God the abettors of them may be detected, and all their schemes, though never so plausibly concerted, fall to the ground. The only end which, I hope, you all propose by your assembling yourselves together, is the same for which you were redeemed, “The renewing of your depraved natures, and promoting the hidden life of Jesus Christ in your souls.” These terms, however foolishness to others, I trust, my brethren, are not so to you. I take it for granted, you are not only desirous of, but already in some measure blessed with, a saving experimental knowledge of Jesus Christ in your hearts: for unless a man be born again from above, and made a partaker of the divine nature by the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit, he can in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whoever denies this to be true in the most literal, real, and absolute sense of the words, knows nothing yet as he ought to know: for it is grounded on a self-evident truth, that we are fallen from God in Adam, and must be renewed in the spirit of our minds, ere we can be restored to that blissful communion with him, which is the free gift of God and eternal life.

The only way to this, is faith in Jesus Christ; faith in contradistinction to, though necessarily productive of, good works. “I am the way, the truth, and the life: whosoever believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live,” says Christ himself. And I think it my bounden duty, to exhort you at this time, to contend earnestly for the doctrine of Justification by faith only, because so many blind guides are lately gone out into the world. My brethren, it is much to be feared that many of our present preachers are no better than doctrinal papists. And however this, to those who having eyes see not, may be judged an uncharitable censure; yet surely they cannot justly blame me for want of candour, who consider, that one of the most reputed orthodox prelates in the kingdom, in a late pastoral letter advises his clergy, “So to explain the doctrine of justification in the sight of God by faith only, as to make good works a necessary condition.” Such advice from a Roman cardinal would be no more than we might expect; but, coming from a bishop of the Church of England, is surprising, and much to be lamented.

God forbid, my brethren, that you should so learn Christ! If the scriptures are true, such a doctrine is absolutely false. The lively oracles no where declare good works to be a necessary condition of our justification in the sight of God; on the contrary, they every where affirm, that “Salvation is the free gift of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord: that we are saved by grace through faith; and that it is not of works, lest any man should boast.” No, my brethren, in the great mystery of man’s redemption by Jesus Christ, boasting is entirely excluded.

We must not expect to be saved, or any way recommend ourselves to God, by any or all the works of righteousness which we have done, or shall, or can do. The Lord Christ is our righteousness,—our whole righteousness: imputed to us, instead of our own. “We are compleat in him,” says the scripture. “We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, by faith,” saith the eleventh article of our church. And if so, how are good works, my brethren, a necessary condition of our justification in the sight of God? The law indeed says, “Do this, and live:” but the gospel brings us the glad tidings, that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Christ, by his sacrifice, and perfect obedience, has every way fulfilled the law for us; and God will not require to be paid twice. Christ bought our justification with a great price, even with his own blood. It comes to us freely, without any regard to works past, present, or to come. This is the constant language of Christ and his apostles; and therefore, to use the words of the forementioned article, “That we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.” Observe, my brethren, justified by or through faith, and not for faith; for faith is only a means or instrument whereby the whole righteousness of Jesus Christ is applied to the sinner’s soul: and whosoever does thus believe in his heart, setting to his seal that God is true, may be assured that his pardon is sealed in heaven; notwithstanding he has lived in an open breach of God’s commandments all his life-time before. “Believe, (says the apostle to the trembling [♦]jailor,) and thou shalt be saved:” “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.” So that this faith will not be dead, idle or inactive: for ’tis not a faith of the head, or a bare assent to things credible as credible; the devils thus believe and tremble: but it is a faith of the heart, a living principle of new life, infused into the soul by the spirit of God, applying that inwardly, which was wrought for him outwardly by the obedience and death of Jesus Christ, and continually exciting the possessor of it to shew it forth by his works; not as necessary conditions, but as proofs of his justification in God’s sight; and as so many tokens of his gratitude and love for what God has done for his soul. This is what the apostle stiles a “Faith working by love.”

[♦] “jaylor” replaced with “jailor”

I cannot conclude this better than in the words of a truly evangelical writer now before me. “The law (sayst thou) must be obeyed.” I answer, “Christ Jesus hath done that in his own person, and justified me thereby; and, for my own part, I will not labour now to fulfil the law for justification, lest I should undervalue the merits of the man Christ Jesus, and what he hath done without me; and yet will I labour to fulfil, if possible, ten thousand laws if there were so many: and O let it be out of love to my sweet Lord Jesus. For the love of Christ constrains me.”

You see, my brethren, this is a topic which I love to dwell upon. A divine fire kindles in my heart, whilst I am musing on, and writing to you about it: and I should here enlarge, but I must hasten to recommend to you another thing of unspeakable importance to the well-being of christian society, a spirit of universal love. Let not bigotry or party-zeal be so much as once named amongst you; for it becometh not saints. Our Lord was a stranger to it. Whosoever did the will of his father, the same was his brother, his sister, his mother. Wherever he saw the marks of true faith, though in a centurion or a Syrophenician, who were aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenant of promise, how did he publish and commend it? Be followers then of him, my brethren, as dear children; and love all who love our Lord Jesus in sincerity and truth, although they should not in all things follow with us. Pharisees and Sadducees, the self-righteous and free-thinkers of this generation, all the children of the devil, whether rich or poor, high or low, however they may differ in other respects, yet agree in one thing, even to conspire against the Lord and against his Christ. Why should not the children of God, notwithstanding their little differences, unite in one common interest against spiritual wickednesses in high places? O that all who call themselves christians, were thus minded! How should we see the kingdom of Christ come with power, and Satan like lightning fall from heaven! From the beginning, it hath been his policy to divide christians into sects and parties, hoping not only to weaken their interest, but to make them thereby believe, that religion wholly consists in being of this or that particular communion: and this subtilty of that old serpent hath so prevailed, that though we all profess to hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism; yet numbers look upon those who differ from them, and that only in externals, almost as creatures of another species, and forbid us with such even to eat. This was once the state of the Jewish, as it is now of the christian church;—but God shewed his dislike of such a temper, by convincing Peter in a miraculous manner, that he was henceforward to call nothing common or unclean, but freely to converse with all who feared him and worked righteousness, for that all such were accepted of him. My brethren, be not you disobedient to this heavenly vision: for our sakes no doubt it was written, and for as many as the Lord our God shall call. The self-righteous, and perhaps some who are weak in faith, will censure and condemn your conduct (as the brethren did Peter) when they behold your free conversation in Christ: but Peter has furnished you with an answer, “Forasmuch as God hath given to them the like gift as to us, who believed on Jesus, what are we, that we should withstand God?” How dare we make a difference, when God has made none? How dare we not freely converse with those who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?

Further, my brethren, content not yourselves with reading, singing and praying together; but set some time apart to confess your faults and communicate your experiences one to another. For want of this (which I take to be one chief design of private meetings) most of the old [♦]societies in London, I fear, are sunk into a dead formality, and have only a name to live. They meet on a sabbath evening, read a chapter, and sing a psalm; but seldom, if ever, acquaint each other with the operations of God’s spirit upon their souls; notwithstanding this was the great end and intention of those who first began these societies. Hence it is that they have only the form of godliness left amongst them, and continue utter strangers to the state of one another’s hearts. How love, or the power of religion can subsist in such a lukewarm and superficial way of proceeding, is very hard to conceive. My brethren, let not your coming together be thus altogether in vain, but plainly and freely tell one another what God has done for your souls. To this end, you would do well, as others have done, to form yourselves into little companies of four or five each, and meet once a week to tell each other what is in your hearts; that you may then also pray for and comfort each other, as need shall require. None but those that have experienced it can tell the unspeakable advantages of such a union and communion of souls. By this means, brotherly love will be excited and increased amongst you, and you will learn to watch over one another for good. This will teach you the better how to pray, and to give thanks for each other in your private retirement, and happily prevent and deliver you from many snares of the devil: for Satan loves that we should keep his temptations to ourselves, but cares not so much to meddle with those, who he knows will discover his devices to their brethren. Besides, this is a most effectual means for each to try the sincerity of his own heart, as well as another’s. No one, I think, that truly loves his own soul, and his brethren as himself, will be shy of opening his heart, in order to have their advice, reproof, admonition, and prayers, as occasions require. A sincere person will esteem it one of the greatest blessings; nor do I know a better means in the world to keep hypocrisy out from amongst you. Pharisees and unbelievers will pray, read, and sing psalms; but none, save an Israelite indeed, will endure to have his heart searched out. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

[♦] “societes” replaced with “societies”

Finally, my brethren, expect a large share of contempt; for Christ’s servants were always the world’s fools. “As for this sect or heresy, (said the Jews to Paul,) we know it is every where spoken against.” And Paul himself, before converted, had authority from the chief priests, to bring as many as he found of this way before them. Thus were the disciples of the Lord treated in the infancy of the church; and as it was formerly, so it is and will be now. In our days, to be a true christian, is really to become a scandal. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but if you are not of the world, and Christ has chosen you out of the world, for this very cause the world most assuredly will hate you. However it may seem strange to the natural man, yet there never was a true saint, who was not, like his Saviour, accounted beside himself. And they that will live godly in Christ Jesus, must to the end of time suffer persecution for his name’s sake.

But, God forbid, my brethren, that a little, nay, that all the contempt in the world, should anywise move you away from the stedfast profession of the hope of the gospel. Our Lord was despised before us; and you know the servant must not presume to be above his master. No; it is sufficient if he be as his master, “Made perfect through sufferings.” Be stedfast therefore, my brethren, quit yourselves like men, be strong; yea, “Be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.” Be not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, but follow your master without the camp, bearing his sacred reproach. When you are reviled, revile not again. Bless, my brethren, and curse not. Be subject to the higher power in all lawful things, and beware of all who would turn religion into faction. Remember again and again, that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal; and that it is our glory, when called to it, patiently to suffer for the truth’s sake.

Thus, my brethren, out of the fulness of my heart have I written unto you. Many of you I never yet saw, and perhaps never may see in the flesh; however, I love you in the bowels of Jesus Christ, and heartily beseech God to bless what I trust his spirit has now enabled me to write unto you.

You see, my brethren, I have confined myself to such particulars as relate to the improving your societies, and making them truly christian. I hope you will in like manner take heed to your ways in common life, and never give the adversary room justly, to speak reproachfully of your conduct. My brethren, the eyes of all men are upon you. Indeed it highly concerns you to walk exceedingly circumspect towards those that are without. I am sure you will not be offended, if, out of love, I remind you to perform all relative duties with the utmost cheerfulness, and with a single eye to the glory of God. Let your obedience be constant, universal and uniform, founded on a living faith in Christ Jesus, that by well-doing you may put to silence the slanders of foolish and evil men. Let your speech, and all your actions, manifest whose disciples you are. Confess your Lord publicly before men, and be not afraid to tell those that have ears to hear, what God has done for your souls. It is good to keep close the secrets of a king, but it is honourable to reveal the works of the Almighty. Above all things, my brethren, have fervent charity among yourselves. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. Be pitiful, be courteous, be tender-hearted; and let it be said of you as of the primitive saints, See how these christians love one another. Fulfil all righteousness, by constantly attending on every ordinance of God. Use, but not abuse the means of grace, by resting on them; knowing that “The kingdom of God is not meats and drinks, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” Think that day lost, wherein you do not make an advance in some of these. The work of regeneration, though instantaneous at first, is progressive afterwards. The seed sown in the heart must be continually watered, otherwise it will not grow into a great tree. I pray God therefore to sanctify you throughout, in spirit, soul and body, and preserve you blameless till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. Then all tears shall be wiped away from your eyes, and we shall spend an endless eternity in singing praises to him that sitteth upon the throne, even unto the Lamb for ever and ever. Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to preserve you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen!

A
LETTER
TO THE
INHABITANTS
OF
Maryland, Virginia, North and South-Carolina.

A
LETTER, &c.

Savannah, January 23, 1740.

AS I lately passed through your provinces, in my way hither, I was sensibly touched with a fellow-feeling of the miseries of the poor negroes. Could I have preached more frequently among you, I should have delivered my thoughts to you in my public discourses: but, as business here required me to stop as little as possible on the road, I have no other way to discharge the concern which at present lies upon my heart, than by sending you this letter. How you will receive it, I know not; whether you will accept it in love, or be offended with me, as the master of the damsel was with Paul for calling the evil spirit out of her, when he saw the hope of his gain was gone, is uncertain: but whatever be the event, I must inform you, in the meekness and gentleness of Christ, that I think God has a quarrel with you, for your abuse of and cruelty to the poor negroes. Whether it be lawful for christians to buy slaves, and thereby encourage the nations from whence they are brought to be at perpetual war with each other, I shall not take upon me to determine; but sure I am it is sinful, when bought, to use them as bad as, nay worse than brutes: and whatever particular exceptions there may be, (as I would charitably hope there are some) I fear the generality of you that own negroes, are liable to such a charge; for your slaves, I believe, work as hard, if not harder, than the horses whereon you ride.

These, after they have done their work, are fed and taken proper care of; but many negroes, when wearied with labour in your plantations, have been obliged to grind their own corn after they return home.

Your dogs are caressed and fondled at your tables; but your slaves, who are frequently stiled dogs or beasts, have not an equal privilege: they are scarce permitted to pick up the crumbs which fall from their masters tables; nay, some, as I have been informed by an eye-witness, have been, upon the most trifling provocation, cut with knives, and have had forks thrown into their flesh: not to mention what numbers have been given up to the inhuman usage of cruel task-masters, who by their unrelenting scourges have ploughed upon their backs, and made long furrows, and at length brought them even to death itself.

’Tis true, I hope, there are but few such monsters of barbarity suffered to subsist amongst you: some, I hear, have been lately executed in Virginia for killing slaves; and the laws are very severe against such who at any time murder them.

And perhaps it might be better for the poor creatures themselves, to be hurried out of life, than to be made so miserable as they generally are in it. And indeed, considering what usage they commonly meet with, I have wondered, that we have not more instances of self-murder among the negroes, or that they have not more frequently risen up in arms against their owners. Virginia has been once, and Charles-Town more than once, threatned in this way.

And though I heartily pray God, they may never be permitted to get the upper hand; yet, should such a thing be permitted by providence, all good men must acknowledge the judgment would be just. For is it not the highest ingratitude, as well as cruelty, not to let your poor slaves enjoy some fruits of their labour?

When passing along, whilst I have viewed your plantations cleared and cultivated, many spacious houses built, and the owners of them faring sumptuously every day, my blood has frequently almost run cold within me, to consider how many of your slaves had neither convenient food to eat, nor proper raiment to put on, notwithstanding most of the comforts you enjoy, were solely owing to their indefatigable labours. The scripture says, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.” Does God take care of oxen? And will he not take care of the negroes also? Undoubtedly he will. “Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.” Behold the provision of the poor negroes which have reaped down your fields, which is by you denied them, crieth, and the cries of them who reaped, are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. We have a remarkable instance of God’s taking cognisance, and avenging the quarrel, of poor slaves, 2 Samuel xxi. 1. “Then there was a famine in the days of David, three years, year after year; and David enquired of the Lord. And the Lord answered, It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.” Two things are here very remarkable; first, that these Gibeonites were only hewers of wood and drawers of water, or, in other words, slaves like yours. Secondly, that this plague was sent by God, many years after the injury, the cause of the plague, was committed. And for what end was this and such like examples recorded in holy scripture? Without doubt for our learning, upon whom the ends of the world are come: for God is the same to-day, as he was yesterday, and will continue the same for ever. He does not reject the prayer of the poor and destitute, nor disregard the cry of the meanest negroes: their blood which has been spilt, for these many years in your respective provinces, will ascend up to heaven against you; I wish I could say, it would speak better things than the blood of Abel. But this is not all. Enslaving or misusing their bodies, comparatively speaking, would be an inconsiderable evil, was proper care taken of their souls: but I have great reason to believe, that most of you on purpose keep your negroes ignorant of christianity; or otherwise, why are they permitted through your provinces openly to profane the Lord’s day, by their dancing, piping, and such like? I know the general pretence for this neglect of their souls, is, that teaching them christianity would make them proud, and consequently unwilling to submit to slavery. But what a dreadful reflection is this upon your holy religion? What blasphemous notions must those have, that make such an objection, of the precepts of christianity! Do you find any one command in the gospel, that has the least tendency to make people forget their relative duties? Do you not read, that servants, and as many as are under the yoke of bondage, are required to be subject in all lawful things to their masters, and that not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward? Nay, may not I appeal to your own hearts, whether deviating from the laws of Jesus Christ, is not the cause of all the evils and miseries mankind now universally groan under, and of all the vices we find both in ourselves and others? Certainly it is. And therefore the reason why servants generally prove so bad is, because so little care is taken to breed them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. But some will be so bold perhaps as to reply, “That a few of the negroes have been taught christianity, and notwithstanding have been remarkably worse than others.” But what christianity were they taught? They were baptized, and taught to read and write: and this they may do, and much more, and yet be far from the kingdom of God; for there is a vast difference between civilizing and christianizing a negroe. A black as well as a white man, may be civilized by outward restraints, and afterwards break through those restraints again; but I challenge the world to produce a single instance of a negroe’s being made a thorough christian, and thereby made a worse servant; it cannot be. But further, if the teaching slaves christianity has such a bad influence upon their lives, why are you generally desirous of having your children taught? Think you, they are any way better by nature, than the poor negroes? No, in nowise. Blacks are just as much, and no more, conceived and born in sin, as white men are: both, if born and bred up here, I am persuaded are naturally capable of the same improvement. And as for the grown negroes, I am apt to think, whenever the gospel is preached with power amongst them, that many will be brought effectually home to God. Your present and past bad usage of them, however ill-designed, may thus far do them good, as to break their wills, increase the sense of their natural misery, and consequently better dispose their minds to accept the redemption wrought out for them by the death and obedience of Jesus Christ. Not long since, God hath been pleased to make some of the negroes in New-England, vessels of mercy; and some, I hear, have been brought to cry out “What shall we do to be saved?” in the province of Pensylvania. Doubtless there is a time, when the fulness of the Gentiles will come in and then, I believe, if not before, these despised slaves will find the gospel of Christ to be the power of God to their salvation, as well as we. But I know, all arguments to prove the necessity of taking care of your negroes souls, though never so conclusive, will prove ineffectual, till you are convinced of the necessity of securing the salvation of your own. That you yourselves are not effectually convinced of this, I think is too notorious to want evidence. A general deadness as to divine things, and not to say a general profaneness, is discernible both in pastors and people.

Most of you are without any teaching priest. And whatever quantity of rum there may be, yet I fear but very few bibles are annually imported into your different provinces. God has already begun to visit for this, as well as for other wicked things. For near two years last past, he has been in a remarkable manner contending with the people of South-Carolina: their houses have been depopulated with the small pox and fever, and their own slaves have risen up in arms against them. These judgments are undoubtedly sent abroad, not only that the inhabitants of that, but of other provinces, should learn righteousness: and unless you all repent, you all must in like manner expect to perish. God first generally corrects us with whips: if that will not do, he must chastise us with scorpions. A foreign enemy is now threatning to invade you; and nothing will more provoke God, to give you up as a prey into their teeth, than impenitence and unbelief. Let these be removed, and the sons of violence shall not be able to hurt you: no; your oxen shall be strong to labour; there shall be no decay of your people by epidemical sickness; no leading away into captivity from abroad; and no complaining in your streets at home. Your sons shall grow up as young plants, and your daughters be as the polished corners of the temple: and, to sum up all blessings in one, “Then shall the Lord be your God.” That you may be the people who are in such a happy case, is the earnest prayer of,

Your sincere well-wisher and servant in Christ,

G. W.

A
LETTER
TO SOME
CHURCH-MEMBERS
OF THE
Presbyterian Persuasion,
IN ANSWER TO
Certain Scruples lately proposed, in proper Queries raised on each Remark.

A
LETTER, &c.

New-York, November 1, 1740.

My dear Friends,

LAST night and this morning I read your queries and scruples. Whether they were compiled by church-members, or ministers of the presbyterian persuasion, I shall not take upon me to determine. I think I may say with David, though on another occasion, “Joab’s hand is in this.” If your ministers were really the authors, and you only their representatives, they have not acted simply. They had better have spoken out. I should as readily have answered them as you. Solomon says, “He that hateth reproof, is brutish.” And if I know any thing of my own heart, I should think myself obliged to any one that convinces me of an error, either in principle or practice. I therefore assure you, that I do not find the least resentment stirring in my soul against those (whoever they be) that proposed the queries, or against the reverend presbytery that advised you to send them to me in a public manner: no, I rejoice in it; because it gives me an opportunity of doing what my friends know I have for some time proposed, the correcting some passages in my printed sermons. I think it no dishonour, to retract some expressions that formerly dropped from my pen, before God was pleased to give me a more clear knowledge of the doctrines of grace. St. Austin, I think, did so before me. The Lord’s dealing with me was somewhat out of the common way. I can say, to the honour of rich free distinguishing grace, that I received the Spirit of adoption before I had conversed with one man, or read a single book, on the doctrine of “Free justification by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.” No wonder then, that I was not so clear in some points at my first setting out in the ministry. Our Lord was pleased to enlighten me by degrees; and I desire your prayers, that his grace may shine more and more in my heart, till it breaks forth into perfect day.

But to come to the exceptionable passages in my sermons. You blame me for saying,

Volume II. page 17. “That Adam was adorned with all the perfections of the Deity.” It is a wrong expression: I would correct it thus: “All the moral communicable perfections of the Deity.” Again, “Man was the perfection of the moral and material world: let it stand thus: “The perfection of all the visible world.”

Volume II. page 22 and 23. “Washes the guilt of sin away by the tears of a sincere repentance, joined with faith in the blood of Jesus Christ.” This is false divinity: I would now alter it thus: “Recovers his former peace, by renewing his acts of faith on the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.”

Volume I. page 79. “And which alone can render any of our actions acceptable in God’s sight.” It should be, “And without which, any of our actions cannot be acceptable in God’s sight.”

Volume I. page 16. “Who vainly depend on their own righteousness, and not on the righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed to, and inherent in them, as necessary for their eternal salvation.” To avoid all mistakes, I would express myself in this manner, “Who have neither Christ’s righteousness imputed to them, for their justification in the fight, nor holiness wrought in their souls as the consequence of that, in order to make them meet for the enjoyment of God.”

Volume I. page 7. For, “To qualify us for being savingly in Christ,” read, “To qualify us for living eternally with Christ.”

The seeming contradiction in my sermon, Volume II. page 128. compared with page 137. I think may be reconciled by that passage of the Apostle, “After you believed, you were sealed by the Spirit of promise.” Your arguing on this head, page 21. section vii. I think is not so clear. Might you not as reasonably have blamed Jesus Christ for saying to a dead man, “Lazarus, come forth?” However, instead of quickening Spirit, volume II. page 137. let it be read, “sanctifying Spirit.”

Volume II. page 33. “The man Christ Jesus is spiritually formed in your hearts.” I would alter it thus, “That Christ is formed within you.”

Volume I. page 53. “The many souls that are nourished weekly by the spiritual body and blood of Jesus Christ by your means.” Let it be altered for these words, “Nourished weekly at the Lord’s supper by your means.”

I see no reason to alter my explanation of the words, “Baptizing them into the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;” and, “Christ spiritually conceived in the heart of Eve:” I mean no more by these expressions than the Apostle, when he says, “Know ye not that Christ is in you, unless you be reprobates?” And again, “No one can call Christ, Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” And again, “We are made partakers of a divine nature.” Volume II. page 128. these words [in the Lord’s prayer] may be left out: though, if the word name signifies God’s attributes, according to your own confession, why may it not signify his essence? What are God’s attributes but God himself?

Volume I. page 14. After, “essential ones too,” insert, “if persons are capable of performing them.”

These, if I mistake not, are all the passages in my sermons, which you object against. And now to convince you, that I am not ashamed to own my faults, I can inform you of other passages as justly exceptionable. In my sermon on justification, I seem to assert universal redemption, which I now absolutely deny. In my almost christian, I talk of works procuring us so high a crown. In my sermon on the marks of the new-birth, I say, “We shall endure to the end, if we continue so”. These, and perhaps some other passages, though capable of a candid interpretation, I now dislike; and in the next edition of my sermons, God willing, I propose to alter them. In the mean while, I shall be thankful to any that will point out my errors; and I promise, by divine assistance, they shall have no reason to say, “That I am one who hates to be reformed.” “Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness; and let him reprove me, and it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities.”

As for your insinuating, that I countenance Mr. Wesley in his errors, it is no such thing. I prefaced Halyburton’s Memoirs before I saw what Mr. Wesley had written; and since I have seen it, have more than once said, “If I had known what Mr. Wesley had written, I would not have prefaced Halyburton at all. I do not understand Mr. Wesley in his interpretation of these words, “He that is born again of God, sinneth not;” and therefore have torn off that part of his preface, out of several of those books which I have given away lately, and have acquainted him in what I think in this particular he errs, by sundry letters.

You wrong me, if you think I am an Antinomian. For when I say, “God made no second covenant with Adam,” I mean no more than this: “God made no second covenant with Adam in his own person in behalf of his posterity; nor did man’s acceptance in the sight of God, after the fall, depend, either wholly or in part, on his works, as before the fall.” Whoever reads the author of The Whole Duty of Man, will find he thinks otherwise; and I believe your friends in Scotland will not thank you for defending that book, as you seemingly have done in your late queries.

Your objections, concerning my favourable opinion of some particular quakers that I have conversed with; and also about some particular promises, which I think have been made me, you may find satisfied in my “Answer to the Bishop of London’s last Pastoral Letter,” and in a “Letter to the Bishop of Gloucester.”

I am no friend to casting lots; but I believe, on extraordinary occasions, when things can be determined no other way, God, if appealed to, and waited on by prayer and fasting, will answer by lot now, as well as formerly.

Do not condemn me for preaching extempore, and for saying, I am helped often immediately in that exercise; when thousands can prove, as well as myself, that it has been so. Neither should you censure me as one that would lay aside reading. I am of Bishop Sanderson’s mind: “Study without prayer, is atheism; prayer without study, presumption.” Blame not me, for the warmth of some of my adherents, as you call them. One of your ministers knows, how sharply I rebuked one of them for his warmth, at Forks-Manor. I am for loving as brethren, and wish all would copy after the lowly Jesus. But then I cannot discommend those (supposing they do it in the spirit of meekness) who exclaim against dry, sapless, unconverted ministers. Such surely are the bane of the christian church. But my other affairs will not permit me to enlarge.

Some of the latter part of your queries, for your own, and not my own sake, I shall not mention. I hope I can say with more sincerity than Hazael, “Is your servant a dog, that he should do” what you suggest! But I pray God to forgive you. He knows my heart. My one design is to bring poor souls to Jesus Christ. I desire to avoid extremes, so as not to be a bigot on the one hand, or confound order and decency on the other. And I could heartily wish the reverend presbytery, when they advised you to publish your queries, had also cautioned you against dipping your pen in so much gall. Surely your insinuations are contrary to that charity, which hopeth and believeth all things for the best. And I appeal to your own hearts, whether it was right, especially since you heard the constant tenor of my preaching in America has been calvinistical, to censure me as a Papist or Arminian, because a few unguarded expressions dropped from my pen, just as I came from the university of Oxford. Could Archbishop Tillotson, or the Author of The Whole Duty of Man, say so? But I have done. The Lord be with you! I am a poor frail creature. And as such I beseech you to pray for

Your affectionate friend and servant,

George Whitefield.

A
LETTER
To the Reverend
Mr. JOHN WESLEY:
In Answer to his
SERMON,
ENTITULED
FREE-GRACE.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the Face, because he was to be blamed.

Galatians ii. 11.

A
LETTER
TO THE
Rev. Mr. John Wesley.

PREFACE.

I AM very well aware, what different effects the publishing this Letter against the dear Mr. Wesley’s Sermon will produce. Many of my friends, that are strenuous advocates for universal Redemption, will immediately be offended. Many that are zealous on the other side, will be much rejoiced. They that are luke-warm 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,
December 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 other’s souls, I must not stand neuter 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 shew also my opinion; I must then shew, 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, 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 indispensible 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 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 questioned, as I do now, whether in so doing, you did not tempt the Lord. A due exercise of religious prudence, without 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, it was not, 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 the sermon whilst I was in England; but 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, 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 forwards to London. You left a letter behind you, in which were words to this effect. “When I saw 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 surprized. 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 the first book of Kings, chapter 13. was powerfully impressed upon my soul, where we are told, “That the Prophet was slain by a lion, that 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 indispensibly 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 calling a lot in the manner you did, could lay you under an indispensible 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 chuse a text to disprove the doctrine of election, out of the 8th of the Romans, where this doctrine is so plainly asserted, that once talking with a quaker upon this subject, 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 eighth of the Romans, 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.” 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 that does not know you, would suspect you yourself was sensible of this: for after the first paragraph, I scarce know whether you have mentioned it 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, “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 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, which 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 the 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 any one hold election in any other sense? And if so, how is preaching needless to them that are elected; when the gospel is designed 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?

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.”

[♦] “cryed” replaced with “cried”

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 to-day, but take no thought for, or are not assured they shall be in him to-morrow, 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 surprize 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 hopes 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 deficits 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;” we are sure that this will be the case of all the children of God. The universal experience and acknowledgment 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 Ghost condemns the persons who say they have no sin, as deceiving themselves, as being destitute of the truth, and making God a liar, 1 John i. 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 any thing 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, page 15, paragraph 16, “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, that 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 no, the word of God abides faithful. “The election has obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”

Your 17th paragraph, page 16, I pass over. What has been said on paragraph the 9th and 10th, with a little alteration will answer it. I shall only say, it is the doctrine of election that mostly presses me to abound in good works. I am made 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, paragraph 18, page 17, “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, Isaiah liii. 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, 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 [♦]Ascalon, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice, lest the sons of unbelief should triumph!”

[♦] “Askelon” replaced with “Ascalon”

Further, you say, page 18, paragraph 19, “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 shew 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 shews 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 mercy 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.” 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.” 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, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and have compassion on whom I will have compassion,” Romans ix. 15. Exodus xxxiii. 19.

Further, in page 19, you represent us as inferring from the text, “The children not being yet born, neither having done 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 (unto Rebecca), The elder shall serve the younger; that our predestination to life no ways depends on the fore-knowledge of God.” But who infers this, dear Sir? For if fore-knowledge signifies approbation, as it does in several parts of scripture, then we confess that predestination and election do depend on God’s fore-knowledge. But if by God’s fore-knowledge, you understand God’s fore-seeing some good works done by his creatures as the foundation or reason of chusing them, and therefore electing them, then we say, that in this sense, predestination does not any way depend on God’s fore-knowledge. 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 Cole 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, &c.” or with our Lord, when he was admiring God’s sovereignty, “Even so Father, for so it seemeth good in thy sight.”

However, it may not be amiss to take notice, that if those texts, “God willeth that none should perish,” “I have no pleasure in him that dieth,” 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 farther, 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, page 20, “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, that you may be brought to read such treatises, which, under God, would shew you your error. You cannot make good the assertion, “That Christ died for them that perish,” without holding (as Peter Boehler, 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 without 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, John xvii. and not for the world. For these, 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 an 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, because not 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 mean while, 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 shew 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,

Your affectionate, though unworthy brother and servant in Christ,

George Whitefield.

A
VINDICATION
AND
CONFIRMATION
OF THE
Remarkable Work of GOD
IN
NEW-ENGLAND.

BEING

Some Remarks on a late Pamphlet, entitled, “The State of Religion in New-England, since the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield’s Arrival there.”

In a Letter to a Minister of the Church of Scotland.

A
VINDICATION, &c.

Cambuslang, August 31, 1742.

Reverend and dear Sir,

I HAVE read the pamphlet entitled, “The State of Religion in New-England, since the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield’s arrival there, in a letter from a gentleman in New-England to his friend in Glasgow.” I think the contents no way answer the title page. It rather ought to be intitled, The State of Religion falsely stated. For I am persuaded, some things are therein asserted, without sufficient evidence to prove them, and many more things falsely represented, and set in a wrong light: the design of the pamphlet itself is base and wicked. It is intended, if possible, to eclipse the late great and glorious work, begun and carried on for some time in New-England; to invalidate the testimonies that have been given of it, and thereby of consequence to bring a reproach upon, and to hinder the spreading of a like glorious work, which God of his infinite mercy has for some time been carrying on in this land. Give me leave to send you a few observations upon this anonymous pamphlet. I call it anonymous, because the publisher has not thought proper to put down the name of the writer of the first letter Mr. A. M. at length, which I think he was bound in duty to do. The publisher indeed, in the advertisement prefixed to the letter, tells us, “The reader may depend upon it, that the following letter is genuine, from a gentleman who hath always had a good character for sound understanding, integrity, sobriety of manners, piety; and, notwithstanding his engagements in secular affairs, has never been an unconcerned spectator of any thing that might affect the state of religion.” But I must beg the publisher’s pardon, if I tell him, that I am one of those readers who cannot depend upon all this, merely upon his desiring me to do so. For really there is one thing in the letter which makes me shrewdly suspect that the letter itself is not genuine, at least that there has been some additions made to it since it came to Scotland. For the supposed writer of this letter, page 15, says, “In the preface to the sermon published by Mr. Edwards of Northampton, which I see is reprinted among you.” Now how this gentleman could see at Boston, May 24, that Mr. Edwards’s sermon was reprinted in Scotland, which was not done till the June following, I know not. If it be said, that by the words among you he means in Britain, I see that the printed advertisement in the London Weekly History, of the publication of Mr. Edwards’s sermon in England, is dated May 1, and says, “This day is published.” I myself was one that was chiefly concerned in publishing of it. I sent the first copy to Scotland, and to my certain knowledge it was never published in Britain till May 1. Is it probable that people at Boston should know of this May 24? What a character this gentleman has always had for “sound understanding, integrity, sobriety of manners and piety,” I will not take upon me to determine, nor does the publisher give us opportunity to know what character the gentleman really has had, since he does not publish his name: but however that be, I fear he has forfeited his good character “for sound understanding, integrity and piety,” by writing this letter. And though he may not be altogether an “unconcerned spectator of any thing that might affect religion,” yet I fear he has been so taken up with “his engagements in secular affairs,” that he hath not given himself sufficient time to enquire into matters of fact, but has heard with others ears, and seen with others eyes, and has not himself attended as he ought, to the one thing needful.

He says in the beginning of his letter, page the 3d, “I am sorry you have had such accounts of persons, and things, transmitted you from this country, as you mention in your letter; they are far from being true, and must come from men of narrow minds, and great bigotry, or from such as basely affect popularity, or from well-meaning weak christians, of little knowledge of human nature, or the history of mankind.” What accounts this gentleman refers to I know not. If he means the accounts in the Weekly History, as I suppose he does; I think this gentleman is sadly mistaken. Most of the accounts were transmitted by the honourable Mr. Williard, secretary of the province. The Rev. Dr. Colman, the Rev. Mr. Cooper, the Rev. Mr. Prince: persons I am intimately acquainted with, and who are by no means “Men of narrow minds, great bigotry, or little knowledge of human nature, or the history of mankind: but have deservedly had a good character for sound understanding, integrity, sobriety of manners and piety:” Some of these were honoured several years ago with degrees, by the university of Glasgow, upon recommendation from the Honourable society at Edinburgh for Propagating Christian Knowledge; of which society several of the most intelligent gentlemen in the nation are members: such honours were done to Messrs. Colman, Prince, and Cooper.

Now whether they, or this anonymous writer, are to be most credited, I leave any reasonable man to judge. Indeed he boldly asserts, “That these accounts are not true:” but what proofs does he bring of the falsity of them? None at all. Let us but know who this writer is, I am persuaded my honoured friends at Boston, will soon bring him to the test of these assertions.

He goes on thus “Indeed some persons of very good sense were once inclined to think God was doing wonders in this place.” (Boston) And I am persuaded these very same persons have not altered their opinion yet, but actually believe that God has done wonders; if turning people from darkness to light, and making them new creatures, is doing wonders.

“But that was a time when a superstitious panic ran very high, and bore down every body that was not well fixed and established; either by a natural steadiness of temper, or by strong reasoning and reflections. But as soon as the passions of the people subsided, and men could coolly and calmly consider, almost every one of but tolerable sense and understanding in religious matters, in great measure changed their opinions of the spirit that prevailed here, and had been raised by Whitefield and Tennent.”

What had been raised by Mr. Whitefield and Tennent? God forbid! that either Mr. Tennent or I should ascribe any of that work to ourselves. No, it was raised by the Holy Spirit of God. It was no superstitious panic, but a plentiful effusion of the Holy Ghost. It’s true, it did run high; glory be to God for it! and did bear down every body, except those who would not submit to the Redeemer’s scepter, through self-righteousness and unbelief; which I am afraid this writer terms, natural steadiness of temper, strong reasoning and reflection. Nor is it true that “Almost every one of but tolerable understanding in religious matters, in a great measure have changed their opinions of the spirit that prevailed at that time.” No, dear Sir, they yet believe it to be a glorious work of God, as is evident from the late writings of some of these eminent ministers in New-England, just mentioned.

What the writer says of me in the following paragraph, page 4th, is not worthy notice. He is welcome to make as free with my character as he pleases, and I freely forgive him. However I thank him for doing me the justice to say, “That I collected money for the Orphan-house in Georgia.” It was not then for myself; nor does he charge me with embezzelling the 5 or 600 l. He could not do this justly, because before the writing of this letter, an account came to Boston how I had expended it. And as for being “A bold and importunate beggar,” I acknowledge I learned that from the wise Man, who tells me, “Whatever thou findest in thy hand to do, do it with all thy might;” and from the apostle Paul, who in the second epistle to the Corinthians, chapter viii. 9. shews himself to be the most bold, insinuating and importunate beggar for pious uses, that I ever yet met with.

I think I am much obliged to the writer, for what he says concerning me in this respect. But I wish he had not made so free with the character of my honoured friends. He cries out against slander in others, and at the same time, through the whole letter, he is guilty of the most palpable slander himself. He is pretty favourable to the Rev. Mr. Webb, and the Rev. Mr. Cooper of Boston. He only calls them, page the 7th, “Two great admirers of Whitefield and Tennent, flaming zealots for certain favourite opinions and tenets.” And so indeed they are, blessed champions, I know them well, for certain favourite opinions, and tenets of the church of Scotland; such as original sin, the imputed righteousness of Christ, election, and other glorious gospel truths. But as for Mr. Tennent, he seems quite angry with him.

Never was a man more wrongfully represented. This letter-writer says, “He has often heard, that Mr. Tennent had always been remarkable in the Jerseys, for his uncharitable and divisive courses.” But does the hearing of this, prove the truth of it. I have the happiness of being personally and very intimately acquainted with Mr. Tennent. I scarce know a man of a more catholic spirit. “He is a man of no learning.” His writings prove the contrary. His antagonists abroad dare not say they have found him so. “His great business in his sermons is either to puzzle, or to fright the hearers, but especially the last, which he did by roaring out, and bellowing hell and damnation, devils, and all the dreadful words he could think of.” Indeed, to the honour of the grace of God be it spoken, he is a son of thunder, especially in his application, and when he is preaching the law; at such times, under him, people cannot easily sleep: but withal, he is a workman that needs not be ashamed, and is taught of God rightly to divide the word of truth. As for puzzling his hearers, I fear that Mr. A. M. thinks he did so, because he generally insists much on the new birth, imputed righteousness, divine faith, and the other peculiar doctrines of the gospel. These things are all foolishness to the natural man, and puzzled Nicodemus himself, when discoursed with by our blessed Lord, John iii. 9. “Nicodemus answered and said unto him, how can these things be?” Again, “ministers in general, he calls carnal, unconverted, blind-leaders of the blind, rational, moral, dry, husky preachers, that were leading the people to hell.” I suppose Mr. Tennent said, “That carnal blind preachers who preach morality without due regard to gospel grace and motives; who do not preach justification by faith, and regeneration, they who do not preach Christ as all in all, were blind-leaders of the blind, and were leading the people to hell.” But it is absurd to suppose he thought that all ministers in general were such. I know a great body of ministers, of whom he thinks most highly. But, “He exhorted people to leave them, and to go about exhorting one another, and telling their experiences.” This I cannot believe is truly represented; for I have now a letter by me published by Mr. Tennent, against persons going about in the character of exhorters; but if they only exhorted christians not to forsake the assembling of themselves together, to provoke one another to love, and good works, and to tell one another what God had done for their souls, he did no more than what every gospel minister should do. He says, “He was followed by all sorts of people.” This I think was a proof that he was of a catholic spirit, and not of a divisive uncharitable temper. “As much as Whitefield was.” And I pray God he may be followed a thousand times more. “And by many preferred to him.” Very justly. “He was most censorious and uncharitable; every one that was not exactly of his mind he damn’d without mercy.” This is calumny indeed. I know many ministers who do not think as Mr. Tennent does in all respects; whom he notwithstanding highly values. But I suppose the writer was angry with him, because he pronounced all in a state of condemnation that were not born again, and that did not believe in, and lay hold on the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. His master authorizes him to pronounce such a sentence, “He that believeth not shall be damn’d.”

Again, “His sermons were sometimes as confused and senseless as you can imagine.” It is well they were not always so. “He seemed to have a particular quarrel with reason, learning and morality; for he seldom finished a sermon without saying something against them.” Never I believe, but when these things are magnified to the prejudice of divine revelation, illumination, or of Christ’s imputed righteousness: for Mr. Tennent is a solid, learned, rational, and not only a moral, but true holy man. The Rev. Doctor Colman, in a letter to me published in the first weekly paper printed at Glasgow, writes thus of him: “We received him just as we did you, as an angel of Christ. He was abundant and fervent in labours, and God has been pleased to own his labours with abundant success.” The honourable and truly pious Secretary Williard, writes thus: “There has been so evidently the finger of God in directing you into this province, and after your departure, the Rev. Mr. Tennent, through your earnest and importunate request to him, and in the wonderful success that has attended both his and your ministry, as also the labours of our own ministers for some months past; that many who like not the work, are sadly put to it, to keep their eyes shut against the evidences thereof.”

The Rev. Mr. Cooper, in a letter printed in the Weekly History, No. 2d, (which the printer has mistaken for Colman,) calls him, “Dear Mr. Tennent. He came,” says he, “in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel indeed. He was with us several months. Many thousands were awakened, and I believe many truly converted. There is quite another face of religion in this town, as well as in many places in the country. Many ministers as well as people are greatly quickened. Blessed be God, who put it into your heart to move him to come, and inclined his heart to come, and help us.” I could bring a cloud of witnesses to testify the falseness of the character given to Mr. Gilbert Tennent by this letter-writer. The account which he gives of himself to me in a letter published in the Weekly History, No. __ is admirably sweet: his book, intitled, The Presumptuous Sinner detected, and his many printed sermons, and his preface to his deceased brother’s treatise upon the New Birth, which is now in the country (and which I would recommend) shew him to be a man of great learning, solidity, and piety. And I am not without some distant hopes, that the people of Scotland will have an opportunity of hearing him ere long, and then they may judge for themselves.

After such a false and scandalous character given of that great man of God Mr. Gilbert Tennent, I think I may justly suspect the truth of all that this writer says in the subsequent part of the letter. From such a letter-writer as this, what truth can we expect?

The writer himself gives me leave to speak in this manner. For he seems to make the validity of what follows, to depend on the character he gave of me and Mr. Tennent, page the 6th, “From such men as these (Whitefield and Tennent) and such doctrines and ways of preaching as theirs, what fruit can you expect”? Now all he says about me is, “That I collected in New-England 5 or 600l. sterling for the Orphan-house in Georgia: that I was a bold and importunate beggar,” &c. This could have no influence upon the people’s minds, to raise a bad spirit among the people. And as for the character he gives of Mr. Tennent, I have proved it to be absolutely false: consequently, whatever he builds upon the foundation of Mr. Tennent’s bad character, amounts to nothing at all, since he has not proved the character given of him to be true.

But suppose Mr. Tennent was the man he is represented to be, does it therefore follow that all the great and glorious work carried on in New-England, by other ministers, and in other places where Mr. Tennent and I never were, is enthusiasm and delusion? By no means; and yet this is the whole drift of the pamphlet.

Surely the writer knows not what spirit he is of. In the 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10th pages, he represents things in a most ridiculous dress, and takes upon him to condemn all the converts, to a man, (though he could not possibly be acquainted with the hundredth part of them,) as “Self-conceited, superstitious, enthusiastic, censorious, slanderous.” At the same time he seems to ridicule the concern which the people were under when they were brought to cry out, “What shall we do to be saved.” He laughs at them for asking one another “How do you feel? have you seen Christ?” He boldly asserts, that “the boasted converts, not one in a hundred excepted, make religion consist, in the feeling of inward impulses, impressions, and in an inexplicable faith, joys, extasies, hearing of sermons, and such like.” In short, he by this and the whole drift of his letter, seems to me to be far from deserving the character given of him, in the advertisement affixed to the title-page of the pamphlet.

Page the 11th, he falls foul of Mr. Moorhead, and speaks almost as freely of him as of Mr. Tennent. I cannot say I was very intimate with Mr. Moorhead when at Boston: but the letters that have lately come from him, and from others concerning him, bespeak him to be a man of a good spirit, and one whom God has blessed with abundant success. And I have great reason to believe that he is a man not over credulous: because I have heard from his friends here, that he did not overmuch favour the work of God that was at Northampton in New-England some years ago, and therefore probably, would not readily favour the late work in Boston and other parts, had he not sufficient evidence that it was a work of God.

Page 14th, The letter writer takes upon him to assert, “That a pamphlet published in Scotland, intitled, Christ riding in the Chariot of Salvation, is stuffed with abominable lies.” As a proof of it, he urges, “That the students in Boston, got nothing by Whitefield and Tennent but enthusiasm, pride, a contempt of their betters, &c.” What they got by me I know not; but I have great reason to believe they got something that was good, under God, by Mr. Tennent; for Dr. Colman, in a letter to me, which was printed in the Glasgow Weekly History, No. 1, writes, “At Cambridge the college is entirely changed; the students are full of God, will I hope come out blessings in their generation, and I trust are so now to each other. Many of them are now, we think, truly born again, and several of them happy instruments of conversion to their fellows. The voice of prayer and praise fills their chambers; and sincerity, fervency, and joy, with seriousness of heart, sit visibly on their faces. I was told yesterday that not seven of a hundred remain unaffected. I know how the good tidings of this will affect and please you. God give you like joy every where in the fruit of your labours.”

And the honourable Secretary Williard about the same time writes to me thus: “But that which forebodes a more lasting advantage, is the new face of things at the college, where the impressions of religion have been, and still are very general, and many in a judgment of charity brought home to Christ; and divers gentlemen’s sons, that were sent there only for a more polite education, are now so full of zeal for the cause of Christ, and of love to souls, as to devote themselves entirely to the studies of divinity.”

In the same page he would fain tax Mr. Gilbert Tennent with a lie; for it was he wrote the account in the Weekly History, No. 1. Says he, “It is said, when Mr. Gilbert Tennent preached at Marblehead and Charles-Town, his voice had like to have been drowned with their outcries.” But he mistakes, it is not said so: for I have searched narrowly into the pamphlet and weekly history, and find no mention of an outcry, but only a great shock given at Marblehead. It was at Portsmouth. Mr. Gilbert Tennent writing to his brother says, “That there were at Portsmouth and Charles-Town, in time of sermon, such outcries that his voice had like to have been drowned.” I think Mr. Tennent is the best judge of what he heard with his own ears. Mr. A. M.’s living near Charles-Town, and having never heard a word of this from the minister with whom he frequently conversed, is no proof it was not so. It might have been so, and yet not come into the minister’s mind to tell Mr. A. M. of it.

In the same page, he finds fault with the accounts given of some young children “who talked of the things of God as if they were people of 70 or 80 years. Alas! how easily are mankind deceived! How fond are they to impose on themselves and others! Some of these I have conversed with:” but did he converse with all, or with these mentioned in the pamphlet? If not, how can he urge this as another lie in the pamphlet? I take Mr. Abercromby, who sent the account of the children, and who is a preacher of good character, to be a better judge of the matter than Mr. A. M. But this anonymous letter-writer, seems resolved to condemn every thing in the gross. Indeed he speaks favourably of the church of England. “I must do justice, says he, to the church of England,” page 16. “There are three congregations of that way in Boston: they all live in love and peace; their ministers speak against enthusiasm and bigotry every day; not above three or four at most, of some thousands that are of the episcopal persuasion, are taken with this new-light (as they call it); they all, says he, stand fast to the church, and their numbers increase very fast.”

One would imagine, by this, Mr. A. M. is a church of England man, and it should seem a bigoted one too: and then no wonder he speaks against the new-light. Their ministers I believe do preach against what I fear he terms enthusiasm, “The powerful feeling operations of the Holy Ghost.” But I cannot think they preach so much against bigotry. For in a conference I held with all three of those ministers in Boston, the head of them, to prove that we ought all to be of the church of England, brought this text, “That they may be all one, even as thou O father and I are one.” They assert baptismal regeneration, deny perseverance, and free justification by faith without works, and seem to think of Mr. Gilbert Tennent just as this letter-writer does. No wonder then he is so friendly to them.

But why should I say more? it would be endless, as well as take up too much of my precious time to be more particular in my observations upon Mr. A. M.’s letter. There are some matters of fact mentioned in it, such as “a blind lad’s preaching in Connecticut, page 12. Mr. D——’s manner of preaching in a hot day, page 13,” and some other things, which I cannot take upon me to make replies to, and which, if true, will by no means prove the late work of God in New-England to be only enthusiasm and delusion. Ere long I hope to see Boston. Then I will endeavour to send an impartial account. Indeed Mr. A. M. page 17. seems not to care for my return to Boston. But I hope to have a prosperous journey to them in some months, by the will of God, and see how they do.

In the mean while, give me leave to observe, that the publishers of this pamphlet (for I believe there are more than one concerned in it) have almost saved me the trouble, and have taken an effectual way to confute themselves. For they have annexed to this letter, an “Appendix, containing proofs for the facts in the foregoing letter, extracted from sermons preached by some of the most eminent ministers in New-England, lately printed at Boston.” But these extracts by no means contain proofs of all the facts recorded in the foregoing letter, consequently all the facts in the letter which are not proved by these extracts, we have reason to doubt of. I have not an opportunity of getting all the sermons of the reverend ministers mentioned in the title page: but it grieved me, when I saw extracts taken out of their writings to prove, that the work lately begun and carried on in New-England was enthusiasm and delusion. This was the chief reason of my writing you this letter; it will grieve them to hear that their writings have been used to so bad a purpose. The compilers of the pamphlet have dealt with their sermons, as the devil dealt with the scripture, when he tempted our Lord in the wilderness; I mean, marred and wholly misapplied them. The publishers stile them, at the head of the appendix, some of the most eminent ministers in New-England; and depend much upon their authority, to prove the facts of Mr. A. M.’s letter. And I desire no other authority than these very eminent ministers sermons, out of which the extracts are taken, to prove that the work lately begun and carried on in New-England is not enthusiasm and delusion, but a great and marvellous work of the Spirit of God.

The compilers, indeed, in order to make the world believe they had been impartial, have published a sentence or two, wherein Dr. Colman has written favourably of the Orphan-house in Georgia, and says, “the order of it is admirable, &c.” but this is only a disguise. For they have been far from acting fair in this respect. The Doctor complains in the P. S. of that letter, page 44. that “some of my friends have made too free with my letters in printing only part of them, and mixing them with parts of others without distinction.” I think it is my duty to take all the blame from off my friends, upon myself, as to printing only parts of his letters; for I was the only person concerned; but as for mixing them with others, without distinction, I know nothing of it. The letters were sent to me from the Doctor. I thought it would be improper to publish any other parts of the Doctor’s letters than what respected the success of the glorious gospel, and that I thought he would gladly have published: but if the Doctor found fault with my friends; I am sure he justly may blame these compilers who have published only part of this letter of his. One would have thought they should have taken a caution from this very P. S. But they were afraid, as it would seem, of the contents of it; for a friend who has seen and read the whole letter, sends me the following extract out of it. “I hope we are retrenching our superfluity and luxury; our young people have thrown by much of their finery and gaiety, and seem to have eye and heart on things spiritual and heavenly; and if God build them up into families, with their present prudent pious dispositions, it promises greatly for the next generation, that glory will dwell in our land, and his work appear to children’s children.” And in that very part of it they have printed, the Doctor says enough to overthrow the whole design of the pamphlet, page 42. “All this notwithstanding, there has been a great and glorious work of God going on among us, from the day of Mr. Whitefield’s visit to us.” I have a sermon of the Doctor’s now before me, intitled, “The word of God magnified by him,” preached April 22, 1742, “wherein his testimony is humbly given for the great and wondrous work of God’s grace manifest in many parts of the land.” The last paragraph of that sermon begins thus, “I close with giving glory to God, for the great and good work of his grace which he hath so visibly begun, spread, and is carrying on in every part almost of our provinces.” This very sermon I believe has been in the hands of the compilers of this pamphlet. How then could they be so bare-faced, and so injurious, to the good man’s character, as to print any part of his letter, to subserve so base a design? I believe they will not have the Doctor’s thanks for this.

The like treatment they have given the Rev. Mr. Turell, another of the eminent ministers, from whom they have taken extracts to prove the facts of Mr. A. M.’s letter. I am persuaded Mr. Turell will be much concerned to find any part of his sermon thus misused; and how the compilers of this pamphlet could dare to make this use of his writing, I cannot imagine; for, in the very first page of the preface to that very sermon, out of which they have taken their extracts, he speaks of himself “as one of the friends and zealous promoters of the good work:” nay he begins his preface with these words, “the occasion of my publishing this brief direction to my people, is partly to vindicate my character, which has been injured by a report spread, that of a zealous promoter of the glorious work of God’s grace and Spirit appearing, I am become an opposer:” which shews, that Mr. Turell would not care to be represented as an opposer of that work, and consequently would not chuse, that his writings should be produced to prove the principal facts in this letter of A. M.’s, who would represent the whole as enthusiasm and delusion.

What opinion Mr. Turell had of persons of this gentleman’s spirit, is evident from the fourth page of the same preface, which the compilers of the pamphlet could not but see. His words are these, “As for the profane triumphs of the opposers, (of such I mean) who attribute the whole of this glorious scene to the devil, or wild enthusiasm, a heated imagination, &c. I detest their opinion, though I am far from judging their state. I am confident that of the many that I have discoursed with under the common impressions (two or three excepted) they have been all wrought upon in a way agreeable to the gospel: and just as I should have desired some years ago. And I must testify, to the glory of God, and his sovereign rich grace, that I do behold the distinguishing marks of God’s spirit on many. My brethren, let us pray for the preservation, revival, progress, and universal spread thereof.” In page 14. of his directions, he says, “I charitably believe, some scores in this place have been seriously wrought upon; and the far greater part of them have declared, God has made me the happy instrument of their awakening.” And, page 18, says he, “the names of Whitefield and Tennent (though liable to err) I have once and again mentioned to you with honour; they have been raised by God to do abundance of good.” How does this agree with the account Mr. A. M. gives of the spirit raised by us, and with that scandalous character he gives of Mr. Tennent in particular; and when these quotations are parts also of one of the treatises, out of which one of the extracts mentioned in the appendix is taken, and are written by one of those eminent ministers whose writings are referred to, to prove the principal facts recorded in Mr. A. M.’s letter.

But what surprises me most of all is, that they should extract any thing from Mr. Parsons to prove Mr. A. M.’s matters of fact. Indeed, in the passage cited from him, page 41 of the pamphlet, to use the words in the Glasgow Weekly History, No. 35. I see only a warning against rashly concluding persons to be in a converted state; because, some who have been thus well judged of do afterwards fall away into errors, or appear to be deluded, or turn out impostors; and the warning enforced by an instance, and indeed but by one instance, of a person who was a visionary. Mr. Parsons’s caution to others against concluding too rashly that people are converted, is a presumption, that he is cautious in that matter himself; yet in this very sermon of Mr. Parsons’s, out of which the extracts mentioned in the appendix are taken, he says, page 44, “I hope not less than an hundred and fifty souls are converted in about nine months past:” though his parish is small, consisting only of 120 families. I could heartily wish that the whole sermon was printed; it is directly levelled in many parts of it against persons of Mr. A. M.’s spirit and sentiments, and is intended as a needful caution for those lately converted, to avoid extremes, and take care to walk consistently. He has all along been a great promoter of this work: in a letter dated December 16, 1741, to Dr. Colman, and which is printed in the Weekly History, he mentions a most wonderful effusion of the Holy Ghost in his congregation. In that letter he makes an honourable mention of Mr. Tennent: “I have reason, says he, to bless the Lord that he sent him for our help; and indeed by an enquiry since, I find his labours were blessed to give a more general shock than appeared at the very time.”

The other eminent ministers sermons I have not yet met with: but I have great reason to believe they have been treated in the same manner: the time would fail me, dear Sir, to send you all the vouchers that might be produced for the glorious work in New-England. Messrs. Webb, Cooper and Prince, in a preface to a sermon by Mr. M‘Gregor, a presbyterian minister, and which I hope also will be reprinted, speak nobly of it. Mr. Edwards’s sermon I think is most admirable, and answers all the objections that Mr. A. M. or others can make against it. In short, if any work had all marks of a divine signature, this undoubtedly has.

When I consider how Mr. A. M. so quarrels with it, and endeavours to represent it in so ridiculous a light, I cannot but wish he may consider Romans viii. 7. 1 Corinthians ii. 14. “The carnal mind is enmity against God; and the natural man discerneth not the things of the spirit of God, because they are spiritually discerned.” The sum of the matter seems to be this; there has been a great and marvellous work in New-England: but, as it should seem, by the imprudences of some, and the overboiling zeal of others, some irregularities have been committed in several places, which Mr. Tennent himself, in a letter to Mr. Parsons, printed in the Boston Gazette, has borne his testimony against, as strongly as any of these eminent ministers. This, dear Sir, is nothing but what is common. It was so in Old-England some few years ago. Many young persons there, ran out before they were called: others were guilty of great imprudences. I checked them in the strictest manner myself, and found as they grew acquainted with the Lord Jesus, and their own hearts, the intemperance of their zeal abated; and they became truly humble walkers with God. After a gathering, there will always be a sifting time: and the church is generally shaken before it is settled. But must the whole work of God be condemned as enthusiasm and delusion because of some disorder? No, I wish with all my soul, that those who extracted from Mr. Parsons, had observed what he says, page 41, and 42. “It is very much to be feared,” says he, (speaking to persons who cried down the whole work of God because of the imprudences and miscarriages of a few) “that you are strangers to the sanctifying influences of the Holy Ghost, when you can so easily pass over the table of the rich dainties which God spreads for his own children, which while they feast upon, their souls are drawn out in rivers of pleasure and love; and like the crow, light upon, and greedily pick up, every bit of filthy carrion you can meet with.”

Dear Sir, as I allow you to publish my letter; out of compassion to the compilers and publishers of the pamphlet, I cannot but express my concern, that they may seriously consider, whether this mentioned by Mr. Parsons be not directly their case. And that they may take heed lest the God of this world may have blinded their eyes: since they had this and the other sermons before them, they must sin against light and knowledge in publishing such a tract. And therefore, to use the words of Mr. Parsons in his sermon, page 42. “It is not possible that you should be innocent, but on the contrary plunge yourselves under amazing guilt, by such a dreadful conduct. Whilst you stand amazed at the rings of the wheels, as things too high and dreadful for you; whilst you know not what to make of the effusions of the Holy Spirit, but are blundering at every thing amiss; when God is working a work of his astonishing grace before your eyes which you will not believe; beware lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets, ‘Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish!’ Dear immortal souls, I beseech and persuade you, by the mercies of God and the astonishing love of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you would not sacrifice the operations of the blessed Spirit to your own prejudice, by means of our imperfections: I beseech and charge you by the coming of the great Jehovah in the word of his grace, that you do not despise his glorious name, and the riches of his mercy, now offered to you. I charge and admonish you by the dignity and worth of your immortal souls; by the powerful impressions of an approaching change; by the certain tremendous appearing of the Great Judge; by the inexpressible agonies of hell, and inconceivable joys of an everlasting heaven, that you do no longer reject, nor once more cavil against the glorious interest and kingdom of the blessed Jesus triumphing at this day, and inviting the miserable slaves of the devil, to become the happy subjects of it. I warn and charge you before the great God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Angels, upon your peril, that you take diligent heed to these things. And if you reject to hear, if you dare reject, or boldly despise the admonition, remember you are answerable at the great tribunal, and must expect a most fearful share of torments among the damned world, for such unspeakable guilt.”

Thus speaks this great and good man: my heart warmed, dear Sir, whilst I was reading his discourse; it is close, succinct and powerful: how could the publishers, after reading such a dreadful warning, print any thing out of his sermon, to prove the work in New-England, to be enthusiasm? I would heartily join with him and the other ministers in New-England, was I there, in bearing a faithful testimony against any thing that I might judge to be inconsistent with the precious rules of the holy scriptures. At the same time I pray, that even the ministers themselves may act with the same caution they recommend to their people, and then I doubt not but we shall see a happy end put to what may now be irregular or disorderly. The dear Redeemer has assured us, “that the gates of hell shall never prevail against his church.” He will cause that all things shall work together for her good. The wrath of man shall turn to his praise, and the remainder of it shall he restrain; he will bring order out of confusion, and the church shall be more than conqueror through his love. I will therefore conclude this long letter, with the words of the psalmist in the second psalm,

Why rage the heathen? and vain things,

Why do the people mind?

2. Kings of the earth do set themselves,

And Princes are combin’d

To plot against the Lord, and his

Anointed, saying thus,

3. Let us asunder break their bands,

And cast their cords from us.

4. He that in heaven sits, shall laugh:

The Lord shall scorn them all.

5. Then shall he speak to them in wrath,

In rage he vex them shall.

6. Yet notwithstanding I have him

To be my King appointed,

And over Sion, my holy hill,

I have him King anointed.

Upon this assurance, I rest in peace, and am, reverend and dear Sir, in the kingdom and patience of Jesus,

Your affectionate and obliged friend, brother and servant,

G. W.

By way of P. S. to this letter, give me leave to send you a copy of the preface to Mr. M‘Gregor’s sermon, to which I have referred in my letter, and which is signed by three eminent ministers of Boston. Dated, Boston, January 12, 1742. This will give you a clear insight into what body of doctrines is professed and taught by the promoters of this work: how far they are from bigotry, and also may explain how the remaining violent opposers of those doctrines came to be so much exasperated.

The Preface to Mr. M‘Gregor’s Sermon.

AS all the protestant churches in Europe, both Episcopalian and Presbyterian, happily agreed at the time of the Reformation in the scripture doctrines of grace, as appears by the published harmony of their confessions; in particular, the church of Scotland in 1560, the church of England in 1562–3, and the church of Ireland in 1616; so it must be owned that the Presbyterians have generally persevered in a steady adherence to the original doctrines of the Reformation, to the present day.

And as the Assembly’s shorter catechism has been all along agreeable to the known principles of the New-England churches, and has been generally received and taught in them, as a system of christian doctrine agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, wherein they happily unite; it is a great pleasure to us, that our Presbyterian brethren who come from Ireland are generally with us in these important points, as also in the particular doctrines of experimental piety arising from them, and the wondrous work of God agreeable to them, at this day making its triumphant progress through the land; all now happily combining to illustrate and confirm each other in so glaring and strong a manner as is irresistible to serious and unprejudiced beholders; and has already forced many men of clear minds, strong powers, considerable knowledge, and firmly riveted in Arminian and Socinian tenets, to give them all up at once, and yield to the adorable sovereignty and irresistibility of the Divine Spirit in his saving operations on the souls of men.

For to see on the one hand, such men as these, some of them of licentious lives, long inured in a course of vices, and of high spirits, coming to the preaching of the word, some only out of curiosity, others with a strong antipathy and meer design to get matter of cavilling and banter; all at once, in opposition to their inward enmity, resolutions and resistances, to fall under an unexpected and hated power; to have all the strength of their resolution and resistance taken away; to have such an inward view of the horrid wickedness not only of their lives, but also of their hearts, with their exceeding great and immediate danger of eternal misery, as has amazed their souls and thrown them into distress unutterable, yea forced them to cry out in the assemblies with the greatest agonies: and then in two or three days, and sometimes sooner, to have such unexpected and raised views of the infinite grace and love of God in Christ, as have enabled them to believe in him, lifted them at once out of their distresses, filled their hearts with admiration, and joy unspeakable, and full of glory, breaking forth in their shining countenance and transporting voices to the surprise of those about them: and to see them kindling up at once, into a flame of love and praise to God, an utter detestation of their former courses and vicious habits, yea by such a detestation the very power of those habits at once receive a mortal wound: in short, to see their high spirits on a sudden humbled, their hard hearts made tender, their aversion from the Holy God now turned into a powerful and prevailing bent to contemplate upon him as revealed in Christ, to labour to be like him in holiness, to please and honour him by an universal and glad conformity to his will and nature, and promote his holy kingdom in all about them; loving them, forgiving them, asking forgiveness of them, abounding in acts of justice and charity, in a meek and condescending carriage towards the meanest, and aspiring after higher sanctity.

And to see other gentlemen of the like knowledge, parts and principles, and of sober, just and religious lives, as far as their meer reason with outward revelation are able to carry them, and prepossessed against this work as imagined enthusiasm, yet at once surprizingly to find themselves intirely destitute of that inward sanctity, and supreme love to God, and holiness, which the gospel teaches as absolutely needful to see the kingdom of grace and glory; to find themselves no more than conceited Pharisees, who had been working out a righteousness of their own for justification; and to have a clear discovery of their inward enmity to Christ, and the nature and way of redemption by him, with the native vileness of their hearts and lives, they had never seen before: in short, to find themselves yet unrenewed in the spirit of their minds, and under the heavy wrath and curse of God; to open into the clear discovery of their past delusions; to find the hardness of their hearts, the blindness of their minds, and their utter impotence to convert themselves, or believe in Christ; to lose all their former confidence, give up their beloved schemes, see themselves undone and helpless, and sink into a great distress: and then condemning themselves as guilty wretches, humbly lying at the foot of absolute and sovereign Grace, and looking up to Christ the only Mediator to reconcile them to the glorious God, to justify them wholly by his own most perfect righteousness, and to enlighten, quicken, sanctify, dwell in, and govern them by his Almighty Spirit; and there to wait till they find a new and mighty life and power come into their souls, enabling them to embrace, trust in, and love this divine Redeemer, rejoice with satisfaction in him, and perform every kind of duty both to God and man with pleasure, and with quite another frame and spirit than before.

Such great and sudden turns as these, are as evident demonstration as we can possibly conceive of the truth of the inspired scriptures, and in particular of those scripture doctrines, of the sovereign and victorious grace of Christ, received and taught among us: we see with our eye, that when he rideth forth on the word of truth, conquering and to conquer, his right-hand teaches terrible things. He makes his arrows so sharp and piercing in the hearts of his stoutest enemies, as oblige them to fall down under him; and when the day of his power comes on any people, he makes the most obstinate to be most gladly willing and obedient to him. And these principles of grace, and these works of God, do most invincibly confirm each other.