O dear Sir, what kind of reasoning, or rather sophistry is this! Hath not GOD, who hath appointed salvation for a certain number, appointed also the preaching of the word, as a means to bring them to it? Does any one hold election in any other sense? And if so, how is preaching needless to them that are elected; when the gospel is designed by GOD himself, to be the power of GOD unto their eternal salvation? And since we know not who are elect, and who reprobate, we are to preach promiscuously to all. For the word may be useful, even to the non-elect, in restraining them from much wickedness and sin. However, it is enough to excite to the utmost diligence in preaching and hearing, when we consider, that by these means, some, even as many as the LORD hath ordained to eternal life, shall certainly be quickened and enabled to believe. And who, that attends, especially with reverence and care, can tell but he may be found of that happy number?
Secondly, you say, “that it, [the doctrine of election and reprobation] directly tends to destroy that holiness, which is the end of all the ordinances of GOD.” For, (says the dear mistaken Mr. _Wesley_) “it wholly takes away those 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.” page 11th.
I thought, that one who carries perfection to such an exalted pitch as dear Mr. _Wesley_ does, would know, that a true lover of the LORD JESUS CHRIST would strive to be holy for the sake of being holy, and work for CHRIST out of love and gratitude, without any regard to the rewards of heaven, or fear of hell. You remember, dear Sir, what _Scougal_ says, “Love’s a more powerful motive that does them move.” But passing by this, and granting that rewards and punishments (as they certainly are) may be motives from which a christian may be honestly stirred up to act for GOD, how does the doctrine of election destroy these motives? Do not the elect know that the more good works they do, the greater will be their reward? And is not that encouragement enough to set them upon, and cause them to persevere in working for JESUS CHRIST? And how does the doctrine of election destroy holiness? Whoever preached any other election, than what the Apostle preached, when he said, “Chosen through sanctification of the Spirit?” Nay, is not holiness made a mark of our election by all that preach it? And how then can the doctrine of election destroy holiness?
The instance which you bring to illustrate your assertion, indeed, dear Sir, is quite impertinent. For you say, “If a sick man knows, that he must unavoidably die or unavoidably recover, though he knows not which, it is not reasonable for take any physic at all,” page 11. Dear Sir, what absurd reasoning is here? Was you ever sick in your life? if so, did not the bare probability or possibility of your recovering, though you knew it was unalterably fixed, that you must live or die, encourage you to take physic? For how did you know, but that very physic might be the means GOD intended to recover you by? Just thus it is as to the doctrine of election. I know that it is unalterably fixed, may one say, that I must be damned or saved; but since I know not which, for a certainty, why should I not strive, though at present in a state of nature, since I know not but this striving may be the means GOD has intended to bless, in order to bring me into a state of grace? Dear Sir, consider these things. Make an impartial application, and then judge what little reason you had to conclude the 10th paragraph, page 12, in these words: “So directly does this doctrine tend to shut the very gate of holiness in general, to hinder unholy men from ever approaching thereto, or striving to enter in thereat.”