Near the end of her life Susanna Wesley found herself in a position to defend one of her former pupils, her son John, then in the middle of a public theological controversy with his old friend George Whitefield. Whitefield (1714–1770) came under John Wesley’s influence while a student at Pembroke College, Oxford, becoming not only an ardent member of the undergraduate religious organization nicknamed the Holy Club but subsequently a major leader of the evangelical revival in both Britain and North America. In fact, it was the more innovative, less churchly Whitefield who introduced Wesley to field preaching in 1739. Though they were able to maintain their personal friendship, a fact that partially accounted for Whitefield’s visit to the widowed Susanna Wesley while she was staying with the Halls in Wooton,1 a professional rivalry developed. The two men soon broke theological ranks over predestination, the Calvinist doctrine asserting that God “before the foundation of the world” irrevocably chose some for salvation (“election”), others for damnation (“reprobation”). Whitefield, whose predisposition in this direction was abetted by his evangelistic work in Wales, Scotland, and America, became its champion, while his former mentor steadfastly held to his birthright Ar-minian position, which supported divine love (though perhaps at the expense of divine power) and gave humanity a greater role in the process of salvation.
The disagreement became more than a private dispute when Wesley preached and published a sermon critical of predestination entitled “Free Grace.” Making matters worse, Whitefield was out of the country at the time and expressed his shock in the form, of a letter from Georgia, published as A Letter to the Reverend Mr. John Wesley: In Answer to His Sermon, Entitled, Free-Grace (London: T. Cooper and R. Hett, 1741).2 Though Wesley provided his own more general rejoinder in A Dialogue between a Predestinarian and His Friend, 2nd ed. (London: Strahan, 1741), his mother, within a year of her death, also took up her pen in this point-by-point rebuttal of Whitefield.
After all her letters, journals, and extended essays, this last piece of theological writing was the only one to see publication during her lifetime. Even at that, it was published anonymously, and though her authorship was suspected, it was never conclusively proven until the 1960s. Frank Baker has convincingly marshaled the evidence, which includes the work’s similarity with some of her catechetical writings; a diary entry from one of John Wesley’s assistants, describing the pamphlet and noting, “Mr. W told me his Mother wrote it”; and the suggestive note in the ledger of Wesley’s printer, “For the printing and Paper of Mrs. W’s pamphlet £3.5.—.”3
Just another skirmish in one more pamphlet war before the identification of its author, Some Remarks now begs for scrutiny. In general, it reveals Susanna Wesley capably defending one of her own by holding her own against a formidable and increasingly popular public figure. A decade and a half earlier she had expressed her aversion to “rigid Calvinists” in a letter to John,4 demonstrating that these were issues she had carefully thought about and doubtless confirming him in his position.
As in her “Religious Conference,” she tempers an appropriately modest female persona (in that case “Mother,” in this one a “gentlewoman”) with a fairly bold one. In Some Remarks she is, if not licensed to kill, at least authorized as a controversialist, expected to make trenchant points against an opponent; and this she clearly enjoys.
Her forthright, not to say harsh, strategy is immediately apparent on the title page with the choice of epigraphs. The two scriptural references and the quotation from Athanasius imply at best Whitefield’s instability; at worst, his blasphemy and his status as a fallen angel. Indeed, following a few opening niceties, the attack begins in a similar vein: Whitefield is “not the first … that have done the Devil’s work in the great and sacred name of God” in acts of treachery and betrayals of trust. Not shrinking from ad hominem argument, she accuses Whitefield of jealousy and a susceptibility to bribes and expresses pity for his “youth and inexperience,” which have not well equipped him for the temptations that come with popularity. Finally, before turning her attention to content, she scores Whitefield for raising controversy and causing divisions among Christians—while in the process she abets both.
In responding to Whitefield’s attack on her son and advancing her own argument, Susanna Wesley covers the well-worn territory of Calvinist-Arminian debate, though there are several unexpected moments. Among the traditional anti-Calvinist points, she cites the cruelty of preaching to the reprobates, if in fact they cannot be saved; she argues that the nature of God, particularly God’s infinite love, is blasphemed in the doctrine of election; she wonders how predestination leaves any room for moral choice and, therefore, the promised reward and punishment of the last judgment. But there are also some interesting new twists: her suspicion that “gospel perfection,” as preached by the Wesleys, was part of what had got stuck in Whitefield’s craw; her analysis (from having herself known “many predestinarians”) of the problems Calvinists necessarily suffer, either despairing of their election or being so sure of it as to fall into a self-indulgent Antinomianism; her charge that a Calvinist God is a kind of projection of an earthly absolute monarch (a statement indicating she had by then probably outlived the divine right philosophy she espoused some four decades before);5 and in contending that Calvinists often hide behind the inevitability of original sin, her asertion that Eve was really less culpable than Adam in the. fall.
High-minded, sophisticated theology it is not, but it is practical, if not particularly irenic, and displays a rhetorical flare that effectively clarifies some of the factors, theological and psychological, contributing to the growing rift between the two great leaders of the evangelical revival. It deserves our special attention as her last and most public attempt at giving voice to her convictions.
SOME
REMARKS
ON THE REVEREND
MR. WHITEEIELD’S
LETTER
Dear FRIEND,
In compliance with your request, I send you my thoughts at last concerning this strange letter, which you observe has made such a noise in town; but before I make any remarks on the letter itself, I must take notice of its publication to the world, which, not to insist upon the wonderful absence of good sense, good manners, friendship, and above all Christian charity in the writer, is so exceeding shocking, that every well-tempered, honest, generous mind, must look upon it with a just abhorrence.
Supposing (but in no wise granting) that Mr. Wesley had fallen into any error, did he take a proper way to apprize him of it? If he had been the Christian or friend he pretended to be, he would never have appeared against Mr. Wesley in print, but would have much rather gone to him in private and in a calm and friendly manner have endeavoured to show him his errors, and if he could have convinced Mr. Wesley of any mistake, well; if not, the matter was not of such importance to the world as to lay him under any obligation of exposing his friend. Oh! but says Mr. Whitefield, “I should never have published this private Transaction to the World, had not the Glory of God called upon me to do it.” 6 He is not the first, by many thousands, that have done the Devil’s work in the great and sacred name of God. But be it known to him and all the world, that it is an impious profanation of that most holy name to use it in vindication of any act of treachery, in abusing the confidence of any man, betraying a trust, revealing of secrets, declaring what is spoken by a friend to the ear in private on the house-top. This is a practice which no pretence can justify: for it is not religion, but the want of it that make a man capable of doing a base unworthy action.
“Oh! my soul, come not thou into the secret of such treacherous men; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united.” 7
But I take the true state of the case to be this; when Mr. Whitefield returned from Georgia, he found the Wesleys were men of an established reputation among the better sort of people for the purity of their doctrine and integrity of their lives (“the Spirit that is in us lusteth to envy”),8 and as he too much affected popularity himself, as appears in some of his writings, he might probably think his own glory suffered some diminution by the increase of their reputation. Besides, he had held a close correspondence with the Dissenters while he was abroad and could not be ignorant of what they were not careful to conceal in England, that if Mr. Whitefield would return and preach up predestination in opposition to the Wesleys, they would pave his way with gold. Interest hath an agreeable way of putting out a man’s eyes and making him mistake that for good which indeed is evil. Had it not been so, perhaps Mr. Whitefield would not so readily have forsaken his old faithful friends to make his court to the Dissenters.
But after all, his youth and inexperience renders him somewhat pitiable.9 He appeared young in the world and was not apprized that popular applause had such an intoxicating quality, that few men have heads strong enough to bear it. Nor did he consider that praise is the roost contagious breath, nor knew that the sails of native pride are ever ready to receive such winds, which frequently increase a man’s sins, but never add one cubit to the stature of his worth.10
As to his compellations to Mr. Wesley of “Honoured” and “Dear,” etc.11 I look upon them only as so many cant words which are of no signification, tho’ possibly he might intend by the frequent use of them to cut his friend’s throat with a feather.
Mr. Whitefield might well be aware that the publishing of his letter would have different (tho’ no good) effects in the minds of the readers. “Many of my Friends,” says he, “that are Advocates for universal Redemption, will be offended; many, that are zealous on the other Side, will be much rejoiced.” Thus far he is right, but in what follows he mistakes the truth totally. “They that are lukewarm on both Sides, and are carried away with carnal Reasoning, will wish this Matter had never been brought under Debate.”12 Did ever man think like this! Alas! my friend, it is not the lukewarm and carnal reasoner on either side (for God is seldom in their thoughts, neither are such zealous for his glory.) But it is the truly spiritual man, it is he that “loves the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity,” who is grieved to see him again “wounded in the house of his friends,” 13 that deeply mourns at observing the miserable divisions this unwary man hath made in the church by reviving a controversy which had been very wisely laid asleep. God forgive him. He had been much better employed in exhorting his followers to let controversy alone and to mind the “working out their own salvation with fear and trembling,” as St. Paul directs.14
He begins his letter with a protestation against fact, of which I shall say nothing. Then he accuses Mr. Wesley of having by preaching and printing propagated the doctrine of universal redemption, which doctrine more than once or twice I have heard Mr. Whitefield preach himself. But that was before he was so loudly called upon to oppose Mr. Wesley, and then he probably thought his own interest would be better supported by an union with the Wesleys and therefore preached the true Gospel as they did then, and, blessed be God, continue to do still. But now he finds his interest lies another way. Then who shall blame him if his mind alter with the occasion? ‘Tis a common case, so let that pass also.
Mr. Whitefield falls severely enough on Mr. Wesley about casting a lot.15 I cannot say that I approve of lots in any trifling matter, but to use them in a case of importance, as this certainly was, is not to be condemned, since we find them so used both in the Old and New Testament. He tells Mr. Wesley, “a due Exercise of religious Prudence, without a Lot, would have directed you in that Matter.” 16 And I must tell him, that a due exercise of religious prudence or common honesty would have restrained Mr. Whitefield from publishing what passed17 in private between him and Mr. Wesley. But Mr. Whitefield goes on, “Besides I never heard that you enquired of God, whether or not Election was a Gospel Doctrine?”18 I suppose he means that doctrine of election which he says must stand or fall with that of reprobation; and if so, what high presumption must Mr. Wesley have been guilty of had he brought such a lot as that before the Lord, since it would, in effect, have given the lie to all the merciful declarations God hath vouchsafed to make of his free grace and universal love to lost mankind!
He then cavils at Mr. Wesley’s text and wonders that he should choose a text out of the eighth of the Romans to disprove the doctrine of election.19 Now I cannot see where Mr. Wesley could have chose a better. It is plain indeed that St. Paul throughout the whole Chapter is speaking of the privileges of those who are in Christ true believers. Yet if we compare spiritual things with spiritual and observe how often the word “all,” when used to declare God’s grace and love to mankind, must be taken in the largest and most comprehensive sense, unless we strangely pervert the text, we shall not see reason (notwithstanding the Apostle did speak chiefly to believers here) to confine the word “all” within such narrow limits as Mr. Whitefield has done. And I rather approve of Mr. Wesley’s choice of this text because the true doctrine of election is more clearly and explicitly taught in the twenty-ninth and thirtieth verses of this chapter than any where else in scripture. And these two verses always preserved me from the errors of these predestinarians, with whom I frequently conversed. Verse 29: “For whom he did foreknow, whom in his eternal prescience he saw would accept of offered mercy, and believe in Jesus Christ, as their Redeemer, their Saviour,” etc.20 He approves, chooses them for heirs of his kingdom, and appoints or wills their conformity to the image of his Son in righteousness and true holiness. And to this they are called, either by the inward voice of their Redeemer or the outward voice of his ministers, and Providence, commonly by all these means. And wherever the elect, the children or sons of God, etc. are spoken of in scripture, it is always to be understood of true believers. (Here is not a word of reprobation.) Now since prescience doth not infer causality, the predestinarians, if they would ever so fain have all men damned but themselves, cannot conclude that one single man is damned from this place. But to go on, “Your Discourse,” says Mr. Whitefield, “is as little to the Purpose as your Text.[…] I shall not mention how illogically you have proceeded.—Had you wrote clearly, you should first […] have proved your Proposition, that God’s Grace is free to all.”21
How inconsistent is this man with himself! A few pages farther he advises Mr. Wesley to “down with his carnal Reasonings,”22 and here he blames him for not using carnal reason, for “illogical Proceeding, in not proving the Truth of this Proposition, that God’s Grace is free to all.” 23 Is there then need of logic to prove the truth of any thing that God hath so often and clearly revealed throughout the whole bible? For my part I always thought that God was infinite, original Truth! And if we were once secure that he had revealed any thing to us, we might safely depend on his authority for the truth of it, whether we do or do not understand it.
But Mr. Whitefield further adds, “Passing by this, as also your equivocal Definition of the Word Grace, and your false Definition of the Word Free …”24 Mr. Wesley’s definition of the word “grace” is good, and Mr. Whitefield must own it to be so, or else deny that the favour or grace (for the words are of the same signification) God hath showed to men in sending his only Son into the world to save them proceeded from his infinite love to mankind! If he be hardy enough to deny this, our Lord will answer him by himself.
As for the word “free” as used in this place, I challenge Mr. Whitefield and all his adherents to define it better than Mr. Wesley hath done; but this is mere trifling, as indeed is what follows.
Mr. Wesley had justly inferred from the Calvinists doctrine, Sermon p. 7th, that “by virtue of an Eternal, Unchangeable, Irresistible Decree of God, one Part of Mankind are infallibly saved, and the rest are infallibly damned.” That if it “be so, then is all Preaching vain.” 25 Mr. Wesley speaks too modestly here in only saying preaching is vain (for certainly infinite Wisdom might have appointed some other way to have called the elect). He might have safely affirmed preaching the gospel to be a cruel ordinance: for if, as Calvin says, “God speaketh by his Ministers to Reprobates that they may be deafer; he gives Light to them that they may be the blinder; he offers Instruction to them that they may be the more ignorant; and uses the Remedy that they may not be healed,” 26 what good man would not rather choose to be a hangman than a minister of the gospel? For the former, as the executioner of public justice, is only employed to put an end to a man’s temporal life, which may prove the salvation of his soul. But the latter must be employed to confirm and harden men in sin and thereby insure their damnation and increase their eternal torments. Therefore it might well be said (as before) that Mr. Wesley spake too modestly in only saying that upon their principles preaching and hearing are vain.27
Mr. Whitefield seems to me to be beating the air, sometimes arguing against self-evident truth, at other times he argues against the truth of God himself. Mr. Wesley says, “that the Doctrine of Election and Reprobation directly tends to destroy that Holiness, which is the End of all the Ordinances of God; For it takes away these 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 the Fear of Hell, &c.” 28
One would think this is too clear to be denied. For since this doctrine hath a natural tendency to lead men either into presumption or despair, it must take away those first motives to Christian holiness so often proposed in scripture, viz. “the Hope of Heaven, and Fear of Hell,” etc. What Mr. Wesley says further under this head (if duly considered) will appear to be very good arguing against predestination. But Mr. Whitefield says, “I thought one that carries Perfection to such an exalted Pitch as Mr. Wesley does” (doth Mr. Wesley then set the mark of Christian perfection one jot higher than Christ and his apostles did? I wish Mr. Whitefield would attempt to prove that.) “would know that a true Lover of the Lord Jesus Christ would strive to be holy, for the sake of being holy.” 29 I think also that Mr. Whitefield might know that a person must have made a good progress in Christianity before he can “strive to be holy, for the sake of being holy”;30 and must have attained to a great degree of faith and love, before he can act for Christ upon the pure principles of gratitude and love, without any regard to the rewards of heaven or fear of hell. Hope and fear are the two great principles of human action; no man of sense ever undertaking anything of moment, but either out of hope to get something he thinks may do him good or else out of fear of some evil which otherwise may fall upon him; therefore he that made us, and indued us with these principles, the better to keep us within the compass of our duty, hath been graciously pleased to promise the best things we can ever hope for to those who keep his commandments, and to threaten the worst we can ever fear to those who keep them not.
Here we may observe that God works on man as man, a rational free agent, in that he proposes rewards and punishments as motives to obedience. And indeed we must own man has some liberty or deny him to be a subject capable of reward or punishment. And if he be a necessary agent, what becomes of the resurrection from the dead, a general judgment, and a future state of happiness or misery? But of man’s free-will more hereafter.
Mr. Wesley says, “this Doctrine (of Election) tends to destroy the comforts of Religion, the Happiness of Christianity, etc.”31 Now to him who hath a zeal for the glory of God according to knowledge, and whose heart is full of universal benevolence to mankind, this appears a self-evident truth. And those that hold the doctrine of election and reprobation, even against their wills confirm this truth, that they who hold the blessed doctrine of universal redemption are much happier than themselves. For they cannot shake off their doubts and fears, but they will frequently return upon them, do what they can, which plainly shows that they are far from solid happiness. I have been well acquainted with many predestinarians and have observed two sorts of people amongst them. The one were serious and, I believe, sincerely desirous of salvation, and striving to enter by the strait gate32 into the kingdom of heaven. These were generally much dejected and (excepting a few) always seeking after marks of grace, being doubtful of their own election often upon the point of despair, being ignorant of that true gospel liberty which is attainable in this life and which many, who hold universal redemption do actually enjoy.
Others, and they far the greater number, were very confident of their own election, thought it a great sin to make any doubt of it, and could not patiently hear it questioned. These were commonly sunk in carnal security and without scruple gave in to all manner of self-indulgence, fancying that what would be sin in a reprobate would be none in them. Of these I know several at this time, and so does Mr. Whitefield, too.
Mr. Whitefield says, “I admire the Doctrine of Election, and am convinced that it should have a Place in Gospel Ministry, and should be insisted on with Faithfulness and Care.” 33
Now if Mr. Whitefield can prove that without believing this doctrine a man cannot possibly be saved, he is in the right; but if he cannot prove this, he is palpably in the wrong. And considering what fierce contentions and sad divisions the doctrine of election and reprobation hath occasioned in the church of Christ, wise and good men can never come into his way of thinking in this particular.
Young men and novices in divinity commonly delight in controversy; but sober experienced Christians much abhor it, well knowing that it usually destroys the vitals of true saving religion and that while men are disputing the way, the power of godliness is lost. And I very much fear that Mr. Whitefield’s reviving this pernicious controversy is one reason why our Lord hath permitted him to fall into that dangerous most shocking practice of making public opposition against gospel holiness, which is the only Christian perfection the Wesleys ever taught; for absolute perfection they never preached.
If men would have been content with the plain account given in scripture of the creation of the world and redemption of mankind by our Lord Jesus Christ and had not affected to be wise above what is written, there had never arose any controversy in the church about election and reprobation. Nor would the predestinarians so vilely have blasphemed the great and holy God as they have done, if they had believed and rested in the manifestations he hath vouchsafed to make of himself to us in sacred writ. ‘Tis past all dispute “that none but God know what God is!” 34 nor can a finite being possibly have any true conceptions of him unless they be taught of God.
If we look into holy scripture, we shall find, when Moses enquired of God what he should say to the children of Israel when they asked him what was the name of God, God said unto Moses, “I am that am; and he said, thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you.”35 We see God defines himself by himself, “I am that I am,” or as the words also signify, “I will be that I will be.”36 There is no doubt but Moses, designing to know God’s name, intended by that to understand his nature, who and what he is. But that could not be; for there are no words in any or all the languages on earth whereby to express the glory of an infinite Being so as finite creatures should be fully able to conceive it. Therefore God is pleased to return him this answer, “I am that I am.”37 And if we could rightly apprehend what is couched under these words, we should certainly have as high and true conceptions of God as is possible for creatures to attain. However, we may learn from this awful name what he would have us think of his nature, so as to distinguish him from all things beside. We are wont to conceive and speak of the great God after the manner of men and to call him a powerful, a wise, a just, a true, a loving and holy God, etc., whereas we ought rather to say, he is Power, Wisdom, Goodness, Justice, Truth, Love, Holiness, etc. For as all these perfections are in him, they are neither distinguished from one another, nor from his nature or essence, in whom they are said to be. For, to speak properly, they are not in him, but are his very essence or nature itself, which, acting severally upon several objects, seems to us to act from several properties or perfections; whereas all the difference is in our different apprehensions of the same thing. God in himself is one most pure and simple act and therefore cannot have any thing in him but what is that most pure and simple act. We may observe, he admits nothing into the manifestation of himself but pure essence, without any mixture or composition. “I am that I am! I am Jehovah! Being itself!”38 To which name nothing can be added, from which nothing can be taken away. To add anything to it would be a mere tautology, or rather a diminution from it, as limiting or confining it to one perfection, whereas all are signified by it.
Now it is inconceivable to me how anyone who believes God to be this all-great all-glorious, infinite Being that he hath declared himself to be, can possibly sink into such low, vile, unworthy conceptions of him as these Calvinists do! How is it possible for them to think that evil, which, properly speaking, hath no Being (tho’ the subject of evil hath a being) can proceed from him who is Being itself! How sin, the greatest of evils, could ever proceed from God, from him that is the only infinite, supreme, original Good!39
Now, if Mr. Whitefield would have answered Mr. Wesley to any purpose, the first thing he had to do was to vindicate the honour and glory of God by clearing the predestinarian scheme from those monstrous absurdities and horrible blasphemies which necessarily attend it. He should have tried to reconcile God’s being the author of sin, with his infinite holiness, and his deceiving his creatures by so many and often repeated declarations of his universal love and free grace for all that will accept of it, to his infinite Truth, and creating so many millions of souls on purpose to damn them, with his infinite justice, mercy and love.
But the Calvinists very well know that their doctrine is irreconcilable with the perfections of the divine nature; and therefore when they are hard pressed with any argument taken from thence, they strive to evade the force of it, not by clearing their doctrine from the blasphemy attending it, but by having recourse to the sovereignty of the Almighty, which, they say, may do whatever he pleaseth; which in some sense is true, but in theirs absolutely false. And they grossly betray their ignorance, when they attempt to speak of sovereign power as it is in God. For it is plain the authors Mr. Whitefield mentions and recommends to Mr. Wesley were very weak injudicious writers and had no true conceptions of the sovereign power of God,40 but took their notion from the arbitrary sway which those whom we call sovereign princes exercise with in their dominions; these absolute monarchs usually act arbitrariousfy and their will is commonly their rule of government. The sad effects of such government are too well known, especially to their unhappy subjects41 But true infinite sovereign power never was nor can be employed in any acts of oppression, injustice, or cruelty. Never acts arbitrariously, after the manner of men, but all his works and ways are in number, weight and measure most perfect! In that blessed Being wisdom and power, truth, holiness, justice and mercy, etc. are one act. And tho’ he be the true and only potentate, “king of kings and lord of lords,” “and none can stay his hand (his power) or say unto him, What dost thou?” 42 Yet notwithstanding his infinite, absolute sovereignty, which none can dispute and to which all must submit, we may with humble reverence affirm that there are things which this almighty, all-glorious Being cannot do. But some may say, how can this be? God knoweth no superior, no equal; “he doth whatever pleaseth him” in heaven and earth.43 Who then can give law to him?
Himself, the infinite perfection of his divine nature, is the constant unerring rule of all his actions; therefore he is said in scripture “to work according to the counsel of his own will.”44 The will of God is the pure origin or fountain of all moral goodness! And therefore it is absolutely impossible that he should will anything which is evil. ‘Tis true he permits many things that are evil, but ‘tis impiety to think or say he is pleased with anything that is so. He is “of purer eyes than to behold iniquity” 45 with the least degree of approbation; nor can he possibly decree or act anything that is inconsistent with the infinite perfection of his most blessed nature, which is his essential glory!
We have seen that this horrible decree of reprobation is utterly inconsistent with the manifestations the great Jehovah hath condescended to make of himself to his unworthy creatures. Let us now consider whether this doctrine be more agreeable to the gracious declarations he hath been pleased to make of his universal love and free grace to fallen man.
And here I shall follow the plain account which holy scripture gives of those two great events, namely, the creation of man and his redemption by our Lord Jesus Christ.46 But first I shall observe that before God made man, he created the angels, an order of spirits superior to those of humankind. These were the “morning stars which sang together, those sons of God that shouted for joy” when he “laid the foundations of the earth.”47 These were all free agents and consequently were at first entered into a stale of probation, otherwise they must have been incapable of rewards of punishments. “Sonic of these,” St. Jude tells us, “kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation (heaven) having fallen, self-tempted.”‘48
After the apostasy of the angels God created man, a compound being, having an immortal spirit united to a material body, formed of the dust of the ground, and placed him in Paradise before prepared for them; and gave them “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” 49
Man, also being a rational free agent, was put upon a trial of his obedience, as we read in the third of Genesis. And as God had created him in his own image, while he retained his integrity, there was a perfect union between the will of his Maker and his own. He had perfect knowledge of his duty and sufficient strength to do it, and therefore perfect obedience was justly required. How long our first parents continued in their state of happy innocence we know not, scripture being silent about it. But this we know and feel, that they also fell and thereby broke the union between the divine and human nature, forfeited their interest in God, became servants to Satan, and subject to death temporal, spiritual and eternal.
Adam (or man in general, as the word Adam signifie[s]) being the first head of mankind, in whom the whole human species was virtually included, the whole human nature was corrupted in him and involved in the consequences of their first parents[‘] fall.50
But here let us admire, praise and adore the incomprehensible glory of God in his universal love and goodness to all mankind! In providing (all men) a second parent or common head, who after the fall of the first, and the fallen state he had brought upon his posterity, should be a common Restorer, and put it in the choice of every individual man to have life or death as the first man had; that so they, who were lost before they were born and made inheritors of a corrupt and miserable nature without their choice, might have a divine life restored to them in a second parent, which should not be in the power of anyone to lose for them. But I choose to speak of this matter in the words of an excellent man, Mr. Law, in a book of his entitled A Demonstration of the gross and fundamental Errors of a late Book, called, A plain Account of the Nature and End of the Lord’s Supper etc., a book much better worth reading than any Mr. Whitefield hath recommended to Mr. Wesley. His words are these:
The Declaration which God made to Adam immediately after his Fall, of a Seed of the Woman to bruise the Serpent’s Head, was a Declaration of Pardon and Redemption to Adam, and in him to all Mankind: For what he said to Adam, that he said to all that were in the Loins of Adam, who, as they fell in his Fall before they were born, without the Possibility of any one Man’s being exempted from it; so were they all put into his State of Pardon and Redemption before they were born, without the Possibility of any one Man’s being excluded, or left out of it.
Thus revealed Religion begins with an Offer of a second Adam, and upon the Foot of an universal Pardon and Redemption to all Mankind.51
In that instant that God declared the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head52 (break the power of the devil) our blessed Redeemer united his divine power to the whole human nature and thereby brought all mankind into a salvable condition. And had he not thus healed the breach between the divine and human nature, which Adam had made by his voluntary disobedience, neither Adam himself or anyone of his posterity could possibly have been saved. The very reason why the apostate angels remain devils is because our dear Lord passed them by. “For he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.”53 For it is very probable, had our Savior assumed their nature as he did ours, very few, if any, of these unhappy spirits had been lost. But every child of Adam is in the same covenant, hath the same Saviour, and an equal share in the first general pardon that Adam himself had. To this purpose the Apostle: “As by the offence of one, judgment came upon all to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” 54 What becomes then of their decree of reprobation? There is no partiality in God; he bears equal respect to all his creatures, and if any one soul be lost, the destruction of that soul is from itself. The soul of Judas was as much interested in the original pardon and redemption as the soul of St. Paul, and the reason why the one was saved and the other lost was not because one was ordained to eternal, life, the other to eternal death, but St. Paul accepted an offered Saviour and was faithful to given grace, whereas Judas rejected his offered Saviour and despised his offered mercy; he would not believe, therefore he could not be saved. Otherwise he was one of the human nature as a well as St. Paul and had as much right to the first covenant as he, but wanted faith to lay hold of it.
In God as Parent to the universe we have our natural life; “for in him we live, and move, and have our being.” 55 So in God the Son as Redeemer of mankind we live, and move, and have our spiritual being. He is our second Adam, from whom we derive as real a birth, life, and nature as we do from the first Adam; he is the Life of our life, Spirit of our spirit. “He is the true light, that lighteth every man which cometh into the world” 56 and doth impart to every man so much liberty, so much strength and power against the Serpent as, if carefully improved by the continual succours of divine grace, will enable him to “work out his own salvation.”57 And the assistance of the Spirit of Jesus shall never be wanting; for Christ hath said, “To him that hath shall be given.” 58 But if a man will not accept this liberty, if he will not attend to what his Saviour inwardly speaks to his soul, if he will shut his eyes against the light and quench that spark of life communicated to every man by the seed of the woman, when the body falls off by death, he must find himself in his own hell and feel the torments of a diabolical, self-tormented nature for ever, that would not suffer itself to be redeemed.
What hath been already said is sufficient to convince any man (who will be convinced) that the doctrine of eternal reprobation is contrary to the infinite perfection of the nature of God and as contrary to all the declarations he hath made of his universal love and free grace to all mankind. Indeed, as Mr. Wesley hath observed, this doctrine “flatly contradicts […] the whole scope and tenor of scripture,”59 and therefore ought to be exploded and rejected by all men. But to go on; Mr. Whitefield says, “The Principles of those that hold universal Redemption, has a natural Tendency to keep the soul in Darkness for ever; because the Creature is thereby taught, that his being kept in a State of Salvation is owing to his own free Will.”60 How well Mr. Whitefield knows his own principles or their tendencies, I don’t know; but it is plain he knows very little of their principles against whom he disputes. Those who believe Christ an almighty universal Saviour arrogate nothing to themselves, but give him the glory of all and acknowledge that they can neither will or do according to his good pleasure61 but by his grace preventing and assisting them; they plead no exemption from original sin, nor lay claim to any merits or righteousness of their own. “They have not so learned Christ.”62 I think Mr. Whitefield might well have spared his invidious reflections on Mr. Wesley and his followers; for suppose he doth not in such triumphant language boast of his privileges or speak of himself as if, like St. Paul, he had been “caught up into the third heaven,” 63 and suppose his followers should be infected with the same humility and are not so profuse in their professions or so positive they can never fall from grace. Can it be fairly inferred from thence, that he and his people are all dead and cold and that, having begun in the spirit, they have all ended in the flesh? I wish Mr. Whitefield and those who follow him would return to a better mind, that they also might be in that state of gospel liberty which they enjoy whom he now despises.
I shall take no farther notice of what Mr. Whitefield says concerning the final perseverance of his saints than to quote a passage I lately met with in a Dissenters Letter to his Friend:
This is certain, that there is such a State of Perfection to be attained in this Life, from which a Man shall never fall: But yet it is high Presumption for a Man to affirm of himself, or any other, that it is impossible for him to fall. ‘Tis best for all People to follow the Apostle’s Advice, “Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.”64
Mr. Wesley had very justly observed, “how uncomfortable a thought it is, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings!”65
To which Mr. Whitefield replies, “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 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 a Saviour for any one.” 66
Now, all this reply is just so much of nothing to the purpose. ‘Tis presumption for anyone to dispute whether God might justly have passed Adam and all his posterity by, since ‘tis plain he did not pass any one of them by, but provided a second head for mankind and called his name Adam as the first; signifying thereby, that he should not unite his divine Person to the nature of this of that particular man, but to the whole human nature in general, that the redemption might be equal to the fall. But enough hath been said of this already, and I only mention it here to show, that tho’ God doth look upon all men as an order of fallen spirits, yet in the same view he beholds them as an order of redeemed spirits too. Therefore it is highly unreasonable (to say no more of it) for us to believe that any single soul of Adam’s posterity ever was or ever will be damned merely for their original sin; therefore we may conclude that infants and idiots are certainly saved.
I cannot forbear observing here how incident it is to mankind to follow the example of their first parents. When God questioned Adam whether he had eaten of the forbidden fruit, he replied, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” And when the Lord God said unto the woman, “What is this that thou hast done?” she said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” 67 How ready they were to excuse themselves and lay the blame upon another. The woman indeed seemed more modest of the two; for she only accuses the serpent, but Adam would have transferred his guilt upon God himself.
After this manner do we charge all of our voluntary transgressions upon original sin; and ‘tis a sad truth, that we were all conceived and born in sin, and if in this case “we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” 68 And of this important truth all are, or ought to be, deeply sensible, in order to bring them to Christ. For he who sees no sin in himself, will seek no Saviour. But then we must not lay the blame of all our personal sins upon Adam, rather let us forbear sewing fig-leaves together to hide our nakedness and take shame to ourselves by confessing our faults are all our own. We brought indeed a corrupted nature into the world, but we had the seed of the woman too; and what everyone that calls himself a Christian ought principally to be grieved and humbled for is that, knowing the disease, “we shunned the cure and suffered either the “lust of the flesh, or the lust of the eye, or the pride of life” 69 to extinguish that spark of divine life we received from our blessed Redeemer. If we still feel the weight of our corrupt nature and that our original sin hath dominion over us, whose fault is it? Is it not our own? Had we carefully listened to the still small voice of Jesus within us, had we diligently improved each degree of light and liberty he imparted to us and obediently followed every motion of his Holy Spirit, the old Adam had been crucified long ago, and we had been fully born of God. Then there would be no dispute amongst Christians whether a man can live without sin; for every Christian’s experience would answer that question in the affirmative.
Sufficient hath been said to obviate Mr. Whitefield’s objection, “That the Doctrine of universal Redemption makes Salvation depend, not on God’s free Grace, but on Man’s free Will.”70 But this is a gross mistake; for none who believes universal redemption but acknowledges also “that we are not sufficient of ourselves to think or do any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. “71 ’ But then we most humbly believe and dare boldly assert that every man receives so much light and liberty from the universal Redeemer as will render him altogether inexcusable at the last great day, if he has been unfaithful to the grace he had or might have received. Of which truth this is a proof, that God hath fixed a conscience in every man’s heart as his72 vicegerent, to which men are accountable. Thus St. Paul: “When the Gentiles (heathens) which have not the (written) law, do by nature (redeemed nature) the things contained in the (written) law, these having not the (written) law, are a law unto themselves; which, show the work of the law written in their hearts (by the inward Redeemer) their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while (before the general judgment) accusing, or else excusing one another.” 73 I am very sure our blessed Lord will sit as judge on no man for whom he hath done nothing as a Saviour. And tho’ our original sin is that root of bitterness from whence all our evil thoughts, words and actions took their rise, yet not one of those wretched creatures, which must stand at the left-hand in the last judgment, will dare before that awful tribunal to plead his original sin in excuse of his unbelief or any other sin he ever committed, any more than he will dare to mention a decree of reprobation. No, no, all those idle presumptuous thoughts will then be over, and conscience, which is more than a thousand witnesses beside, will compel them to acquit their judge for condemning them and force them to own before God, angels and men that their destruction is from themselves; Christ would have saved them, but they would not be saved.
Mr. Whitefield seems much displeased with Mr. Wesley for saying, “That their Doctrine hath a direct and manifest Tendency to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation.” 74 This Mr. Wesley hath well proved; read the twelfth, thirteenth, and part of the fourteenth pages of his sermon on free grace.75
In answer to this assertion Mr. Whitefield says some things true, but is wrong in the application. For none has more clearly and strongly proved the necessity of using the divine ordinances than the Wesleys have done, showing at the same time the danger of resting in outward performances, and how they ought to be used in obedience to God as means of bringing us to Christ. Their judgment in these cases is best known by their practice. “Do they not labor more abundantly than they all?”76
I know no one that questions our Lord’s having appointed preaching the gospel as means of converting men to himself; but this divine institution stands upon the foot of universal redemption, as appears by the commission he gave his disciples a little before his ascension, which runs in these general terms, “Go ye,” saith our blessed Saviour, “into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” 77 This is the irrevocable decree which concerns us, as Mr. Wesley lately proved in an excellent sermon on this text.78
After what Mr. Wesley hath said upon this head, Mr. Whitefield had no reason to ask how their doctrine of election “has a direct tendency to overthrow the Christian revelation.” 79 Does he need to be told again that their doctrine has a direct tendency to overthrow the Christian revelation by undermining the foundation on which it stands, viz. the eternal love and truth of God?80 For if they can prove that God is not infinite love and that he can lie, that he can deceive his creatures by declaring one thing and meaning another, there is an end of all revelation, of all revealed religion at once. And they plainly join with, and encourage all unbelievers, even those who deny there is a God, by representing the All-glorious Majesty of heaven, the supreme and only Good, after such a manner as befits a devil rather than a God. For who could believe in such a God as they have made; for found such a one they have not, “either in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth.”81 Or who would not choose, rather than acknowledge and pay homage to such a God, to acknowledge none at all? But, blessed be God, their doctrine is as false as the grand artificer of fraud who invented it.
Mr. Whitefield’s ranking Mr. Wesley with Infidels, Deists, Arians, etc.82 puts me in mind of what Hugh Peters advised his brethren to do. “Let us,” said he, “cast dirt enough upon him (King Charles I). If some should fall off, more will stick.”83 Thus Mr. Whitefield harangues the populace with Mr. Wesley’s joining with Infidels, Arians, Socinians, Deists, etc. while perhaps not one in a hundred of his hearers understands what he means, any more than if he spake to them in Greek or Arabic. Yet they think those Mr. Wesley joins with are very bad creatures, but whether they walk on four feet or two they don’t kirow; yet this is casting dirt, and some may stick. But all personal reflections are nothing to the merits of the cause; and what follows in the 23d, 24th, and 25th pages is as little to the purpose, tho’ most of it hath been already answered. I should here conclude, but that in justice to Mr. Wesley I think myself obliged to take notice of two or three things in page 26. Mr. Whitefield, after he had accused Mr. Wesley of using so much sophistry in his sermon, hath these words: “You beg the Question, in saying, that God has declared that He will save all; i.e. every individual Person.” 84 Now this is a great mistake (I would hope it is not willful) in Mr. Whitefield; for certainly Mr. Wesley, either in preaching or print, did never say that God had declared he will save all men. Mr. Wesley had said, (which is true) “that all might be saved”; but I am sure he never said, “that all will be saved”; and I think there is a great difference between those two words, “might” and “will.” 85
I pass by his needless advice to Mr. Wesley, such as, “To give himself to Reading, to study the covenant of Grace; down with your carnal Reasoning; be a little Child, and then, instead of pawning (an ugly Word) your Salvation, as you have done in a late Hymn Book, if the Doctrine of Universal Redemption be not true.” 86 I don’t like the word Mr. Whitefield uses here, but if I had a thousand souls, I durst venture them all upon the unchangeable word of God, as well as Mr. Wesley hath his, and I am sure they would be very safe too. Mr. Whitefield goes on, “Instead of talking of sinless Perfection, as you have done in the Preface to that Hymn Book.” 87 Now Mr. Whitefield speaks out, Plain dealing is best.
I am verily persuaded that many of the predestinarians are more angry with the Wesleys for preaching up gospel holiness than for their pleading so strongly for universal redemption, and if they would let the former alone, they would forgive them the latter. “If instead of preaching right, they would preach to them smooth things; if they would cause the holy One of Israel (or Holiness of God) to cease from before them,” 88 they would be content to hear them. But to press people so earnestly to endeavour to live without committing sin, to talk of plucking out right eyes and cutting off right hands, to tell them they must spare no evil inclination, indulge no worldly temper, not to leave them one Herodias, but to insist upon the necessity of having clean hearts, is strangely provoking. “These are hard sayings; who can hear them?” 89
Mr. Wesley, in the beginning of his sermon on free grace hath these words: “Whatsoever good is in man, or is done by man, God is the author and doer of it.” 90 Now with what reason does Mr. Whitefield say, as he does a little further, that Mr. Wesley “makes Man’s Salvation depend on his own free Will in this Sermon,”91 unless it be to insinuate to his followers that Mr. Wesley is an Arminian, which Mr. Whitefield knows he is not.92 But I would hope that in a while Mr. Whitefield will know himself better than he does now and that Mr. Wesley also will have the satisfaction of seeing him retract his errors and return to preach the same gospel he did formerly.
In the mean time I cannot but observe how signally God hath honoured those two brethren (the Wesleys) by calling them forth and enabling them with great power to preach the truth of the gospel as it is in Jesus93 and by setting his seal to their ministry. And I am persuaded you will join with me in prayer to our Lord, that he would strengthen and bless them more and more and protect them from evil men and evil angels, and that they may “be stedfast, immoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for as much as they know that their labour is not in vain in the Lord.” 94
My dear Friend, Yours.
1. See her letter to Samuel Jr., 8 March 1738/39.
2. The original is rare, but it is also available in the Microbook Library of American Civilization reproduction (LAC 21966–69) of The Works of the Reverend George Whitefield … , 4 vols. (London: Edward and Charles Dilly, 1771–1772), 4:53–73.
3. “Susanna Wesley, Apologist for Methodism,” in PWHS 35 (1965-1966): 68–71.
4. To John Wesley, 18 August 1725. In it she gave her reading of Romans 8, a key passage in the ongoing debate.
5. And yet, apropos Whitefield’s lumping John Wesley together with various heretics, she could still employ a saying of one of the more notorious of the executed regicides of the previous century, that mudslinging can pay off—another instance of fighting guilt-by-association fire with fire!
6. Whitefield, Letter, p. 8. Some Remarks puts this and the subsequent Whitefield quotations in italics; I have set them apart with quotation marks. I have not modernized Whitefield’s punctuation, capitalization, and spelling in these quotations.
7. A slightly altered quotation from Genesis 49:6. The original says, “come not into their secret”; S. W has made it “the secret of such treachreous men.” Note that this passage follows two verses after one that appears as an epigraph on the title page. Both are part of Jacob’s prophecy concerning his sons, the earlier one directed toward Reuben (“unstable as water”) and this one toward the murderous cruelty and self-will of Simeon and Levi.
8. Nearly exact quotation of James 4:5.
9. Whitefield was 27 at the time and had been ordained a deacon some five years and a priest for only two.
10. See Matthew 6:27, Luke 12:25.
11. Whitefield, letter, pp. iii-iv and passim. “Compellation” is archaic usage for the “name, title, or form of words by which a person is addressed” (OED).
12. Ibid., p. hi.
13. Close paraphrases of Ephesians 6:24 and Zechariah 13:6, respectively; quotation marks added.
14. Close paraphrase of Philippians 2:12; quotation marks added.
15. Whitefield, Letter, pp. 7–8.
16. Ibid., p. 7.
17. In MS: “past.”
18. Whitefield, Letter, p. 7.
19. Ibid., p. 9. Wesley’s text was Romans 8:32: “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” John Wesley, Sermons, III (71-114), in Albert Outler, ed., The Works of John Wesley (Nashville: Abingdon, 1986), p. 544. Certainly it was not only audacious but also shrewd to draw on the chapter that provides the classic: proof text for predestination. S. W recognizes as much below in the same paragraph.
20. Romans 8:29’s first phrase, “For whom he did foreknow,” is the only part actually quoted. The rest, though also italicized in the text, is her own Arminian gloss on it. The “etc.” represents the omitted fighting words, “he did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son… .”
21. Pages 9–10 of Whitefield, Letter, with several words omitted: at the first ellipses, S. W skipped over “and instead of warping, does but more and more confirm me in the Belief of the Doctrine of God’s eternal Election”; at the second, “Honoured Sir.”
22. Ibid., p. 26.
23. Ibid., p. 10, paraphrased to fit her syntax.
24. Ibid.
25. S. W is quoting from her son’s sermon, “Free Grace,” par. 9–10. See Sermons, p. 547. In S. W’s pamphlet the first quotation is both in italics and parentheses; the second is in quotation marks. I have used quotation marks for both.
26. See John Calvin, Institutes 111.24.12. The translation available in early-eighteenth-century England was by Thomas Norton (1532-1584), Institutio Christiciniae Religionis. English. The Institution of Christian Religion … (London: For Ioyce Norton and R. Whitaker, 1634).
27. A loose paraphrase of John Wesley’s statement quoted above. Nevertheless, the MS puts the phrase (from “upon” through “vain”) in italics.
28. “Free Grace,” par. 11 (Sermons, p. 548). The sentence’s subject in the original is “it,” despite the appearance given by S. W’s quotation marks that the longer phrase fills that function (“that the doctrine of election and reprobation …”).
29. Whitefield, Letter, p. 11.
30. Quotation marks added.
31. “Free Grace,” par. 13 (Sermons, p. 549). The prepositional phrase within parentheses is S. W’s insertion.
32. See Matthew 7:13–14 and Luke 13:24.
33. Whitefield, Letter, p. 15. Whitefield, Works, 4:63, reads, “gospel ministrations.”
34. Quotation marks represent italics in the MS; perhaps a broad paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 2:11,
35. Exodus 3:14; quotation marks replace the mixture of italics and regular type in the pamphlet.
36. Quotation marks replace the italics in the text. Note S. W’s attraction to the same “I am” text in her letter to her son John, 27 November 1735, and in her journal entry 245, where she follows Bishop Beveridge in also attesting to our inability ultimately to know God. In each case she understands the revelation of the divine name implying in some sense the divine nature and perfections.
37. Quotation marks replace the italics of the text.
38. Quotation marks replace the text’s italics.
39. The concluding clause, beginning “the only” appears in italics in the text. It is unclear whether she intends emphasis or quotation.
40. In lieu of arguing against Wesley’s text (Romans 8:32) himself, Whitefield had recommended three authors to him: “Ridgley, Edwards, Henry” (Whitefield, Letter, p. 25). Though he did not specify further on the first and the last, he probably had in mind Thomas Ridgley (1667?—1734), A Body of Divinity … Being the Substance of Several Lectures on the Assembly’s Larger Catechism,” 2 vols. (London: Daniel Midwinter and Aaron Ward, 1731); and Matthew Henry (1662-1714), An Exposition of the Old and New Testament, 6 vols. in 3 (Edinburgh: C. Macfarquhar and Co., 1767–1770 ([original ed., London: 1704–1710]). The middle author is clearly John Edwards (1637-1716), whose Veritas Redux: Evangelical Truths Restored: Namely, Those Concerning God’s Eternal Decrees …, 5 vols. (London: Jonathan Robinson et al., 1707–1708, 1725–1726), Whitefield mentions by name (Lelter, pp. 6, 24).
Whitefield dropped several other names (and categories of people) he believed supported his side of the issue, men of such stature as could not easily be dismissed by Wesley: “Bun-yan, Henry, Flavel [John Flavel, 1630?—1691, author of Divine Conduct, or, The Mysterie of Providence … (London: Francis Tyton, 1678)], Halyburton [Thomas Halyburton, 1674–1712, author of The Great Concern of Salvation … , 2d. ed. (Glasgow: J. Meuros, 1751 [original ed., Edinburgh, 1722])], … the New-England and Scots divines” (p. 20); the Anglican Bishop Gilbert Burnet, who wrote in support of Article XVII, “Of Predestination and Election” in an Exposition of the XXXIX Articles (London: Ri. Chiswell, 1699), (p. 10); the Scottish Episcopalian devotional writer Henry Scougal (one of S. W’s own favorites) (p. 12); the pietist Johan Arndt; and Martin Luther (p. 20). He also mentioned (p. 24) Elisha Cole on God’s Sovereignty (a book and author I have not been able to trace) and the sermons of “Mr. Cooper of Boston,” no doubt William Cooper, 1694–1743, author of The Doctrine of Predestination unto Life: Explained and Vindicated, in Four Sermons … (Boston: For J. Edwards and H. Foster, 1740).
41. Has the old Nonjuror finally forsaken divine-right monarchy and come round to the point of parliamentary supremecy?
42. Revelation 19:16 and Daniel 4:35; quotation marks added. Interestingly, Handel’s Messiah, whose “Hallelujah Chorus” further ingrained the first verse into English consciousness, was not performed until the following year.
43. Ecclesiastes 8:3, slightly altered; quotation marks added.
44. Ephesians 1:11, closely paraphrased; quotation marks substituted for the text’s italics.
45. Habakkuk 1:13, paraphrased; quotation marks added.
46. The text has the phrase “namely … Christ” in italics.
47. Job 38:7 and 4, slightly paraphrased; quotation marks added.
48. Jude 6, considerably embellished. The direct quotation is from “kept” through “habitation,” but the text puts the entire section (represented here by quotation marks) in italics.
49. Nearly exact quotation of Genesis 1:26; quotation marks added.
50. The language of this and the surrounding paragraphs is reminiscent of similar material in the introductory section of S. W’s explication of the Apostles Creed.
51. William Law, A Demonstration of the Gross and Fundamental Errors of a Late Book … , in Works, 3rd ed. (London: W Innys and J. Richardson, R. Manby and J. S. Cox, 1752), 3:165. I have indented the quoted paragraphs where the text has italics. Originally published in 1737, the tract is mainly pointed against the rationalistic interpretation of the Eucharist offered by Bishop Benjamin Hoadley (1676-1761) of Winchester. Secondarily, however, it also takes on those who pushed the doctrines of “particular absolute election and reprobation” (p. 258). Among other passages that Whitefield would not have appreciated, had he followed Susanna Wesley’s recommendation to read it, is the following: “If my zealous Christian should find it a disagreeable thought to him, to think that all Mankind have had some Benefit from Christ … I must tell him, he need have no greater proof than this, that his own Heart is not yet truly Christian, that he is not a true Disciple of that Lord who would have all men to be saved.” (pp. 255–256). There are other hints of S. W’s reading of Law in the remainder of her pamphlet (see below).
52. Genesis 3:15, paraphrased.
53. Nearly exact quotation of Hebrews 2:16; quotation marks substituted for italics.
54. Nearly exact quotation of Romans 5:18; quotation marks substituted for the text’s italics. S. W cleverly builds her argument by continuing to appeal to Paul and Romans, usually considered the predestinarians’ best ammunition.
55. Acts 17:28; quotation marks added.
56. Nearly exact quotation of John 1:9; quotation marks substituted for the text’s italics.
57. Close paraphrase of Philippians 2:12; quotation marks added.
58. Close paraphrase of Matthew 25:29; cf. Matthew 13:12, Mark 4:25, and Luke 8:18; quotation marks added.
59. “Free Grace,” par. 20 (Sermons, p. 552); quotation marks added.
60. Whitefield, Letter, p. 18; quotation marks substituted for the texts’s italics. The actual quotation begins with “has a natural Tendency” S. W italicized her whole previous phrase as if it were also Whitefield’s; however, it is merely her attempt to supply the antecedent for Whitefield’s pronoun in his real sentence “For that … has a natural Tendency… .”
61. Loose paraphrase of Philippians 2:13: “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”
62. Ephesians 4:20, with changed pronoun; quotation marks substituted for the text’s italics.
63. Nearly exact quotation of 2 Corinthians 12:2; quotation marks added.
64. I have been unable to trace this pamphlet. I have indented the entire block where S. W had it printed in italics; I have also introduced quotation marks to indicate the author’s use of 1 Corinthians 10:12.
65. “Free Grace,” par. 17 (Sermons, p. , 550); quotation marks already in the text.
66. Whitefield, Letter, pp. 20–21; quotation marks already in text. Interestingly, Whitefield, as if to twit Wesley’s Arminianism, has had the word “all” set entirely in capitals, whereas S. W has elected not to record the emphasis in her quotation.
67. Genesis 3:12–13, somewhat adapted; quotation marks substituted for the text’s italics.
68. 1 John 1:8; quotation marks substituted for the text’s italics.
69. 1 John 2:16, changing the “and“s to “or”s; quotation marks added.
70. Whitefield, Letter, pp. 25–26; quotation marks substituted for the text’s italics. S. W has again altered the quotation slightly; Whitefield’s original begins, “You plainly make Salvation depend… .”
71. Nearly exact quotation of 2 Corinthians 3:5; quotation marks substituted for the text’s italics.
72. The capital “H” in the text leaves no doubt that the reference is to God.
73. Romans 2:14–15; quotation marks and S. W’s parenthetical glosses already in the text.
74. “Free Grace,” par. 19 (Sermons, p. 551), slightly altered; quotation marks replace the italics in the text.
75. I have not been able to attain a copy of the edition of her son’s sermon that S. W was working from and consequently cannot connect her page references with Outler’s edition of Sermons, though they are probably paragraphs 19–2 3. She was probably using one or the other of Strahan’s 24-page editions, Free Grace: A Sermon Preach’d at Bristol (London: Strahan, 1740 and 1741).
76. 1 Corinthians 15:10, slightly altered; quotation marks replace the text’s italics.
77. Mark 16:15–16; quotation marks replace the text’s italics.
78. Such a sermon does not seem to exist, but S. W might still be right. Though Outler records no published sermons on this text (Sermons, 4:548–554), Wesley’s sermon registers are far from complete (nonexistent, in fact, for his early career), so it is quite possible he did deliver a sermon, orally, from Mark 16:15–16 and there is no further record. Wesley does refer to the passage elsewhere in his published sermons, and there is an outside possibility S. W is thinking of his landmark “Justification by Faith” (5 in Sermons, 1:181–199), in which par. 7 (p. 197) uses the Mark text to prove that faith is the only condition of justification. The sermon as it stands now was preached in 1746, but Outler has traced references to possible predecessors as early as 1738 (1:181), and the sermon S. W alludes to might be such a one.
79. Whitefield, Letter, pp. 21–22, quoting and responding to John Wesley’s accusation already mentioned in S. W’s pamphlet, three paragraphs above. Quotation marks substitute for the text’s italics, which begin there with “how their doctrine of election,” that is, material not actually quoted.
80. I have let the italics in the text stand to maintain S. W emphasis; this does not seem to be a quotation, though it captures the tenor of her son’s argument in, for example, “Free Grace,” par. 26 Sermons, p. 556).
81. Close paraphrase of Exodus 20:4; quotation marks substituted for the text’s italics.
82. Whitefield, Letter, p. 22. All such, writes Whitefield to Wesley, “are on your side of the question.”
83. Hugh Peters (1598-1660), Cambridge graduate and Independent divine, preached in Holland and Massachusetts (as one of the chief accusers of Anne Hutchinson) before returning to London and supporting the parliamentary cause. At the Restoration he was arrested and executed for having preached what the DNB calls “incendiary sermons” during the trial of Charles I and was the butt of royalist hatred even after his death. See The Tales and Jests of Mr Hugh Peters … (London: S. D., 1660); the anonymous editor makes Peters occasionally sound witty but usually buffoonish and often cruel. The final account of his execution leaves no doubt about the author’s opinion: “Thus did he that called his sacred Majesty a Barrabas, a murderer, and seditious, die for murther and sedition himselfe …” (p. 32). I cannot find in this collection the source of the remark S. W quotes, though it could easily have been circulated in such an anti-Peters tract as William Yonge’s England’s Shame, or the Unmasking of a Political Atheist, Being a Full and Faithful Relation of the Life and Death of That Grand Imposter Hugh Peters (London: Theodore Sadler, 1663).
84. Whitefield, Letter, p. 26; quotation marks replace the italics in the text.
85. John Wesley deals with this issue (though not so succinctly) in “Free Grace,” par. 22 (Sermons, pp. 553–554). Quotation marks substituted for italics.
86. Whitefield, Letter, p. 26; quotation marks substituted for italics. An excerpt will give a sense of how S. W has altered the quotation and also provide a sense of Whitefield’s own rhetorical approach: “Dear, dear Sir, O be not offended! For CHRIST’S sake be not rash! Give yourself to reading. Study the covenant of grace. Down with your carnal reasoning. Be a little child; and then, instead of pawning your salvation, as you have done in a late hymn book, if the doctrine of universal redemption be not true; instead of talking of sinless perfection, as you have done in the preface to that hymn book, and making man’s salvation to depend on his own free-will, as you have in this sermon; you will compose an hymn in praise of sovereign distinguishing love. You will caution believers against striving to work a perfection out of their own hearts, and print another sermon the reverse of this, and entitle it free-grace indeed. Free, because not free to all; but free, because GOD may withhold or give it to whom and when he pleases.”
87. Ibid.; quotation marks substituted for italics. See note 86. The reference is probably to the first edition of Wesley’s A Collection of Psalms and Hymns (London: Strahan, 1741).
88. A composite quotation, made up of a rough paraphrase of Isaiah 30:10 and a slightly more accurate paraphrase of the second half of verse 11. Quotation marks replace the text’s italics; the parenthetical insertion is S. W’s.
89. John 6:60, altered to the plural; quotation marks replace the italics of the text. Other references in S. W’s counsels of perfection are Matthew 5:29–30, 18:8–9; Mark 9:43, 47. Herodias was the sister-in-law and paramour of Herod, who tricked him into executing John the Baptist through her daughter’s dancing (see Matthew 14:3–12 and Mark 6:17–29). The metaphorical usage here implies fleshly temptation.
90. “Free Grace,” par. 3 (Sermons, p. 545); quotation marks substituted for text’s italics.
91. Whitefield, Letier, p. 26, slightly adapted; quotation marks substituted for the text’s italics.
92. Of course, John Wesley was an Arminian, and later on proudly wore the label when in 1778 he designated his new monthly publication the Arminiun Magazine. However, in the early days of the revival, Dissenters particularly lumped it together with heresy. Writing in 1745, Isaac Watts decried how “the popish and pelagian doctrines of justification by works, and salvation by the power of our own free-will, are publically maintained… . The socinian and the arminian errors are revived and spread exceedingly… .” Quoted in Isabel Rivers, Reason, Grace, and Sentiment: A Study of the Language of Religion and Ethics in England, 1660-11 SO, vol. 1, Whichcote to Wesley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 177.
93. See Ephesians 4:21.
94. 1 Corinthians 15:58, altered from the second to the third person; quotation marks replace italics in the text.
