ALETTERTO SOMECHURCH-MEMBERSOF THEPresbyterianPersuasion,IN ANSWER TOCertainScrupleslately proposed, in properQueriesraised on eachRemark.ALETTER,&c.New-York, November 1, 1740.My dear Friends,LAST night and this morning I read your queries and scruples. Whether they were compiled by church-members, or ministers of the presbyterian persuasion, I shall not take upon me to determine. I think I may say withDavid, though on another occasion, “Joab’s hand is in this.” If your ministers were really the authors, and you only their representatives, they have not acted simply. They had better have spoken out. I should as readily have answered them as you.Solomonsays, “He that hateth reproof, is brutish.” And if I know any thing of my own heart, I should think myself obliged to any one that convinces me of an error, either in principle or practice. I therefore assure you, that I do not find the least resentment stirring in my soul against those (whoever they be) that proposed the queries, or against the reverend presbytery that advised you to send them to me in a public manner: no, I rejoice in it; because it gives me an opportunity of doing what my friends know I have for some time proposed, the correcting some passages in my printed sermons. I think it no dishonour, to retract some expressions that formerly dropped from my pen, beforeGodwas pleased to give me a more clear knowledge of the doctrines of grace.St.Austin, I think, did so before me. TheLord’s dealing with me was somewhat out of the common way. I can say, to the honour of rich free distinguishing grace, that I received the Spirit of adoption before I had conversed with one man, or read a single book, on the doctrine of “Free justification by the imputed righteousness ofJesus Christ.” No wonder then, that I was not so clear in some points at my first setting out in the ministry. OurLordwas pleased to enlighten meby degrees; and I desire your prayers, that his grace may shine more and more in my heart, till it breaks forth into perfect day.But to come to the exceptionable passages in my sermons. You blame me for saying,VolumeII.page 17. “ThatAdamwas adorned with all the perfections of the Deity.” It is a wrong expression: I would correct it thus: “All themoral communicableperfections of the Deity.” Again, “Man was the perfection of themoralandmaterialworld: let it stand thus: “The perfection of all thevisibleworld.”VolumeII.page 22 and 23. “Washes the guilt of sin away by the tears of a sincere repentance, joined with faith in the blood ofJesus Christ.” This is false divinity: I would now alter it thus: “Recovers his former peace, by renewing his acts of faith on the perfect righteousness ofJesus Christ.”VolumeI.page 79. “And which alone can render any of our actions acceptable inGod’s sight.” It should be, “And without which, any of our actions cannot be acceptable inGod’s sight.”VolumeI.page 16. “Who vainly depend on their own righteousness, and not on the righteousness ofJesus Christ, imputed to, and inherent in them, as necessary for their eternal salvation.” To avoid all mistakes, I would express myself in this manner, “Who have neitherChrist’s righteousness imputed to them, for their justification in the fight, nor holiness wrought in their souls as the consequence of that, in order to make them meet for the enjoyment ofGod.”VolumeI.page 7. For, “To qualify us forbeing savingly inChrist,” read, “To qualify us forliving eternally withChrist.”The seeming contradiction in my sermon, VolumeII.page 128. compared with page 137. I think may be reconciled by that passage of the Apostle, “After you believed, you were sealed by the Spirit of promise.” Your arguing on this head, page 21. sectionvii.I think is not so clear. Might you not as reasonably have blamedJesus Christfor saying to a dead man, “Lazarus, come forth?” However, instead ofquickening Spirit, volumeII.page 137. let it be read, “sanctifying Spirit.”VolumeII.page 33. “The manChrist Jesusis spiritually formed in your hearts.” I would alter it thus, “ThatChristis formed within you.”VolumeI.page 53. “The many souls that are nourished weekly by the spiritual body and blood ofJesus Christby your means.” Let it be altered for these words, “Nourished weekly at theLord’s supper by your means.”I see no reason to alter my explanation of the words, “Baptizing them into the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;” and, “Christspiritually conceived in the heart ofEve:” I mean no more by these expressions than the Apostle, when he says, “Know ye not thatChristis in you, unless you be reprobates?” And again, “No one can callChrist, Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” And again, “We are made partakers of a divine nature.” VolumeII.page 128. these words [in the Lord’s prayer] may be left out: though, if the wordnamesignifiesGod’s attributes, according to your own confession, why may it not signify his essence? What areGod’s attributes butGodhimself?VolumeI.page 14. After, “essential ones too,” insert, “if persons are capable of performing them.”These, if I mistake not, are all the passages in my sermons, which you object against. And now to convince you, that I am not ashamed to own my faults, I can inform you of other passages as justly exceptionable. In my sermon onjustification, I seem to assertuniversal redemption, which I now absolutely deny. In myalmost christian, I talk of worksprocuringus so high a crown. In my sermon on themarks of the new-birth, I say, “We shall endure to the end,if we continue so”. These, and perhaps some other passages, though capable of a candid interpretation, I now dislike; and in the next edition of my sermons,Godwilling, I propose to alter them. In the mean while, I shall be thankful to any that will point out my errors; and I promise, by divine assistance, they shall have no reason to say, “That I am one who hates to be reformed.” “Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness; and let him reprove me, and it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities.”As for your insinuating, that I countenanceMr.Wesleyin his errors, it is no such thing. I prefacedHalyburton’s Memoirs before I saw whatMr.Wesleyhad written; and since I have seen it, have more than once said, “If I had known whatMr.Wesleyhad written, I would not have prefacedHalyburtonat all. I do not understandMr.Wesleyin his interpretation of these words, “He that is born again ofGod, sinneth not;” and therefore have torn off that part of his preface, out of several of those books which I have given away lately, and have acquainted him in what I think in this particular he errs, by sundry letters.You wrong me, if you think I am anAntinomian. For when I say, “Godmade no second covenant withAdam,” I mean no more than this: “Godmade no second covenant withAdamin his own person in behalf of his posterity; nor did man’s acceptance in the sight ofGod, after the fall, depend, either wholly or in part, on his works, as before the fall.” Whoever reads the author ofThe Whole Duty of Man, will find he thinks otherwise; and I believe your friends inScotlandwill not thank you for defending that book, as you seemingly have done in your late queries.Your objections, concerning my favourable opinion of some particular quakers that I have conversed with; and also about some particular promises, which I think have been made me, you may find satisfied in my “Answer to the Bishop ofLondon’s last Pastoral Letter,” and in a “Letter to the Bishop ofGloucester.”I am no friend to casting lots; but I believe, on extraordinary occasions, when things can be determined no other way,God, if appealed to, and waited on by prayer and fasting, will answer by lot now, as well as formerly.Do not condemn me for preachingextempore, and for saying, I am helped oftenimmediatelyin that exercise; when thousands can prove, as well as myself, that it has been so. Neither should you censure me as one that would lay aside reading. I am of BishopSanderson’s mind: “Study without prayer, is atheism; prayer without study, presumption.” Blame not me, for the warmth of some of my adherents, as you call them. One of your ministers knows, how sharply I rebuked one of them for his warmth, atForks-Manor. I am for loving as brethren, and wish all would copy after the lowlyJesus.But then I cannot discommend those (supposing they do it in the spirit of meekness) who exclaim against dry, sapless, unconverted ministers. Such surely are the bane of the christian church. But my other affairs will not permit me to enlarge.Some of the latter part of your queries, for your own, and not my own sake, I shall not mention. I hope I can say with more sincerity thanHazael, “Is your servant a dog, that he should do” what you suggest! But I prayGodto forgive you. He knows my heart. My one design is to bring poor souls toJesus Christ. I desire to avoid extremes, so as not to be a bigot on the one hand, or confound order and decency on the other. And I could heartily wish the reverend presbytery, when they advised you to publish your queries, had also cautioned you against dipping your pen in so much gall. Surely your insinuations are contrary to that charity, which hopeth and believeth all things for the best. And I appeal to your own hearts, whether it was right, especially since you heard the constant tenor of my preaching inAmericahas beencalvinistical, to censure me as aPapistorArminian, because a few unguarded expressions dropped from my pen, just as I came from the university ofOxford. Could ArchbishopTillotson, or theAuthorofThe Whole Duty of Man, say so? But I have done. TheLordbe with you! I am a poor frail creature. And as such I beseech you to pray forYour affectionate friend and servant,George Whitefield.
ALETTER,&c.
New-York, November 1, 1740.
My dear Friends,
LAST night and this morning I read your queries and scruples. Whether they were compiled by church-members, or ministers of the presbyterian persuasion, I shall not take upon me to determine. I think I may say withDavid, though on another occasion, “Joab’s hand is in this.” If your ministers were really the authors, and you only their representatives, they have not acted simply. They had better have spoken out. I should as readily have answered them as you.Solomonsays, “He that hateth reproof, is brutish.” And if I know any thing of my own heart, I should think myself obliged to any one that convinces me of an error, either in principle or practice. I therefore assure you, that I do not find the least resentment stirring in my soul against those (whoever they be) that proposed the queries, or against the reverend presbytery that advised you to send them to me in a public manner: no, I rejoice in it; because it gives me an opportunity of doing what my friends know I have for some time proposed, the correcting some passages in my printed sermons. I think it no dishonour, to retract some expressions that formerly dropped from my pen, beforeGodwas pleased to give me a more clear knowledge of the doctrines of grace.St.Austin, I think, did so before me. TheLord’s dealing with me was somewhat out of the common way. I can say, to the honour of rich free distinguishing grace, that I received the Spirit of adoption before I had conversed with one man, or read a single book, on the doctrine of “Free justification by the imputed righteousness ofJesus Christ.” No wonder then, that I was not so clear in some points at my first setting out in the ministry. OurLordwas pleased to enlighten meby degrees; and I desire your prayers, that his grace may shine more and more in my heart, till it breaks forth into perfect day.
But to come to the exceptionable passages in my sermons. You blame me for saying,
VolumeII.page 17. “ThatAdamwas adorned with all the perfections of the Deity.” It is a wrong expression: I would correct it thus: “All themoral communicableperfections of the Deity.” Again, “Man was the perfection of themoralandmaterialworld: let it stand thus: “The perfection of all thevisibleworld.”
VolumeII.page 22 and 23. “Washes the guilt of sin away by the tears of a sincere repentance, joined with faith in the blood ofJesus Christ.” This is false divinity: I would now alter it thus: “Recovers his former peace, by renewing his acts of faith on the perfect righteousness ofJesus Christ.”
VolumeI.page 79. “And which alone can render any of our actions acceptable inGod’s sight.” It should be, “And without which, any of our actions cannot be acceptable inGod’s sight.”
VolumeI.page 16. “Who vainly depend on their own righteousness, and not on the righteousness ofJesus Christ, imputed to, and inherent in them, as necessary for their eternal salvation.” To avoid all mistakes, I would express myself in this manner, “Who have neitherChrist’s righteousness imputed to them, for their justification in the fight, nor holiness wrought in their souls as the consequence of that, in order to make them meet for the enjoyment ofGod.”
VolumeI.page 7. For, “To qualify us forbeing savingly inChrist,” read, “To qualify us forliving eternally withChrist.”
The seeming contradiction in my sermon, VolumeII.page 128. compared with page 137. I think may be reconciled by that passage of the Apostle, “After you believed, you were sealed by the Spirit of promise.” Your arguing on this head, page 21. sectionvii.I think is not so clear. Might you not as reasonably have blamedJesus Christfor saying to a dead man, “Lazarus, come forth?” However, instead ofquickening Spirit, volumeII.page 137. let it be read, “sanctifying Spirit.”
VolumeII.page 33. “The manChrist Jesusis spiritually formed in your hearts.” I would alter it thus, “ThatChristis formed within you.”
VolumeI.page 53. “The many souls that are nourished weekly by the spiritual body and blood ofJesus Christby your means.” Let it be altered for these words, “Nourished weekly at theLord’s supper by your means.”
I see no reason to alter my explanation of the words, “Baptizing them into the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;” and, “Christspiritually conceived in the heart ofEve:” I mean no more by these expressions than the Apostle, when he says, “Know ye not thatChristis in you, unless you be reprobates?” And again, “No one can callChrist, Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” And again, “We are made partakers of a divine nature.” VolumeII.page 128. these words [in the Lord’s prayer] may be left out: though, if the wordnamesignifiesGod’s attributes, according to your own confession, why may it not signify his essence? What areGod’s attributes butGodhimself?
VolumeI.page 14. After, “essential ones too,” insert, “if persons are capable of performing them.”
These, if I mistake not, are all the passages in my sermons, which you object against. And now to convince you, that I am not ashamed to own my faults, I can inform you of other passages as justly exceptionable. In my sermon onjustification, I seem to assertuniversal redemption, which I now absolutely deny. In myalmost christian, I talk of worksprocuringus so high a crown. In my sermon on themarks of the new-birth, I say, “We shall endure to the end,if we continue so”. These, and perhaps some other passages, though capable of a candid interpretation, I now dislike; and in the next edition of my sermons,Godwilling, I propose to alter them. In the mean while, I shall be thankful to any that will point out my errors; and I promise, by divine assistance, they shall have no reason to say, “That I am one who hates to be reformed.” “Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness; and let him reprove me, and it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities.”
As for your insinuating, that I countenanceMr.Wesleyin his errors, it is no such thing. I prefacedHalyburton’s Memoirs before I saw whatMr.Wesleyhad written; and since I have seen it, have more than once said, “If I had known whatMr.Wesleyhad written, I would not have prefacedHalyburtonat all. I do not understandMr.Wesleyin his interpretation of these words, “He that is born again ofGod, sinneth not;” and therefore have torn off that part of his preface, out of several of those books which I have given away lately, and have acquainted him in what I think in this particular he errs, by sundry letters.
You wrong me, if you think I am anAntinomian. For when I say, “Godmade no second covenant withAdam,” I mean no more than this: “Godmade no second covenant withAdamin his own person in behalf of his posterity; nor did man’s acceptance in the sight ofGod, after the fall, depend, either wholly or in part, on his works, as before the fall.” Whoever reads the author ofThe Whole Duty of Man, will find he thinks otherwise; and I believe your friends inScotlandwill not thank you for defending that book, as you seemingly have done in your late queries.
Your objections, concerning my favourable opinion of some particular quakers that I have conversed with; and also about some particular promises, which I think have been made me, you may find satisfied in my “Answer to the Bishop ofLondon’s last Pastoral Letter,” and in a “Letter to the Bishop ofGloucester.”
I am no friend to casting lots; but I believe, on extraordinary occasions, when things can be determined no other way,God, if appealed to, and waited on by prayer and fasting, will answer by lot now, as well as formerly.
Do not condemn me for preachingextempore, and for saying, I am helped oftenimmediatelyin that exercise; when thousands can prove, as well as myself, that it has been so. Neither should you censure me as one that would lay aside reading. I am of BishopSanderson’s mind: “Study without prayer, is atheism; prayer without study, presumption.” Blame not me, for the warmth of some of my adherents, as you call them. One of your ministers knows, how sharply I rebuked one of them for his warmth, atForks-Manor. I am for loving as brethren, and wish all would copy after the lowlyJesus.But then I cannot discommend those (supposing they do it in the spirit of meekness) who exclaim against dry, sapless, unconverted ministers. Such surely are the bane of the christian church. But my other affairs will not permit me to enlarge.
Some of the latter part of your queries, for your own, and not my own sake, I shall not mention. I hope I can say with more sincerity thanHazael, “Is your servant a dog, that he should do” what you suggest! But I prayGodto forgive you. He knows my heart. My one design is to bring poor souls toJesus Christ. I desire to avoid extremes, so as not to be a bigot on the one hand, or confound order and decency on the other. And I could heartily wish the reverend presbytery, when they advised you to publish your queries, had also cautioned you against dipping your pen in so much gall. Surely your insinuations are contrary to that charity, which hopeth and believeth all things for the best. And I appeal to your own hearts, whether it was right, especially since you heard the constant tenor of my preaching inAmericahas beencalvinistical, to censure me as aPapistorArminian, because a few unguarded expressions dropped from my pen, just as I came from the university ofOxford. Could ArchbishopTillotson, or theAuthorofThe Whole Duty of Man, say so? But I have done. TheLordbe with you! I am a poor frail creature. And as such I beseech you to pray for
Your affectionate friend and servant,
George Whitefield.