GOD only knows what unspeakable sorrow of heart I have felt on your account ever since I left England last. Whither it be my infirmity or not, I frankly confess that never did Jonah go with more reluctance against Nineveh, than I now take pen in hand to write against you. Was nature to speak, I had rather die than do it: and yet if I am faithful to God, and to my own and others souls, I must not stand neuter any longer. I am well aware how our 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 was pleased to work upon by my ministry; and a great number still are calling aloud upon me also to shew my opinion. I must then shew that I know no man after the flesh, and that I have no respect of persons any farther than is consistent with my duty to my Lord and Master Jesus Christ.

This letter also will undoubtedly lose me many [Page 6] friends. But for this cause among others, perhaps God stirs me up to write it, viz. to see whether I will forsake all for him or not. I think I have truth and scripture on my side. I think it my duty to be simple and consistent, and leave the conse­quences of all to God.

I fear I have been sinfully silent too long. For some time before, and especially since my last de­parture from England, both in publick and private, by preaching and printing, you have been propa­gating the doctrine of Universal Redemption; and therefore, if Paul reproved Peter for his Dissimu­lation, (dear and honored Sir) O be not angry with me, if I deliver my soul in telling you that I think in this you nearly err.

'Tis not my design to enter into a long debate on GOD's decrees. I refer you to Dr. Edwards's Veritas Redux; who 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 must first inform you, that I think you had no call to be so explicit in the doctrine of universal redemption.

If I mistake not when at Bristol, 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? Common prudence without a lot would have directed you in that matter.

Besides, I never heard that you inquired of GOD, whether or not election was a gospel doctrine? [Page 7] But I fear taking it for granted it was not—you on­ly inquired, 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 'till I left England; but soon after sent it into the world after my departure. Oh that you had kept it in! If that sermon was printed in answer to a lot, I can give no other reason why God should suffer you to be deceived, unless that thereby a door might be opened hereafter for preaching up election: and that God might give me another opportunity, as he once did, by giving you such another lot at^* Deal, of seeing what was in my heart, and whether I would be faithful to his cause or not. Oh that it may be also for the conviction of dear Mr. Wesley; that we may both think and speak the same things, and consequently be better qualified to build up those souls that have been lately awaken'd, in their most holy faith!

This I think may serve as an answer to the first part of the preface to your printed sermon, where­in you say, ‘Nothing but the strongest conviction, [Page 8] not only that what is here advanced is the truth as it is in Jesus, but also that I am indispensably obliged to declare this truth to all the world, &c.’

That you believe what you have wrote is truth, and that you honestly aim at GOD's glory in wri­ting, I do not in the least doubt. But then, ho­nored Sir, if by tempting GOD, in casting a lot, as before mentioned, you have thought yourself in­dispensably obliged to publish your sermon against predestination, I think, in this you have been much mistaken.

But farther; as you have been unhappy in prin­ting at all, so you have been unhappy also in the choice of your text. Honored Sir! how could it enter into your heart to chuse a text to disprove the doctrine of election, out of the eighth of the Romans? Where the 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 [Page 9] Paul was in the wrong. Another friend lately, who was once highly prejudiced against election, inge­niously confess'd, that he used to think, St. Paul himself was mistaken, or that he was not truly trans­lated.

Indeed, honored Sir, it is plain beyond all Con­tradiction, that St. Paul, thro' the whole eighth chapter of the Romans, is speaking of the priviliges 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 spareth not his own Son, but deliv­ered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Viz. Grace to persevere, and every thing necessary to bring us safely home to our heavenly father's kingdom.

Had I a mind to prove election and final perse­verance, I know not that I could chuse a better text than you have chosen to disprove it. One that does not know you, would suspect you. You yourself were sensible of this. For after the first paragraph I scarce know whether you have mentioned it, so much as once, through your whole discourse.

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 wrote clearly, you should first, [Page 10] honored 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 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 would overthrow the doctrine of election entirely. For, without doubt, the doctrine of election and reprobation must stand or fall togther.

But passing by this, as also your equivocal defi­nition of the word grace, and your false definition of the word free; that I may be as short as possi­ble, I frankly acknowledge, I believe the doctrine of reprobation; and that God intends only to give a certain number saving grace, thro' Jesus Christ, and that the rest of mankind are left to perish un­der the imputation of Adam's guilt, and will be damned for that and their actual sins. This is e­stablished doctrine of scripture, and of the XVIIth article of the church of England; as bishop Bur­net himself confesses. Dear Mr. Wesley absolute­ly denies them both. And why?

‘For if this be so, (says he, page the 10th, pa­ragraph the 9th) 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 infalliably be [Page 11] damned. The end of preaching is therefore void with regard to them likewise. So that in either case, our preaching is vain, as your hearing is also vain.’

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 salvation? Does any one hold election in any other sense? And if so, how is preaching needless to them that are elected, when it is designed by God, 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. If it be useless to the reprobate, it is no more than what God designed to permit. It's e­nough that all are brought home by it that he in­tended.

Secondly, You say, page the 11th, ‘That it, viz. 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 rewards, and fear of punishments, the hopes of heaven, and the fear of hell, &c.’

I thought one that carrys perfection to such an exlated pitch as dear Mr. Wesley does, would know 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 reward of heaven or fear of hell. You [Page 12] 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 those motives? Do not the elect know that the more good works they do, the grea­ter will be their reward? And is it 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 thro' sanctification of the spirit? Nay, is not holi­ness made a mark of our election by all that preach it? And how then can election destroy holiness?

The instance which you bring, page 11, to il­lustrate your assertion, indeed, dear sir, is quite im­pertinent; for you say, ‘If a sick man knows, that he must unavoidably die, or unavoidably reco­ver; though he knows not which, it is not rea­sonable to take any physick at all.’ 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 physick? For how did you know but that very physick might be the means God intended to recover you by? Just thus it is in the doctrine of election. I know that it is unalte­rably fixed that I must be damned, or saved. But since I know not which, for a certainty, why should [Page 13] I not strive, though 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 the 12th, 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 11th) ‘does this doctrine tend to destroy several particular bran­ches of holiness—such as meekness, love, &c.’ I shall say little 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 are owing to their principles. Does not Mr. Wesley know many dear children of God who are predestinarians, and yet are meek, lowly, pitiful, courteous, tender-hearted, of a catholick Spirit, and kind, and have hope even of the most vile?— And why? Because they know God saved them by an act of his electing love, and they know not but he may have elected those who are now even 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 people's practice: If so, I am sure more might be said against you. For I appeal to your heart, whether you do not feel a narrow-spiritedness towards, and some disunion of soul from those that hold particular redemption. [Page 14] If so, then according to your own rule, Universal Redemption is wrong, because it destroys several branches of holiness—such as meekness, love, &c.

The apostle St. Paul was not of your opinion,— For, Col. iii. 12, 13,—he says, ‘Putting 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 the elect of God. And all who have experiment­ally felt this doctrine in their heart, will 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 who appear warm 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. I think I could lay down my life for your sake; but yet, dear sir, I cannot avoid opposing you stre­nuously in this point, because I think you warmly, tho' I really believe 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 [Page 15] give you a zeal according to true christian knowl­edge!

Thirdly, Says your Sermon, page 13, paragraph the 12th; ‘This doctrine tends to destroy the com­forts of religion, the happiness of christianity.’

But how does Mr. Wesley know this, who never believed election? I believe they who have expe­rienced it will agree with our XVIIth article, That ‘the godly consideration of predestination and our election in Christ, is full of sweet pleasures, and 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 firmly kindle their love towards God:’ which 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 sense of my impending trials, was I not firmly persuaded Christ had chosen me from before the foundation of the world, and therefore will suf­fer nothing to pluck me finally out of his almighty hands.

You proceed thus, ‘This is evident to all those that 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.’

And would dear Mr. Wesley give comfort, or [Page 16] dare to apply the precious promises of the gospel, (that children's bread) to men in a natural state? God forbid! What if the doctrine of election and reprobation does put some upon doubting? Is not this a good means to put them upon striving; and that striving a good means to make their calling, and thereby their election sure? This is one reason among many others, why I admire the doctrine of election. It has a natural tendency to rouse the soul out of its carnal security: and therefore so ma­ny carnal men cry out against it. Universal Re­demption has a natural tendency to keep the soul in its carnal security; and therefore so many natural men admire and applaud it.

Your three following paragraphs, 13, 14, 15, 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 last journal, you seem to acknowledge you have it not; and therefore you are no proper judge in this matter. You must mean the experience of others; for you say, in the same paragraph, ‘Even in those that have tasted of that good gift, who have yet 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.’ And was not this the case of Jesus Christ himself, after that he had received the Holy Ghost? Was he not led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil? Was not his soul exceed­ing sorrowful, even unto death, in the garden?— [Page 17] 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 his followers must expect 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 why then should persons falling into darkness, after they have recei­ved the witness of the Spirit, be any arguments 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 and 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 supposing he had, does 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 a true christian certainly may do, after he has 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 throw himself upon the free distinguishing love of that God who changeth not; this I say, makes him to lift up the hands that [Page 18] hang down, and strengthens his feeble knees.— Without believing the doctrine of election I cannot see how we can arrive at a full assurance of faith: an assurance that ‘all my past sins are forgiven, and that I am now a child of God;’ but may hereafter, for all that I know, become a child of the devil, and be cast into hell at last; is no assurance at all, at least not a full assurance. No, a full assu­rance of faith makes the soul give men and devils the challenge, not only for the present, but for the future. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is Christ that justifies me, 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 seperate 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 seperate me from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus my Lord.

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 that they are in Christ to day, but take no thought for, or are not assured that they shall be in him to-morrow, nay, to all eternity, is rather their imperfections and unhappiness, than [Page 19] their privilege. I pray God 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 calling 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, suppose all that hold Uni­versal Redemption, in your way of explaining it, after they receiv'd saith, enjoy the continual unin­terrupted light 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 forever—because the creature is thereby 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 might be felt.’ Hence it is that the letters which have been lately sent me by those who hold Universal Redemption, are dead, lifeless, dry and inconsistant, in comparison of those I receive from persons on the contrary side. Those on the one side, 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 built upon God's never-fading promise, and un­changeable, love, even when his sensible presence [Page 20] is withdrawn from them. But I would not judge of the truth of election by the experience of any particular persons: If I did (Oh bear with me in this foolishness of boasting) I think I my self might glory in election. For these five or six years I have received the witness of God's Spirit; and since that I have not doubted a quarter of an hour of my having a saving interest in Jesus Christ. But I have fallen into sin since that; and tho I lay the blame wholly on my own wicked heart, yet, perhaps it was permitted that I might confute those who hold a man cannot commit sin after he is born again. I have been also in heaviness through ma­nifold temptations, and expect to be often so again before I die. Thus was St. Paul himself. Thus was Luther, that man of God, who did not hold election: and the great John Arndt, was in the utmost perplexity a quarter of an hour before he died, and yet he was no predestinarian; and if I must speak freely I believe your writing so strenu­ously against the doctrine of election, and pleading up a sinless perfection, is one great cause why you are kept out of the liberties of the gospel, and that full assurance of faith which those 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. I know you think meanly of Abraham and David; and have wrote me word, ‘That no baptist or presbyterian writer whom you have read, knew any thing of the liberties of Christ.’ See, dear Sir, what narrow-spiritedness and want of charity arises from your principles: [Page 21] and then do not cry out against election any more on account of its being "destructive of meekness and love."

To proceed. Again, says the dear Mr. Wesley, page 15, paragraph the 16th, ‘How uncomforta­ble a thought is this, That thousands and milli­ons of men, without any preceeding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings?’

But whoever asserted, that thousands and milli­ons of men, without any preceeding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doom'd to ever­lasting burnings? Do not those who plead up for God's dooming men to everlasting burnings, sup­pose God looks upon them as men fallen in A­dam? How then are they doomed without any pre­ceeding 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 any one of them a Saviour. Un­less you own both these things, you do not believe original sin aright. If you do own them, you must acknowledge the doctrine of election and reproba­tion to be reasonable. For if God might justly have imputed Adam's sin to all, and afterwards have passed by all, he might justly pass by some.— Turn either on the right hand or on the left, you are reduced to an inextricable dilemma.

Your 17th paragraph, page 16, I pass over.— What has been said on paragraph the 9th and 10th, with little alteration, will answer it. I shall only say, 'tis the doctrine of election that mostly presses [Page 22] me to abound in good works: I am made willing to suffer all things for the elect's sake. This makes me preach with comfort because I know salvation does not depend on men's free-will, but the Lord makes a willing people in the day of his power, and may make use of me to bring some of his elect home.

But fifthly, you say, paragraph the 18th page 17, ‘this doctrine has a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole christian religion. For, say you, supposing that eternal unchangeable decree, one part of mankind must be saved, tho' 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 in respect to mankind?— And how then has the doctrine of election a direct tendency to overthrow the whole christian Revela­tion? For, has not God intended this Revelation as a means to bring his elect home? And 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 the question. Deists, Arians, Socinians, arraign God's sovereignty and stand up for universal redemption. I pray God dear Mr. Wesley's Sermon, as it has grieved the hearts of many of God's dear children, it may not also strengthen the hands of many of God's profess'd enemies! Here I could almost sit down and weep. O tell it not in Gath! Publish it not in the streets of Askalon; lest the daughters of the uncircumci­sed rejoice, lest the sons of unbelief triumph!

[Page 23]Further, you say, page 18, paragraph 19, ‘this doctrine makes Revelation contradict itself.’— For instance; say you, the asserters 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 reprobate 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 love only to some men, viz. the elect; and that he hath 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 mercies are over all his works." And so they are; 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. Notwithstand­ing these texts in the strictest sense, God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy; nay, I will add, and whom he will he hardeneth.

You go on, page 20. "Again, from that text, the children being not yet born, neither having done good or evil, that the purpose of God, accor­ding [Page 24] 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; they, (i. e. Predestinarians) infer that our predestination, or e­lection, no way depends on the fore-knowledge of God." But who infers this, dear sir! For, if by fore-knowledge, you mean fore-knowledge as it 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 foreseeing some good works done by his creatures, 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. Read his Veritas Redux, which I recommended to you in a late letter, with Elisha Cole on God's sovereignty. Be pleased to read those; and also Mr. Cooper's sermons of Boston, which I likewise 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 inquiries, 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," [Page 25] and such like, be taken in the strictest sense, then no one will be damned. For God may prevent every one's damnation if he pleases, and cannot but in one sense, be said to will it, because he might have prevented it if he would.

But here's the distinction,—God taketh no plea­sure in the death of sinners, so as to delight simply in their death; tho' he delights to magnify his jus­tice in their death. As a judge may take no plea­sure in condemning a criminal, and yet justly per­mit him to be executed (though in his power to procure him a reprieve) in order that they may sa­tisfy the justice of the law.

I could hint farther, that you unjustly charge the doctrine of reprobation with blasphemy. But the doctrine of universal redemption, in your sense, is really blasphemous. For judge, whether it be not 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 it explained by Ridg­ley, Edwards and Henry. I purposely omit an­swering this and some other texts myself, that you may be brought to read such treatises, which un­der God, would show you your error. You can­not, indeed sir, you cannot make good the asser­tion, "that Christ died for them that perish," without holding (as ^* Peter Bolcher, 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 [Page 26] Mr. Wesley 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 dishonor God. By denying election you plain­ly make man's salvation depend not on God's free grace, but man's free will. And if so, Jesus Christ died at a venture, and perhaps would not have had one soul as the purchase of his blood. Our preach­ing would then be vain, and our invitations to peo­ple to believe would be in vain also.

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 of his obe­dience and death. For these he prayed, John xvii. —and not for the world. For these, and these on­ly, he is now interceeding; and with their salvati­on, he will be fully satisfied.

I purposely omit making any further 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 he is unjust if he passes by any: and then you exclaim against the horrible decree.

[Page 27]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 of that book, and making man's salvation depend on his own free will, as you have in this sermon; you will compose a hymn in praise of sovereign distinguish­ing love. You will caution believers against wor­king a perfection out of their own hearts, and print another sermon, the reverse of this, and entitle it, Free Grace. Free, not because free to all: but free, because God may withhold or give it to whom and when he pleases.

Till you do this, I must doubt whether 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 18th. Dear sir! these things ought not to be so. God knows my heart! As I told you before, so I de­clare again, nothing but a single regard to the honor of Christ had forced the letter from me. I love and honor you for his sake; and when I come to judgment, I may 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 [Page 28] 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