To Westley Hall LONDON, December, 30, 1745. DEAR BROTHER, Now you act the part of a friend. It has been long our desire that you would speak freely. And we will do the same. What we know not yet, may God reveal to us! You think, first, that we undertake to defend some things which are not defensible by the Word of God. You instance in three; on each of which we will explain ourselves as clearly as we can. 1. 'That the validity of our ministry depends on a succession supposed to be from the Apostles, and a commission derived from the Pope of Rome and his successors or dependants.' We believe it would not be right for us to administer either baptism or the Lord's supper unless we had a commission so to do from those bishops whom we apprehend to be in a succession from the Apostles. And yet we allow these bishops are the successors of those who were dependent on the Bishop of Rome. But we would be glad to know on what reasons you believe this to be inconsistent with the Word of God. 2. 'That there is an outward priesthood, and consequently an outward sacrifice, ordained and offered by the Bishop of Rome, and his successors or dependents, in the Church of England, as vicars and viceregents of Christ.' We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church (whether dependent on the Bishop of Rome or not), an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein, by men authorized to act as ambassadors of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. On what grounds do you believe that Christ has abolished that priesthood or sacrifice 3. 'That this Papal hierarchy and prelacy, which still continues in the Church of England, is of apostolical institution, and authorized thereby, though not by the written Word.' We believe that the threefold order of ministers (which you seem to mean by Papal hierarchy and prelacy) is not only authorized by its apostolical institution, but also by the written Word. Yet we are willing to hear and weigh whatever reasons induce you to believe to the contrary.

You think, secondly, 'that we ourselves give up some things as indefensible, which are defended by the same law and authority that establishes the things above mentioned; such as are many of the laws, customs, and practices of the Ecclesiastical Courts.' We allow (1) that those laws, customs, and practices are really indefensible; (2) that there are Acts of Parliament in defense of them, and also of the threefold order. But will you show us how it follows, either (1) that those things and these stand or fall together or (2) that we cannot sincerely plead for the one, though we give up the other Do you not here quite overlook one circumstance, which might be a key to our whole behavior namely, that we no more look upon these filthy abuses which adhere to our Church as part of the building than we look upon any filth which may adhere to the walls of Westminster Abbey as a part of that structure You think, thirdly, 'that there are other things which we defend and practice, in open contradiction to the orders of the Church of England.' And this you judge to be a just exception against the sincerity of our professions to adhere to it. Compare what we profess with what we practice, and you will possibly be of another judgment. We profess (1) that we will obey all the laws of that Church (such we allow the Rubrics to be, but not the customs of the Ecclesiastical Courts) so far as we can with a safe conscience: (2) that we will obey, with the same restriction, the bishops as executors of those laws; but their bare will, distinct from those laws, we do not profess to obey at all. Now point out what is there in our practice which is an open contradiction to these professions Is field-preaching Not at all. It is contrary to no law which we profess to obey. The allowing lay preachers We are not clear that this is contrary to any such law. But if it is, this is one of the exempt cases; one wherein we cannot obey with a safe conscience. Therefore, be it right or wrong on other accounts, it is, however, no just exception against our sincerity. The rules and directions given to our Societies which, you say, is a discipline utterly forbidden by the bishops.

When and where did any bishop forbid this And if any did, by what law We know not either the man who ever did forbid or the law by which he could forbid it. The 'allowing persons (for we require none) to communicate at the chapel, in contradiction (you think) to all those Rubrics which require all to attend always on their own parish church and pastor, and to receive only at his table' Which Rubrics are those We cannot find them, and, till these are produced, all that is so frequently said of parochial unity, c., is merely gratis dictum Consequently neither is this any just exception against the sincerity of any of our professions. To 'John Smith' LONDON, December 30, 1745. SIR, I am obliged to you for your speedy and friendly answer Wesley wrote on Sept. 28, and 'John Smith's' reply was dated Nov. 27 (see Moore's Wesley, ii. 494-505). A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion was published early in 1745.; to which I will reply as clearly as I can. 1. If you have leisure to read the last Appeal, you will easily judge how much I insist on any opinions. 2. In writing practically, I seldom argue concerning the meaning of texts; in writing controversially, I do. 3. In saying, 'I teach the doctrines of the Church of England,' I do, and always did, mean (without concerning myself whether others taught them or no, either this year or before the Reformation) I teach the doctrines which are comprised in those Articles and Homilies to which all the clergy of the Church of England solemnly profess to assent, and that in their plain, unforced, grammatical meaning. As to the Seventeenth Article, Mr. Whitefield really believes that it asserts absolute predestination; therefore I can also subscribe to it with sincerity. But the case is quite different with regard to those who subscribe to the Eleventh and following Articles; which are not ambiguously worded, as the Seventeenth (I suppose on purpose) was.

4. When I say, 'The Apostles themselves were to prove their assertions by the written Word,' I mean the word written before their time, the Law and the Prophets; and so they did. I do not believe the case of Averel Spenser See for this paragraph the letter of Sept. 28, sect. 4, where Wesley says the Apostles 'were to prove their assertions by the written Word. You and I are to do the same.' 'John Smith' refers to a teacher who 'gives out that the Spirit of God gives visible attestations to his ministry by miraculous works (for surely the casting out of devils may be called so, if anything can)' (see Journal, ii. 291). Charles Wesley says on Oct. 6, 1739 (Journal, i. 186), Averel Spenser of Bristol, 'one that received faith last night, came to day and declared it.' was natural; yet, when I kneeled down by her bedside, I had no thought at all of God's then giving any 'attestation to my ministry.' But I asked of God to deliver an afflicted soul; and He did deliver her. Nevertheless, I desire none to receive my words, unless they are confirmed by Scripture and reason. And if they are, they ought to be received, though Averel Spenser had never been born. 5. That we ought not to relate a purely natural case in the Scripture terms that express our Lord's miracles, that low and common things are generally improper to be told in Scripture phrase, that scriptural words which are obsolete or which have changed their signification are not to be used familiarly, as neither those technical terms which were peculiar to the controversies of those days, I can easily apprehend. But I cannot apprehend that 'salvation' or 'justification' is a term of this sort; and much less that 'faith' and 'works,' or 'spirit' and 'flesh,' are synonymous terms with 'Christianity' and 'Judaism.' I know this has frequently been affirmed; but I do not know that it has been proved.

6. However, you think there is no occasion now for the expressions used in ancient times, since the persuasions which were common then are now scarcely to be found. For 'does any Church of England man,' you ask, 'maintain anything like this that men may commute external works instead of internal holiness' Most surely: I doubt whether every Church of England man in the nation, yea, every Protestant (as well as Papist) in Europe, who is not deeply sensible that he did so once, does not do so to this day. I am one who for twenty years used outward works, not only as 'acts of goodness,' but as commutations (though I did not indeed profess this), instead of inward holiness. I knew I was not holy. But I quieted my conscience by doing such-and-such outward works; and therefore I hoped I should go to heaven, even without inward holiness. Nor did I ever speak close to one who had the form of godliness without the power but I found he had split on the same rock. Abundance of people I have likewise known, and many I do know at this day, who 'are so grossly superstitious as to think devotion may be put upon God instead of honesty'; as to fancy, going to church and sacrament will bring them to heaven, though they practice neither justice nor mercy. These are the men who make Christianity vile, who, above all others, 'contribute to the growth of infidelity.' On the contrary, the speaking of faith working by love, of uniform outward religion springing from inward, has already been the means of converting several Deists and one Atheist (if not more) into real Christians.

7. 'Infallible testimony' was your word, not mine: I never use it; I do not like it. But I did not object to your using that phrase, because I would not fight about words. If, then, the question be repeated, 'In what sense is that attestation of the Spirit infallible' any one has my free leave to answer, In no sense at all. And yet, though I allow that some may fancy they have it when in truth they have it not, I cannot allow that any fancy they have it not at the time when they really have. I know no instance of this. When they have this faith, they cannot possibly doubt of their having it; although it is very possible, when they have it not, they may doubt whether ever they had it or no. This See A Short Account of the Death of Mrs. Hannah Richardson, by Charles Wesley, 1741; or Jackson's Charles Wesley, i. 275-6. was Hannah Richardson's case; and it is more or less the case with many of the children of God. 8. That logical evidence that we are the children of God I do not either exclude or despise. But it is far different from the direct witness of the Spirit: of which, I believe, St. Paul speaks in his Epistle to the Romans; and which, I doubt not, is given to many thousand souls who never saw my face. But I spoke only of those I personally knew, concerning whom, indeed, I find my transcriber has made a violent mistake, writing 13,000 instead of 1,300: I might add, those whom I also have known by their writings. But I cannot lay so much stress on their evidence. I cannot have so full and certain a knowledge of a writer as of one I talk with face to face; and therefore I think the experiences of this kind are not to be compared with those of the other.

One, indeed, of this kind I was reading yesterday, which is exceeding clear and strong. You will easily pardon my transcribing part of his words. They are in St. Austin's Confessions: 'Intravi in intima mea, duce Te: et potui, quoniam factus es adjutor meus. Intravi et vidi qualicunque oculo animae meae, supra eundem oculum animae meae, supra mentem meam, lucem Domini incommutabilem: non hanc vulgarem, conspicuam omni carni; nec quasi ex eodem genere grandior erat, non hoc illa erat, sed aliud; aliud valde ab istis omnibus. Nec ita erat supra mentem meam, sicut coelum super terrain. Sed superior, quia ipsa fecit me. Qui novit veritatem, novit eam. Et qui novit eam, novit aeternitatem. Charitas novit eam. 'O aeterna Veritas! Tu es Deus meus! Tibi suspiro die ac nocte. Et cum Te primum cognovi, Tu assumpsisti me, ut viderem esse, quod viderem. Et reverberasti infirmitatem aspectus mei, radians in me vehementer; et contremui amore et horrore: et inveni me longe esse a Te. Et dixi, Nunquid nihil est veritas Et clamasti de longinquo: Immo vero; Ego sum, qui sum. Et audivi, sicut auditur in corde, et non erat prorsus uncle dubitarem. Faciliusque dubitarem vivere me, quam non esse veritatem. (Lib. VII. cap. x.)

Under Thy guidance I entered into my inward self: and this I could do, because Thou wast my Helper. I entered, and saw with the eye of my soul (such as it is) the unchangeable light of the Lord above this very eye of my soul, and above my mind. The light was not of this common kind, which is obvious to all flesh: neither was it as if it was a larger light of the same kind. It was not a light of this kind, but of another; a light that differed exceedingly from all these. Nor was it above my mind, as the heavens are above the earth: but it was superior, because it made me. He who knows the truth knows this light; and he who knows it knows eternity. Love knows it. 'O eternal Truth! Thou art my God! Day and night I sigh after Thee. And when I first knew Thee, Thou didst take hold of me that I might see that there was something to be seen. Thou didst likewise beat back the weakness of my own sight, and didst Thyself powerfully shine into me. I trembled with love and with horror; and I found myself far from Thee. I said, "Is truth therefore nothing" And Thou didst reply from afar, "No, indeed! I AM THAT I AM I" I heard this, as we are accustomed to hear in the heart; and there was no ground whatever for doubting. Nay, I could more easily doubt of my existence itself than that it was not the Truth.' See letter of June 25, 1746, sect. 6. 9. From many such passages as these, which I have occasionally read, as well as from what I have myself seen and known, I am induced to believe that God's ordinary way of converting sinners to Himself is by 'suddenly inspiring them with an immediate testimony of His love, easily distinguishable from fancy.' I am assured thus He hath wrought in all I have known (except, perhaps, three or four persons), of whom I have reasonable ground to believe that they are really turned from the power of Satan to God.

10. With regard to the definition of faith, if you allow that it is such 'an inward conviction of things invisible as is the gift of God in the same sense wherein hope and charity are,' I have little to object; or, that it is 'such an assent to all Christian truths as is productive of all Christian practice.' In terming either faith or hope or love supernatural, I only mean that they are not the effect of any or all of our natural faculties, but are wrought in us (be it swiftly or slowly) by the Spirit of God. But I would rather say, Faith is 'productive of all Christian holiness' than 'of all Christian practice': because men are so exceeding apt to rest in practice, so called I mean, in outside religion; whereas true religion is eminently seated in the heart, renewed in the image of Him that created us. 11. I have not found, in any of the writers you mention, a solution of many difficulties that occur on the head of Predestination. And, to speak without reserve, when I compare the writings of their most celebrated successors with those of Dr. Barrow Isaac Barrow (1630-77), eminent both as divine and mathematician. His Theological Works, 1683, were Arminian in tone. and his contemporaries, I am amazed: the latter seem to be mere children compared with the former writers; and to throw out such frothy, unconcocted trifles, such indigested crudities, as a man of learning fourscore or an hundred years ago would have been ashamed to set his name to. 12. Concerning the instantaneous and the gradual work, what I still affirm is this: that I know hundreds of persons whose hearts were one moment filled with fear and sorrow and pain, and the next with peace and joy in believing, yea joy unspeakable, full of glory; that the same moment they experienced such a love of God and so fervent a goodwill to all mankind (attended with power over all sin), as till then they were wholly unacquainted with; that, nevertheless, the peace and love thus sown in their hearts received afterward a gradual increase; and that to this subsequent increase the scriptures you mention do manifestly refer. Now, I cannot see that there is any quibbling at all in this. No; it is a plain, fair answer to the objection.

13. Neither can I apprehend that I have given an evasive answer to any adversary whatever. I am sure I do not desire to do it; for I want us to understand each other. The sooner the better: therefore let us, as you propose, return to the main point. 'The charge is,' your words are, 'that the Methodists preach sundry singular and erroneous doctrines; in particular three Unconditional Predestination, Perceptible Inspiration, and Sinless Perfection. "They set up," say their adversaries, "their own schemes and notions as the great standard of Christianity, so as to perplex, unhinge, terrify, and distract the minds of multitudes, by persuading them that they cannot be true Christians but by adhering to their doctrines." This is the charge. Now you ask, "What do you mean by their own schemes, their own notions, their own doctrines" It is plain, we mean their unconditional predestination, their perceptible inspiration, and their sinless perfection.' The charge, then, is that the Methodists preach unconditional predestination, perceptible inspiration, and sinless perfection. But what a charge! Shall John Wesley be indicted for murder because George Whitefield killed a man Or shall George Whitefield be charged with felony because John Wesley broke an house How monstrous is this! How dissonant from all the rules of common sense and common honesty! Let every man bear his own burthen. If George Whitefield killed a man or taught predestination, John Wesley did not: what has this charge to do with him And if John Wesley broke an house or preached sinless perfection, let him answer for himself. George Whitefield did neither: why, then, is his name put into this indictment Hence appears the inexcusable injustice of what might otherwise appear a trifle. When I urge a man in this manner, he could have no plea at all, were he not to reply, 'Why, they are both Methodists.' So when he has linked them together by one nickname, he may hang either instead of the other.

But sure this will not be allowed by reasonable men. And if not, what have I to do with predestination Absolutely nothing: therefore set that aside. Yea, and sinless perfection too. 'How so Do not you believe it' Yes, I do; and in what sense I have shown in the sermon on Christian Perfection. Published in 1741. See Green's Bibliography, No. 29. And if any man calls it an error, till he has answered that, I must say, 'Sir, you beg the question.' But I preach, perhaps, twenty times, and say no more of this than even a Calvinist would allow. Neither will I enter into any dispute about it any more than about the millennium. Therefore the distinguishing doctrines on which I do insist in all my writings and in all my preaching will lie in a very narrow compass. You sum them all up in Perceptible Inspiration. For this I earnestly contend; and so do all who are called Methodist preachers. But be pleased to observe what we mean thereby. We mean that inspiration of God's Holy Spirit whereby He fills us with righteousness, peace, and joy, with love to Him and to all mankind. And we believe it cannot be, in the nature of things, that a man should be filled with this peace and joy and love by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit without perceiving it as clearly as he does the light of the sun. This is (so far as I understand them) the main doctrine of the Methodists. This is the substance of what we all preach. And I will still believe none is a true Christian till he experiences it; and, consequently, 'that people at all hazards must be convinced of this yea, though that conviction at first unhinge them ever so much, though it should in a manner distract them for a season. For it is better that they should be perplexed and terrified now than that they should sleep on and awake in hell.'

I do not, therefore, I will not, shift the question; though I know many who desire I should. I know the proposition I have to prove, and I will not move an hair's breadth from it. It is this: 'No man can be a true Christian without such an inspiration of the Holy Ghost as fills his heart with peace and joy and love, which he who perceives not has it not.' This is the point for which alone I contend; and this I take to be the very foundation of Christianity. 14. The answer, therefore, which you think we ought to give, is that we do give to the charge of our adversaries: 'Our singularities (if you will style them so) are fundamental and of the essence of Christianity'; therefore we must 'preach them with such diligence and zeal as if the whole of Christianity depended upon them.' 15. It would doubtless be wrong to insist thus on these things if they were 'not necessary to final salvation'; but we believe they are, unless in the case of invincible ignorance. In this case, undoubtedly many thousands are saved who never heard of these doctrines; and I am inclined to think this was our own case, both at Oxford and for some time after. Yet I doubt not but, had we been called hence, God would first, by this inspiration of His Spirit, have wrought in our hearts that holy love without which none can enter into glory. 16. I was aware of the seeming contradiction you mention at the very time when I wrote the sentence. But it is only a seeming one: for it is true that, from May 24, 1738, 'wherever I was desired to preach, salvation by faith was my only theme' that is, such a love of God and man as produces all inward and outward holiness, and springs from a conviction, wrought in us by the Holy Ghost, of the pardoning love of God; and that, when I was told, 'You must preach no more in this church,' it was commonly added, 'because you preach such doctrine!' And it is equally true that 'it was for preaching the love of God and man that several of the clergy forbade me their pulpits' before that time, before May 24, before I either preached or knew salvation by faith.

17. We are at length come to the real state of the question between the Methodists (so called) and their opponents. 'Is there perceptible inspiration, or is there not Is there such a thing (if we divide the question into its parts) as faith producing peace, and joy, and love, and inward (as well as outward) holiness Is that faith which is productive of these fruits wrought in us by the Holy Ghost, or not And is he in whom they are wrought necessarily conscious of them, or is he not' These are the points on which I am ready to join issue with any serious and candid man. Such I believe you to be. If, therefore, I knew on which of those you desired my thoughts, I would give you them freely, such as they are; or (if you desire it) on any collateral question. The best light I have I am ready to impart; and am ready to receive farther light from you. My time, indeed, is so short that I cannot answer your letters so particularly or so correctly as I would. But I am persuaded you will excuse many defects where you believe the design is good. I want to know what, as yet, I know not. May God teach it me by you, or by whom He pleaseth! 'Search me, O Lord, and prove me! Try out my reins and my heart! Look well if there be error or wickedness in me; and lead me in the way everlasting!'