Further, you say, page 18, paragraph 19, “This doctrine makes revelation contradict itself.” For instance, say you, “The assertors of this doctrine interpret that text of scripture, _Jacob_ have I loved, but _Esau_ have I hated, as implying that GOD, in a literal sense, hated _Esau_ and all the reprobates from eternity!” And, when considered as fallen in _Adam_, were they not objects of his hatred? And might not GOD, of his own good pleasure, love or shew mercy to _Jacob_ and the elect, and yet at the same time do the reprobate no wrong? But you say, “GOD is love.” And cannot GOD be love, unless he shews the same mercy to all?
Again, says dear Mr. _Wesley_, “They infer from that text, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, that GOD is mercy only to some men, viz. the elect; and that he has mercy for those only, flatly contrary to which is the whole tenor of the scripture, as is that express declaration in particular, The LORD is loving to every man, and his mercy is over all his works.” And so it is, but not his saving mercy. GOD is loving to every man: he sends his rain upon the evil and upon the good. But you say, “GOD is no respecter of persons.” No! For every one, whether _Jew_ or _Gentile_, that believeth on JESUS, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him: “But he that believeth not shall be damned.” For GOD is no respecter of persons, upon the account of any outward condition or circumstance in life whatever; nor does the doctrine of election in the least suppose him to be so. But as the sovereign LORD of all, who is debtor to none, he has a right to do what he will with his own, and to dispense his favours to what objects he sees fit, merely at his pleasure. And his supreme right herein, is clearly and strongly asserted in those passages of scripture, where he says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and have compassion on whom I will have compassion,” _Romans_ ix. 15. _Exodus_ xxxiii. 19.
Further, in page 19, you represent us as inferring from the text, “The children not being yet born, neither having done good or evil, that the purpose of GOD, according to election, might stand: not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her (unto _Rebecca_), The elder shall serve the younger; that our predestination to life no ways depends on the fore-knowledge of GOD.” But who infers this, dear Sir? For if fore-knowledge signifies approbation, as it does in several parts of scripture, then we confess that predestination and election do depend on GOD’s fore-knowledge. But if by GOD’s fore-knowledge, you understand GOD’s fore-seeing some good works done by his creatures as the foundation or reason of chusing them, and therefore electing them, then we say, that in this sense, predestination does not any way depend on GOD’s fore-knowledge. But I referred you, at the beginning of this letter, to Dr. _Edwards_’s _Veritas Redux_, which I recommended to you also in a late letter, with _Elisha Cole_ on _God’s Sovereignty_. Be pleased to read these, and also the excellent sermons of Mr. _Cooper_, of _Boston_ in _New-England_, which I also sent you, and I doubt not but you will see all your objections answered. Though I would observe, that after all our reading on both sides the question, we shall never in this life be able to search out GOD’s decrees to perfection. No, we must humbly adore what we cannot comprehend, and with the great Apostle at the end of our enquiries cry out, “O the depth, &c.” or with our LORD, when he was admiring GOD’s sovereignty, “Even so Father, for so it seemeth good in thy sight.”
However, it may not be amiss to take notice, that if those texts, “GOD willeth that none should perish,” “I have no pleasure in him that dieth,” and such like, be taken in their strictest sense, then no one will be damned.
But here’s the distinction. GOD taketh no pleasure in the death of sinners, so as to delight simply in their death; but he delights to magnify his justice, by inflicting the punishment which their iniquities have deserved. As a righteous judge who takes no pleasure in condemning a criminal, may yet justly command him to be executed, that law and justice may be satisfied, even though it be in his power to procure him a reprieve.