nianism, of late, has so much abounded amongst 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, 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. As it is useless to them that are not elected, for they cannot possibly be saved; they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be damned. The end of preaching is therefore void with regard to them likewise. So that, in either case, our preaching is vain, and your hearing also vain." Page 10, paragraph 9.

Oh, 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 (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 reward, and fear of punishment; the hope of heaven, and fear of hell," &c. Page 11.

I thought one that 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 Scougall says "Love's a more powerful motive, that does them move." But passing by this, and granting that rewards and punishments (as they certainly are) may be motives from which a christian may be honestly stirred up to act for God, how does the doctrine of election destroy these motives? Do not the elect know, that the more good works they do, the greater will be their reward? And is not that encouragement enough to set them upon, and cause them to persevere in working for Jesus Christ? And how does the doctrine of election destroy holiness? Who ever preached any other election than what the apostle preached, when he said"Chosen through sanctification of the Spirit?" Nay, is not holiness made a mark of our election by all that preach it? And how, then, can the doctrine of election destroy holiness?

The instance which you bring to illustrate your assertion, indeed, dear sir, is quite impertinent. For you say "If a sick man knows that he must unavoidably die or unavoidably recover, though he knows not which, it is not reasonable to take any physic at all." 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 applica-1 tion; 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," (paragraph 11,) say you, "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, of a catholic spirit, and kind, and hope to see the most vile and profligate of men converted? 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 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, towards 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 expressly uses. For, Col. iii. 12, 13, he says, 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 13th, 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 shows that our godly reformers did not think election destroyed holiness, or the comforts of religion. As for my own part this doctrine is my daily support. I should utterly sink under a dread of my impending trials, were I not firmly persuaded that God has chosen me in Christ from before the foundation of the world; and that now being effectually called, he will 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 election sure? This is one reason, among many others, why I admire the doctrine of election, and am convinced that it should have a place in gospel ministrations, and should be insisted on with

faithfulness and care. It has a natural tendency to rouse the soul out of its carnal security, and therefore many carnal men cry out against it; whereas universal redemption is a notion sadly adapted to keep the soul in its lethargic, sleepy condition; and therefore so many natural men admire and applaud it.

Your 13th, 14th, and 15th paragraphs, come next to be considered. "The witness of the Spirit, (you say, paragraph 14, page 14,) experience shows to be much obstructed by this doctrine." But, dear sir, whose experience? Not your own: for in your journal, from your embarking for Georgia to your return to London, 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 unanswerable unction of the Holy Ghost? Was not his soul exceeding sorrowful even unto death, in the garden? And was he not surrounded with a 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 succor those that are tempted." And is not their liableness thereunto well 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 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 steadfast, when he walks in darkness and sees no