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, subtlety, 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 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 height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate 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 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 ob

served before, dear sir, it is not always a safe rule to judge of the truth of principles from people's practice. And therefore, supposing all that held universal redemption in your way of explaining it, after they received faith, enjoyed 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 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 surprise 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 having 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 defects 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 it 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 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 that full assurance of faith which they enjoy, who have experimentally tasted and daily feed on God's electing, everlasting love.

up

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 Scotch 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. Again, says the dear Mr. Wesley, page 15, paragraph 16. "How uncomfortable a thought is this, that thousands and millions of men without any preceding offense or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings!"

But whoever asserted, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offense 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 that 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 our Savior 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 inex

tricable 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, I pass over. What has been said on paragraphs 9th and 10th, with 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 preach with comfort, because I know salvation does not depend on man's free will, but the Lord makes them 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, By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, Isa. liii. 11. 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 ploughing 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, using it in faith; and endeavor 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, 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 Askelon, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice, lest the sons of unbelief should triumph!

Farther, you say, page 18th, paragraph 19th-" This doctrine makes revelation contradict itself." For instance, say you, "The asserters of this doctrine interpret the text of the scriptures, 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 show 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 shows 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 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, i. e. 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 dispense his favors to what object 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, Rom. ix. 15. Exodus, xxxiii. 19. Farther, in page 19th, 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,