Letter to Lloyd's "Evening Post".

A LETTER

TO

THE EDITOR OF LLOYD’S “EVENING POST.”

———

SIR, February 26, 1771.

THE Editor of a monthly publication, pompously called “The Gospel Magazine,” Mr. R., has violently fallen upon one and another who did not knowingly give him any provocation. And whereas in other Magazines the accused has liberty to answer for himself, it is not so here: This gentleman will publish only the charge, but not the defense. What can a person thus injuriously treated do? To publish pamphlets on every head would not answer the end; for the answer would not come into near so many hands as the objections. Is there then a better way, than to appeal to candid men in one of the public papers? By which means the antidote will operate both as widely and as speedily as the poison. This method, therefore, I take at last, after delaying as long as I could with innocence. In the Magazine for last month, there is a warm attack upon my sermon on the death of Mr. Whitefield.

The first charge is against the text, “Let me die the death of the righteous.” “How improper,” says Mr. R., “ to apply the words of a mad Prophet to so holy a man as Mr. Whitefield!” “Improper!” See how Doctors differ! I conceive nothing can possibly be more proper. If Mr. R. did indeed tell his congregation, some of whom disliking his attacking my poor text before, “Let who will be vexed, I do not care; I will not justify Balaam while I live:” Yet others imagine nothing could be more suitable, than for Balaam junior to use the words of his forefather; especially as he did not apply them to Mr. Whitefield, but to himself. Surely a poor reprobate may, without offense, wish to die like one of the elect. I dare say every one understood me to mean this, the moment he heard the text: If not, the very hymn I sung showed to whom I applied the words: —

“O what without a lingering groan,

I might the welcome word receive!

Thy body with my charge lay down,

And cease at once to work and live!”

But the main attack is on the sermon itself, wherein I am charged with asserting a gross falsehood in the face of God and the congregation; and that knowing it to be such; namely, “That the grand fundamental doctrines which Mr. Whitefield everywhere preached, were those of the new birth, and justification by faith.” “No,” says Mr. R. “not at all: The grand fundamental doctrines he everywhere preached, were the everlasting covenant between the Father and the Son; and absolute predestination flowing therefrom.”

I join issue on this head. Whether the doctrines of the eternal covenant, and absolute predestination, are the grand fundamental doctrines of Christianity, or not; I affirm again, l. That Mr. Whitefield did not everywhere preach these;

2. That he did everywhere preach the new birth, and justification by faith.

1. He did not everywhere preach the eternal covenant, and absolute predestination. I never heard him utter a sentence on one or the other. Yea, all the times he preached in West-street chapel, and in our other chapels throughout England, he did not preach those doctrines at all, no, not in a single paragraph; which, by the by, is a demonstration that he did not think them the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

2. Both in West-street chapel, and all our other chapels throughout England, he did preach the necessity of the new birth, and justification by faith, as clearly as he has done in his two volumes of printed sermons: Therefore all I have asserted is true, and provable by ten thousand witnesses.

Nay, says Mr. R., “Mr. Whitefield everywhere insisted on other fundamental doctrines, from the foundation of which, the new birth and justification take their rise, with which they are inseparably connected: These are, the everlasting covenant which was entered into by the Holy Trinity, and God the Father’s everlasting, unchangeable election of sinners;” (in virtue of which a fiftieth part of mankind shall be saved, do what they will; and the other forty-nine parts shall be damned, do what they can;) “these doctrines are not of a less essential nature than either regeneration, or justification. No, by no means; they are to the full equally essential to the glory of God. Yea, there is an inseparable connection between them. This is a most essential, a most fundamental point.” — Gospel Magazine, page 41.

If so, then every one who, does not hold it, must perish everlastingly. If, as you here assert, he cannot be justified, then he cannot be saved. If as you say, he cannot be born again, “he cannot see the kingdom of God.” After asserting this, can Mr. R. ever take the name of catholic love into his mouth? Is not this the very opposite to it? the height and depth of bigotry? Does this spirit do honor to his opinion? Can we conceive anything more horrid? Is it not enough to make a person of humanity shudder? yea, to make his blood run cold? I will not here enter into the merits of the cause; I need not. It is done to my hands. The whole doctrine of predestination is thoroughly discussed in those three tracts lately printed: “An Answer to the Eleven Letters commonly ascribed to Mr. Hervey;” “Arguments against General Redemption considered;” and “An Answer to Elisha Coles.” Till these are seriously and solidly refuted, I have no more to say on that head. But this I must aver, that the excluding all from salvation who do not believe the horrible decree, is a most shocking insult on all mankind, on common sense, and common humanity. I am, etc.,

JOHN WESLEY.