Whitefield To Wesley, Part 1

from The Christian Reader:

Whitefield to Wesley (Part One)


As promised, here is Part One of the letter written by George Whitefield to John Wesley. Since it is longer than I remembered, I will break it up over two days. This first part has an introductory section added by Whitefield himself when he decided to publish his letter publicly as an "open letter." Notice that even though the theological debate can get heated and rigorous at times, the spirit (as the introduction reminds readers) was meant to be one of love and mutual admiration. Whitefield and Wesley both were opinionated and persuasive men and their personalities often overshadow the theological side of the whole affair. Some readers will get sidetracked by the emotional level of certain sections of the letter, but it should be remembered that the goal was to examine certain doctrines in the light of Scripture, not win a popularity contest.





GEORGE WHITEFIELD'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:



I am very well aware what different effects publishing

this letter against the dear Mr. Wesley's Sermon will produce. Many of

my friends who are strenuous advocates for universal redemption

will immediately be offended. Many who are zealous on the other side will

be much rejoiced. They who are lukewarm 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 [dated 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.





WHITEFIELD'S LETTER TO WESLEY

[Dated Dec. 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 others' souls, I must not stand neutral 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 show also my opinion. I must then show 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 [1],

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 indispensable 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 were 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 [the drawing of] 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 [that election was not a biblical truth],

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 of the sermon whilst I was in England; but you

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 [2 February 1738], 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 forward to London. You left a letter behind you, in which were words

to this effect: "When I saw [that] 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 surprised. 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 1 Kings

13 was powerfully impressed upon my soul, where we are told that the Prophet

was slain by a lion when he 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 indispensably 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 casting a lot in the manner you did could lay you under

an indispensable 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

choose a text to disprove the doctrine of election out of Romans 8, where

this doctrine is so plainly asserted? Once I spoke with a Quaker upon this

subject, and 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 of Romans 8, 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?"

(Rom. 8:32). [He shall give us] 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 who

did not know you would suspect that you were aware of this, for after the

first paragraph, I scarce know whether you have mentioned [the text] 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:

"God's grace is free to all." And then by way of inference [you

might have] 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.