To Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London Date: LONDON, June 11, 1747. MY LORD, 1. When abundance of persons have for several years laid to my charge things that I knew not, I have generally thought it my duty to pass it over in silence, to be 'as one that heard not.' But the case is different when a person of your Lordship's character calls me forth to answer for myself. Silence now might be interpreted contempt. It might appear like a sullen disregard, a withholding honor from him to whom honor is due, were it only on account of his high office in the Church, more especially when I apprehend so eminent a person as this to be under considerable mistakes concerning me. Were I now to be silent, were I not to do what was in my power for the removal of those mistakes, I could not 'have a conscience void of offence,' either 'towards God or towards man.' 2. But I am sensible how difficult it is to speak in such a manner as I ought and as I desire to do. When your Lordship published those queries under the title of Observations, Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a Certain Sect, usually distinguished by the name of Methodist. 1744. See Green's Anti-Methodist Publications, No. 164. I did not lie under the same difficulty; because, as your name was not inscribed, I had 'the liberty to stand, as it were, on even ground.' But I must now always remember to whom I speak. And may the God 'whom I serve in the gospel of His Son' enable me to do it with deep seriousness of spirit, with modesty and humility, and at the same time with the utmost plainness of speech, seeing we must 'both stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.'

3. In this, then, I entreat your Lordship to bear with me, and in particular when I speak of myself (how tender a point!) just as freely as I would of another man. Let not this be termed boasting. Is there not a cause Can I refrain from speaking, and be guiltless And if I speak at all, ought I not to speak (what appears to me to be) the whole truth Does not your Lordship desire that I should do this I will, then, God being my helper. And you will bear with me in my folly (if such it is), with my speaking in the simplicity of my heart. 4. Your Lordship begins: 'There is another species of enemies, who give shameful disturbance to the parochial clergy, and use very unwarrantable methods to prejudice their people against them, and to seduce their flocks from them the Methodists and Moravians, who agree in annoying the Established ministry, and in drawing over to themselves the lowest and most ignorant of the people, by presences to greater sanctity' (Charge, p. 4). But have no endeavors been used to show them their error Yes; your Lordship remarks, 'Endeavors have not been wanting. But though these endeavors have caused some abatement in the pomp and grandeur with which these people for some time acted' (truly, one would not have expected it from them!), 'yet they do not seem to have made any impression upon their leaders.' Your Lordship adds: 'Their innovations in points of discipline I do not intend to enter into at present; but to inquire what the doctrines are which they spread' . 'Doctrines big with pernicious influences upon practice' . Six of these your Lordship mentions, after having premised, 'It is not at all needful, to the end of guarding against them, to charge the particular tenets upon the particular persons among them' . Indeed, my Lord, it is needful in the highest degree. For if the minister who is to guard his people, either against Peter Bohler, Mr. Whitefield, or me, does not know what our particular tenets are, he must needs 'run as uncertainly and fight as one that beateth the air.'

I will fairly own which of these belong to me. The indirect practices which your Lordship charges upon me may then be considered, together with the consequences of these doctrines and your Lordship's instructions to the clergy. 5. 'The first that I shall take notice of,' says your Lordship, 'is the Antinomian doctrine' . The second, 'that Christ has done all, and left nothing for us to do but to believe' . These belong not to me. I am unconcerned therein. I have earnestly opposed, but did never teach or embrace them. 'There is another notion,' your Lordship says, 'which we find propagated throughout the writings of those people, and that is the making inward, secret, and sudden impulses the guides of their actions, resolutions, and designs' . Mr. Church urged the same objection before: 'Instead of making the Word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only his secret impulse.' I beg leave to return the same answer: 'In the whole compass of language there is not a proposition which less belongs to me than this. I have declared again and again that I make the Word of God "the rule" of all my actions, and that I no more follow any "secret impulse" instead thereof than I follow Mahomet or Confucius.' See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. iii 5. 6. Before I proceed, suffer me to observe, here are three grievous errors charged on the Moravians, Mr. Whitefield, and me conjointly, in none of which I am any more concerned than in the doctrine of the Metempsychosis! But it was 'not needful to charge particular tenets on particular persons.' Just as needful, my Lord, as it is not to put a stumbling-block in the way of our brethren; not to lay them under an almost insuperable temptation of condemning the innocent with the guilty. I beseech your Lordship to answer in your own conscience before God whether you did not foresee how many of your hearers would charge these tenets upon me nay, whether you did not design they should. If so, my Lord, is this Christianity Is it humanity Let me speak plain. Is it honest heathenism

7. I am not one jot more concerned in instantaneous justification as your Lordship explains it namely, 'A sudden, instantaneous justification, by which the person receives from God a certain seal of His salvation or an absolute assurance of being saved at last' (Charge, p. 11). 'Such an instantaneous working of the Holy Spirit as finishes the business of salvation once for all' (ibid.). I neither teach nor believe it, and am therefore clear of all the consequences that may arise therefrom. I believe 'a gradual improvement in grace and goodness,'I mean in the knowledge and love of God, is a good 'testimony of our present sincerity towards God'; although I dare not say it is 'the only true ground of humble assurance,' or the only foundation on which a Christian builds his 'hopes of acceptance and salvation.' For I think 'other foundation' of these 'can no man lay than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ.' 8. To the charge of holding 'sinless perfection,' as your Lordship states it, I might likewise plead, Not guilty; seeing one ingredient thereof in your Lordship's account is 'freedom from temptation' . Whereas I believe 'there is no such perfection in this life as implies an entire deliverance from manifold temptations.' But I will not decline the charge. I will repeat once more my coolest thoughts upon this head; and that in the very terms which I did several years ago, as I presume your Lordship cannot be ignorant:

'What, it may be asked, do you mean by "one that is perfect" or "one that is as his Master" We mean one in whom is "the mind which was in Christ," and who so "walketh as He walked"; a man that "hath clean hands and a pure heart," or that is "cleansed from all filthiness of flesh and spirit"; one "in whom there is no occasion of stumbling," and who accordingly "doth not commit sin." To declare this a little more particularly: we understand by that scriptural expression, "a perfect man," one in whom God hath fulfilled His faithful word "From all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. I will also save you from all your uncleanness." We understand hereby one whom God hath sanctified throughout, even in "body, soul, and spirit"; one who "walketh in the light, as He is in the light," in whom "is no darkness at all; the blood of Jesus Christ His Son" having cleansed "him from all sin." 'This man can now testify to all mankind, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet I live not, but Christ liveth in me." He "is holy, as God who called him is holy," both in life and "in all manner of conversation." He "loveth the Lord his God with all his heart, and serveth Him with all his strength." He "loveth his neighbor" (every man) "as himself"; yea, "as Christ loved us" them in particular that "despitefully use him and persecute him," because "they know not the Son, neither the Father." Indeed, his soul is all love, filled with "bowels of mercies, kindness, meekness, gentleness, longsuffering." And his life agreeth thereto, full of "the work of faith, the patience of hope, the labor of love." And "whatsoever he doeth, either in word or deed," he doeth "it all in the name," in the love and power, "of the Lord Jesus." In a word, he doeth the will of God "on earth, as it is done in heaven."

'This is to be "a perfect man," to be "sanctified throughout, created anew in Jesus Christ"; even "to have an heart so all-flaming with the love of God" (to use Archbishop's Ussher's words), "as continually to offer up every thought, word, and work as a spiritual sacrifice, acceptable unto God through Christ." In every thought of our hearts, in every word of our tongues, in every work of our hands, "to show forth His praise who hath called us out of darkness into His marvelous light." Oh that both we and all who seek the Lord Jesus in sincerity may thus "be made perfect in one"!' 9. I conjure you, my Lord, by the mercies of God, if these are not the words of truth and soberness, point me out wherein I have erred from the truth; show me clearly wherein I have spoken either beyond or contrary to the Word of God. But might I not humbly entreat that your Lordship, in doing this, would abstain from such expressions as these, 'If they will but put themselves under their direction and discipline . . . after their course of discipline is once over' , as not suitable either to the weight of the subject or the dignity of your Lordship's character. And might I not expect something more than these loose assertions, that this is 'a delusion altogether groundless, a notion contrary to the whole tenor both of the Old and New Testament'; that 'the Scriptures forbid all thought of it, as vain, arrogant, and presumptuous'; that they 'represent all mankind, without distinction, as subject to sin and corruption' ('subject to sin and corruption'! strong words!) 'during their continuance in this world; and require no more than an honest desire and endeavor to find ourselves less and less in a state of imperfection' (pages 15-16). Is it not from your Lordship's entirely mistaking the question, not at all apprehending what perfection I teach, that you go on to guard against the same imaginary consequences as your Lordship did in the Observations Surely, my Lord, you never gave yourself the trouble to read the answer given in the Farther Appeal, to every objection which you now urge afresh; seeing you do not now appear to know any more of my sentiments than if you had never proposed one question nor received one answer upon the subject!

10. If your Lordship designed to show my real sentiments concerning the last doctrine which you mention, as one would imagine by your adding 'These are his own words' , should you not have cited all my own words at least, all the words of that paragraph, and not have mangled it as Mr. Church did before It runs thus: ' I showed at large, in order to answer those who taught that none but they who are full of faith and the Holy Ghost ought ever to communicate: (1) That the Lord's Supper was ordained by God to be a means of conveying to men either preventing, or justifying, or sanctifying grace, according to their several necessities. (2) That the persons for whom it was ordained are all those who know and feel that they want the grace of God, either to restrain them from sin, or to "show their sins forgiven," or to "renew their souls" in the image of God. (3) That inasmuch as we come to His Table, not to give Him anything, but to receive whatsoever He sees best for us, there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary but a desire to receive whatsoever He pleases to give. And (4) That no fitness is required at the time of communicating but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness; every one who knows he is fit for hell being just fit to come to Christ in this as well as all other ways of His appointment.' (Journal, ii. 361-2.)

In the second letter to Mr. Church I explain myself farther on this head: 'I am sorry to find you still affirm that, with regard to the Lord's Supper also, I "advance many injudicious, false, and dangerous things. Such as: (1) That 'a man ought to communicate without a sure trust in God's mercy through Christ.'" You mark these as my words; but I know them not. (2) "That there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever God pleases to give." But I include abundantly more in that desire than you seem to apprehend, even a willingness to know and do the whole will of God. (3) "That no fitness is required at the time of communicating" (I recite the whole sentence) "but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness; every one who knows he is fit for hell being just fit to come to Christ in this as well as in all other ways of His appointment." But neither can this sense of our utter sinfulness and helplessness subsist without earnest desires of universal holiness.' See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. II. 7. And now, what can I say Had your Lordship never seen this That is hardly to be imagined. But if you had, how was it possible your Lordship should thus explicitly and solemnly charge me, in the presence of God and all my brethren (only the person so charged was not present), with 'meaning by those words to set aside self-examination, and repentance for sins past, and resolutions of living better for the time to come, as things no way necessary to make a worthy communicant' (Charge, p. 18.) If an evidence at the Bar should swerve from truth, an equitable judge may place the thing in a true light. But if the judge himself shall bear false witness, where then can we find a remedy

Actual preparation was here entirely out of the question. It might be absolutely and indispensably necessary, for anything I had either said or meant to the contrary; for it was not at all in my thoughts. And the habitual preparation which I had in terms declared to be indispensably necessary was 'a willingness to know and to do the whole will of God' and 'earnest desires of universal holiness.' Does your Lordship think this is 'meant to set aside all repentance for sins past and resolutions of living better for the time to come' 11. Your Lordship next falls with all your might upon that strange assertion, as you term it, 'We come to His Table, not to give Him anything, but to receive whatsoever He sees best for us.' 'Whereas,' says your Lordship, 'in the exhortation at the time of receiving, the people are told that they must give most humble and hearty thanks . . . and immediately after receiving, both minister and people join in offering and presenting themselves before God' (pages 20-1). O God! in what manner are the most sacred things here treated! the most venerable mysteries of our religion! What quibbling, what playing upon words, is here! 'Not to give Him anything.' 'Yes, to give Him thanks.' O my Lord, are these the words of a Father of the Church 12. Your Lordship goes on: 'To the foregoing account of these modern principles and doctrines it may not be improper to subjoin a few observations upon the indirect practices of the same people in gaining proselytes' (pages 23-4). I. 'They persuade the people that the Established worship, with a regular attendance upon it, is not sufficient to answer the ends of devotion.' Your Lordship mentioned this likewise in the Observations. In your fourth query it stood thus: 'Whether a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way, does not answer the true ends of devotion.' Suffer me to repeat part of the answer then given:

'I suppose by "devotion" you mean public worship; by the "true ends" of it, the love of God and man; and by "a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way,: the going as often as we can to our parish church and to the sacrament there administered. If so, the question is, Whether this attendance on those offices does not produce the love of God and man. I answer, Sometimes it does, and sometimes it does not. I myself thus attended them for many years, and yet am conscious to myself that during that whole time I had no more of the love of God than a stone. And I know many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of serious persons who are ready to testify the same thing.' A Farther Appeal, Part 1. See Works, viii. 61. I subjoined: (1) 'We continually exhort all who attend on our preaching to attend the offices of the Church. And they do pay a more regular attendance there than ever they did before. (2) Their attending the church did not, in fact, answer those ends at all till they attended this preaching also. (3) It is the preaching remission of sins through Jesus Christ which alone answers the true ends of devotion.' II. 13. 'They censure the clergy,' says your Lordship, 'as less zealous than themselves in the several branches of the ministerial function. For this they are undeservedly reproached by these noisy itinerant leaders.' (Charge, pp. 24-5.) My Lord, I am not conscious to myself of this. I do not willingly compare myself with any man; much less do I reproach my brethren of the clergy, whether they deserve it or not. But it is needless to add any more on this head than what was said above a year ago:

'I must explain myself a little on that practice which you so often term "abusing the clergy." I have many times great sorrow and heaviness in my heart on account of these my brethren. And this sometimes constrains me to speak to them in the only way which is now in my power; and sometimes, though rarely, to speak of them of a few, not all in general. In either case, I take an especial care (1) to speak nothing but the truth; (2) to speak this with all plainness; and (3) with love and in the spirit of meekness. Now, if you will call this abusing, railing, or reviling, you must. But still I dare not refrain from it. I must thus rail, thus abuse sinners of all sorts and degrees, unless I will perish with them.'See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. vi. II. III. 14. 'They value themselves upon extraordinary strictnesses and severities in life, and such as are beyond what the rules of Christianity require. They captivate the people by such professions and appearances of uncommon sanctity. But that which can never fail of a general respect is a quiet and exemplary life, free from the many follies and indiscretions which those restless and vagrant teachers are apt to fall into.' (Charge, p. 25.)

By 'extraordinary strictnesses and severities,' I presume your Lordship means the abstaining from wine and animal food; which, it is sure, Christianity does not require. But if you do, I fear your Lordship is not thoroughly informed of the matter of fact. I began to do this about twelve years ago, when I had no thought of 'annoying parochial ministers,' or of 'captivating' any 'people' thereby, unless it were the Chicasaw or Choctaw Indians. But I resumed the use of them both, about two years after, for the sake of some who thought I made it a point of conscience; telling them, 'I will eat flesh while the world standeth' rather than 'make my brother to offend.' Dr. Cheyne advised me to leave them off again, assuring me, 'Till you do, you will never be free from fevers.' And since I have taken his advice, I have been free (blessed be God) from all bodily disorders. I continued this about two years (Wesley). See Tyerman's Wesley, i.28-9; and letter of Nov. 1, 1724. Would to God I knew any method of being equally free from all 'follies and indiscretions'! But this I never expect to attain till my spirit returns to God. 15. But in how strange a manner does your Lordship represent this! What a construction do you put upon it! 'Appearances of an uncommon sanctity, in order to captivate the people. Pretensions to more exalted degrees of strictness, to make their way into weak minds and fickle heads.' 'Pretences to greater sanctity, whereby they draw over to themselves the most ignorant of the people' . If these are 'appearances of uncommon sanctity' (which, indeed, might bear a dispute), how does your Lordship know that they are only appearances that they do not spring from the heart Suppose these were 'exalted degrees of strictness,' is your Lordship absolutely assured that we practice them only 'to make our way into weak minds and fickle heads' Where is the proof that these 'presences to greater sanctity' (as your Lordship is pleased to phrase them) are mere presences, and have nothing of reality or sincerity in them

My Lord, this is an accusation of the highest nature. If we are guilty, we are not so much as moral heathens. We are monsters, not only unworthy of the Christian name, but unfit for human society. It tears up all presences to the love of God and man, to justice, mercy, or truth. But how is it proved Or does your Lordship read the heart, and so pass sentence without any proof at all O my Lord, ought an accusation of the lowest kind to be thus received, even against the lowest of the people How much less can this be reconciled with the apostolical advice to the Bishop of Ephesus! 'Against a presbyter receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses'; and those face to face. When it is thus proved, 'them that sin, rebuke before all.' Your Lordship doubtless remembers the words that follow (how worthy to be written in your heart!): 'I charge thee, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality' (I Tim. v. 19-21). IV. 16. 'They mislead the people into an opinion of the high merit of punctual attendance on their performances, to the neglect of the business of their stations' . My Lord, this is not so. You yourself in this very Charge have cleared us from one part of this accusation. You have borne us witness that we disclaim all merit, even in (really) good works; how much more in such works as we continually declare are not good, but very evil! such as the attending sermons, or any public offices whatever, 'to the neglect of the business of our station.'

When your Lordship urged this before in the Observations, I openly declared my belief 'that true religion cannot lead into a disregard or disesteem of the common duties and offices of life; that, on the contrary, it leads men to discharge all those duties with the strictest and closest attention; that Christianity requires this attention and diligence in all stations and in all conditions; that the performance of the lowest offices of life, as unto God, is truly a serving of Christ; and that this is the doctrine I preach continually' A Farther Appeal, Part I. See Works, viii. 46.; a fact whereof any man may easily be informed. Now, if after all this your Lordship will repeat the charge as if I had not once opened my mouth concerning it, I cannot help it. I can say no more. I commend my cause to God. 17. Having considered what your Lordship has advanced concerning dangerous doctrines and indirect practices, I now come to the instructions your Lordship gives to the clergy of your diocese. How awful a thing is this! The very occasion carries in it a solemnity not to be expressed. Here is an angel of the Church of Christ, one of the stars in God's right hand, calling together all the subordinate pastors, for whom he is to give an account to God; and directing them (in the name and by the authority of 'the great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ, the First-begotten from the dead, the Prince of the kings of the earth') how to 'make full proof of their ministry,' that they may be 'pure from the blood of all men'; how to 'take heed unto themselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers'; how to 'feed the flock of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood'! To this end they are all assembled together. And what is the substance of all his instructions 'Reverend brethren, I charge you all, lift up your voice like a trumpet, and warn and arm and fortify all mankind against a people called Methodists!'

True it is, your Lordship gives them several advices; but all in order to this end. You direct them to 'inculcate the excellency of our Liturgy as a wise, grave, and serious service'; to 'show their people that a diligent attendance on their business is a serving of God'; 'punctually to perform both the public offices of the Church and all other pastoral duties'; and to 'engage the esteem of their parishioners by a constant regularity of life.' But all these your Lordship recommends eo nomine as means to that great end the arming and fortifying their people against the Moravians or Methodists and their doctrines. Is it possible Could your Lordship discern no other enemies of the gospel of Christ Are there no other heretics or schismatics on earth, or even within the four seas Are there no Papists, no Deists in the land Or are their errors of less importance Or are their numbers in England less considerable or less likely to increase Does it appear, then, that they have lost their zeal for making proselytes Or are all the people so guarded against them already that their labor is in vain Can your Lordship answer these few plain questions to the satisfaction of your own conscience Have the Methodists (so called) already monopolized all the sins as well as errors in the nation Is Methodism the only sin, or the only fatal or spreading sin, to be found within the Bills of Mortality Have two thousand (or more) 'ambassadors of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God' no other business than to guard, warn, arm, and fortify their people against this O my Lord, if this engrosses their time and strength (as it must, if they follow your Lordship's instructions), they will not give an account with joy, either of themselves or of their flock, in that day!

18. Your Lordship seems in some measure sensible of this, when you very gently condemn their opinion who think the Methodists 'might better be disregarded and despised than taken notice of and opposed, if it were not for the disturbance they give to the parochial ministers, and their unwarrantable endeavors to seduce the people from their lawful pastors' (Charge, p. 22). The same complaint with which your Lordship opened your Charge: 'They give shameful disturbances to the parochial clergy; they annoy the Established ministry, using very unwarrantable methods, first to prejudice their people against them, and then to seduce their flocks from them' . Whether we seduce them or no (which will be presently considered), I am sorry your Lordship should give any countenance to that low, senseless, and now generally exploded slander that we do it for a maintenance. This your Lordship insinuates by applying to us those words of Bishop Sanderson: Robert Sanderson (1587-1663), Fellow of Lincoln College 1606; Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford, 1642; Bishop of Lincoln 1660. Izaak Walton in his Lives calls him 'This pattern of meekness and primitive innocence.' 'And all this to serve their own belly, to make a prey of the poor deluded proselytes; for by this means the people fall unto them, and thereout suck they no small advantage' . Your Lordship cannot but know that my Fellowship and my brother's Studentship afford us more than sufficient for life and godliness, especially for that manner of life which we choose, whether out of ostentation or in sincerity. Charles Wesley's Studentship yielded 4 a year paid quarterly, and 16s. 8d. annually for 'livery,' i.e. clothes. Had he been resident he would have had free rooms and 'commons,' or diet. Both Fellowship and Studentship were terminable on marriage. For Wesley's income, see Works, vii. 36.

19. But do we willingly 'annoy the Established ministry' or 'give disturbance to the parochial clergy' My Lord, we do not. We trust herein to have a conscience void of offence. Nor do we designedly 'prejudice their people against them.' In this also our heart condemneth us not. But you 'seduce their flocks from them.' No, not even from those who feed themselves, not the flock. All who hear us attend the service of the Church, at least as much as they did before. And for this very thing are we reproached as bigots to the Church by those of most other denominations. Give me leave, my Lord, to say you have mistook and misrepresented this whole affair from the top to the bottom. And I am the more concerned to take notice of this because so many have fallen into the same mistake. It is indeed, and has been from the beginning, the pts ed, 'the capital blunder,' of our bitterest adversaries; though how they can advance it I see not, without 'loving,' if not 'making, a lie.' It is not our care, endeavor, or desire to proselyte any from one man to another; or from one church (so called), from one congregation or society, to another, we would not move a finger to do this, to make ten thousand such proselytes, but from darkness to light, from Belial to Christ, from the power of Satan to God. Our one aim is to proselyte sinners to repentance, the servants of the devil to serve the living and true God. If this be not done in fact, we will stand condemned, not as well-meaning fools, but as devils incarnate. But if it be, if the instances glare in the face of the sun, if they increase daily, maugre all the power of earth and hell; then, my Lord, neither you nor any man beside (let me use great plainness of speech) can 'oppose' and 'fortify people against us,' without being found even 'to fight against God.'

20. I would fain set this point in a clearer light. Here are in and near Moorfields ten thousand poor souls, for whom Christ died, rushing headlong into hell. Is Dr. Bulkeley, the parochial minister, both willing and able to stop them See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. III. 5. If so, let it be done, and I have no place in these parts: I go and call other sinners to repentance. But if, after all he has done and all he can do, they are still in the broad way to destruction, let me see if God will put a word even in my mouth. True, I am a poor worm that of myself can do nothing. But if God sends by whomsoever He will send, His word shall not return empty. All the messenger of God asks is, p st (no help of man!) a s. Give me where to stand, and I will shake the earth' (Archimedes and his lever). See letter in Dec. 1751, sect. 3, to Bishop Lavington. The arm of the Lord is revealed. The lion roars, having the prey plucked out of his teeth. And 'there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over' more than 'one sinner that repenteth.'

21. Is this any annoyance to the parochial minister Then what manner of spirit is he of Does he look on this part of his flock as lost, because they are found of the great Shepherd My Lord, great is my boldness toward you. You speak of the consequences of our doctrines. You seem well pleased with the success of your endeavors against them, because, you say, they 'have pernicious consequences, are big with pernicious influences upon practice, dangerous to religion and the souls of men' (pages 8, 22). In answer to all this, I appeal to plain fact. I say once more: 'What have been the consequences (I would not speak, but I dare not refrain) of the doctrines I have preached for nine years last past By the fruits shall ye know those of whom I speak; even the cloud of witnesses, who at this hour experience the gospel which I preach to be the power of God unto salvation. The habitual drunkard that was is now temperate in all things; the whoremonger now flees fornication; he that stole, steals no more, but works with his hands; he that cursed or swore, perhaps at every sentence, has now learned to serve the Lord with fear and rejoice unto Him with reverence; those formerly enslaved to various habits of sin are now brought to uniform habits of holiness. These are demonstrable facts: I can name the men, with their places of abode. One of them was an avowed Atheist for many years; some were Jews; a considerable number Papists; the greatest part of them as much strangers to the form as to the power of godliness.' My Lord, can you deny these facts I will make whatever proof of them you shall require. But if the facts be allowed, who can deny the doctrines to be in substance the gospel of Christ 'For is there any other name under heaven given to men whereby they may thus be saved' or is there any other word that thus 'commendeth itself to every man's conscience in the sight of God'

22. But I must draw to a conclusion. Your Lordship has without doubt had some success in opposing this doctrine. Very many have, by your Lordship's unwearied endeavors, been deterred from hearing at all; and have thereby probably escaped the being seduced into holiness, have lived and died in their sins. My Lord, the time is short. I am past the noon of life, and my remaining years flee away as a shadow. Your Lordship is old and full of days, having past the usual age of man. It cannot, therefore, be long before we shall both drop this house of earth and stand naked before God; no, nor before we shall see the great white throne coming down from heaven, and Him that sitteth thereon. On His left hand shall be those who are shortly to dwell in everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. In that number will be all who died in their sins, and, among the rest, those whom you preserved from repentance. Will you then rejoice in your success The Lord God grant it may not be said in that hour, 'These have perished in their iniquity; but their blood I require at thy hands'! - I am Your Lordship's dutiful son and servant. To 'John Smith' ST. IVES, July 10, 1747. SIR, 1. You put me in mind of an eminent man who, preaching at St. James's, said, 'If you do not repent, you will go to a place which I shall not name before this audience.' I cannot promise so much, either in preaching or writing, before any audience or to any person whatever. Yet I am not conscious of doing this very often of 'profusely flinging about everlasting fire'; though it is true I mentioned it in my last letter to you, as I have done now a second time; and perhaps I may mention it yet again. For, to say the truth, I desire to have both heaven and hell ever in my eye, while I stand on this isthmus of life, between these two boundless oceans; and I verily think the daily consideration of both highly becomes all men of reason and religion.

2. I think likewise (or I would not spend five words upon the head) that these are nearly concerned in our present question. To touch only on one branch of it: if I live in willful sin, in a sinful 'deviation from established order,' am I not in the way to hell I cannot take it any otherwise. I cannot help 'blending these two inquiries together.' I must therefore speak seriously, or not at all; and yet, I trust, 'without losing my temper.' Do you complain of this first, that I may not complain It appears to me that you show more eagerness of spirit, more warmth and resentment, in your last than you ever have done from the beginning. 3. You spoke of 'a number of unsent persons going about and preaching the worst of heresies.' I answered, 'Within these nine years I have heard of two, and no more, who have gone about thus, though I doubt neither sent of God nor man.' Their names were Jonathan Wildboar, At Bristol, on July 29, 1740 (see his Journal), Charles Wesley says: 'One, pestered with the Predestinarians, desired me to expound Rom. ix. I did, through Christ strengthening me, in an extraordinary manner. The poor creature Wildboar contradicted and blasphemed, and even called for damnation upon his own soul, if Christ died for all, and if God was willing that all men should be saved. The power of the Lord was present so much the more 'I have not known a more triumphant night since I knew Bristol.' John Wesley's Diary for Oct. 20, 1740, shows that he was at Mrs. 'Wildbore's' house in London. and Thomas Smith,Wesley published an advertisement on Aug. 3, 1748, warning the public against this 'cheat and impostor' (Journal, iii. 365). alias Moor, alias I know not what for I fear he changed his name as often as his place. It is not unlikely that either of these might steal as well as lie, which they have done abundantly, particularly in claiming acquaintance with Mr. Whitefield or me wherever they judged it would recommend them to their hearers. I should not be surprised to hear of two more such; but I have not yet, in all the counties I have gone through between London and Berwick-upon-Tweed, or between Deal and the Land's End.

4. I would to God all the clergy throughout the land were 'zealous for inward, solid virtue.' But I dare not say one in ten of those I have known are so in any degree. The two clergymen of this place, on a late public occasion, were led home at one or two in the morning in such a condition as I care not to describe. One of them is rector of Lelant also (a parish east of St. Ives), of Twidnack, to the south, and Zennor, to the west. At Zennor he keeps another assistant, and one who is just as sober as himself, and near as zealous not, indeed, for inward or outward virtue, but against these 'scoundrels that pretend to preach in his parish.' 5. I never 'attempted to deny' that the novelty of our manner of preaching has induced thousands and ten thousands to hear us who would otherwise never have heard us at all, nor perhaps any other preacher. But I utterly deny that 'the effects wrought on many of them that heard were owing to novelty, and that only.' The particular effects wrought at Epworth Where he preached with extraordinary effect on his father's tombstone on June 6, 1742 (Journal, iii. 19). His defence of field-preaching is given in Parts I and III of A Farther Appeal. See Works, viii.113-119, 229-31. were these: many drunkards, many unjust and profane men, on whom both my father and I had for several years spent our strength in vain, from that time began to live, and continue so to do, a sober, righteous, and godly life. Now, I deny that this effect can be owing to novelty, or to any principle but the power of God. If it be asked, But were there not 'the same hearers, the same preachers, and the same God to influence in the church as on the tombstone' I answer: (1) There were not all the same hearers in the church not above one-third of them; (2) there was the same preacher in the church, but he did not then preach the same doctrine; and therefore, (3) though there was the same God, there was not the same influence or blessing from Him.

6. The sum of what I offered before concerning perceptible inspiration was this: 'Every Christian believer has a perceptible testimony of God's Spirit that he is a child of God.' You objected that there was not one word said of this, either in the Bible or in the Appeal, to which I referred. I replied: 'I think there is in the Bible, in the 16th verse of the 8th chapter to the Romans. And in the Farther Appeal this place is proved to describe the ordinary privilege of every Christian believer.'

This is there shown, both by Scripture, by reason, and by authority, particularly that of Origen and Chrysostom, whom his Lordship of Lichfield had cited in his Charge Richard Smallbroke, Bishop of Lichfield 1730-49, published treatises against Whiston and Woolaston. In a Charge, delivered in 1741 and published in 1744, he set himself 'to obviate the Contagion of those Enthusiastical Pretensions that in several parts of the nation have lately, as well as formerly, betrayed whole Multitudes either into an unreasonable Presumption of their Salvation, or into melancholy if not desponding Opinions about it.' He attempted to prove, with the aid of Origen and Chrysostom's homily on I Cor. ii. 4, that the 'demonstration of the Spirit and power' referred to the miracles of the apostolic age (pp. 15, 26, 31-2), and that the Testimony of the Spirit, in the Sense of the Holy Scriptures, is abusively pretended to by a new sect of Enthusiastical Seducers among us.' Whitefield wrote Some Remarks upon a late Charge against Enthusiasm, and Wesley answered the Bishop in A Farther Appeal. as asserting just the contrary. But, waiving authorities, I reasoned thus: 'You allow there is a testimony of the Spirit with our spirit that we are the children of God. But you say it is not a perceptible one. How is this Let us examine it thoroughly. It is allowed (1) the Spirit of God (2) bears testimony to my spirit (3) that I am a child of God. But I am not to perceive it. Not to perceive what the first, second, or third particular Am I not to perceive what is testified that I am a child of God Then it is not testified at all. This is saying and unlaying in the same breath. Or am I not to perceive that it is testified to my spirit Yea, but I must perceive what passes in my own soul! Or, lastly, am I to perceive that I am a child of God, and that this is testified to my spirit, but not to perceive who it is that testifies not to know it is the Spirit of God O sir, if there be really a man in the world who hath this testimony in himself, can it be supposed that he does not know who it is that testifies who it is that speaks to his heart'

7. Instead of giving a direct answer to this, you have recourse to the same supposition with his Lordship of Lichfield and Coventry namely, that there was once an inward, perceptible testimony of the Spirit, but that it was peculiar to the early ages of the Church. 'There are three ways,' say you, 'in which the Holy Spirit may be said to bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God: (1) By external, miraculous attestations. (2) By internal, plainly perceptible whispers.' (I must add, 'not in words, at least not always, but by some kind of impressions equivalent thereto.') '(3) By His standing testimony in the Holy Scriptures. The Apostles had all these three; Origen and Chrysostom probably the two latter. But if St. Bernard, several hundred years after, pretended to any other than the third, his neighbors would naturally ask for proof, either that it should be so by Scripture or that it was so by facts.'

Well, then, let us suppose St. Bernard and one of his neighbors to be talking together on this subject. On St. Bernard's saying, 'The Spirit of God bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God,' his neighbor replies, 'I suppose He does, but not by an inward, plainly perceptible testimony.' 'Yes, by an inward, plainly perceptible testimony. I now have this testimony in myself; I plainly perceive that I am a child of God, and that it is His Spirit who testifies it to my spirit.' 'I fear you are somewhat enthusiastically given. I allow God's standing testimony in the Scriptures; but I cannot allow that there is now any such thing as this inward testimony, unless you can either prove by Scripture that it should be so or by facts that it is so.' 'Are not these words Scripture: "The Spirit itself beareth testimony with our spirit that we are the children of God"' 'Yes; but the question is, how they are to be understood: for I deny that they speak of an inward testimony. They speak of the outward, standing testimony of God in the Holy Scriptures.' 'You put a manifest force upon the text. You cannot prove that it speaks of any outward testimony at all. But the words immediately preceding prove to a demonstration that it speaks of an inward testimony: "Ye have not received the spirit of bondage unto fear" (is not fear an inward thing); "but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father!" The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God, even the same Spirit which "God hath sent forth into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father I"' 'I do not deny that the Spirit bears witness with our spirit. But I deny your peculiar interpretation of this text. I deny that this text at all favors an inward, perceptible testimony.' 'The Spirit which God hath sent into my heart, and which now cries in my heart "Abba, Father," now beareth testimony with my spirit that I am a child of God. How can these words be interpreted at all but of an inward, perceptible testimony' 'I tell you, of God's standing testimony in Scripture.' 'This is a palpable violence to the words. They no more speak of Scripture than of miracles.

They no more speak of Scripture than of miracles. They manifestly speak of what passes in the heart, the spirit, the inmost soul of a believer, and that only.' 8. But you would say, 'Suppose this scripture to prove that it should be so, can you show by facts that it is so' Not if you take it for granted that every one who speaks of having this witness in himself is an enthusiast. You are then in no danger of proof from this quarter. You have a short answer to every fact which can be alleged. But you turn the tables. You say it is I who allow that 'many of God's children do not continue in sound mind and memory.' I allowed: (1) A man feels the testimony of God's Spirit, and cannot then deny or doubt his being a child of God. (2) After a time this testimony is withdrawn: not from every child of God; many retain the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end. (3) Then he may doubt whether that testimony was of God, and perhaps at length deny that it was, especially if his heart be hardened by the deceitfulness of his sin. And yet he may be all this time in every other respect of 'sound memory as well as understanding.' In this respect I allowed he is not that is, 'his understanding is now darkened, and the very traces of that divine work wellnigh erased out of his memory.' So I expressly determined the sense wherein I allowed 'he does not continue in sound mind and memory.' But did I allow that even then he was non compos mentis a madman in the common sense Nothing less: I allowed no more than, the divine light being withdrawn, his mind was again dark as to the things of God; and that he had forgotten t aTas t pa at 'aat, 2 Pet. i. 9 'The purification from his former sins.' wellnigh as if it had never been.

9. But you say, 'If variable facts be produced, to-day asserted, to-morrow denied.' Nay, the facts, whether asserted or denied, are still invariable. 'But if they be ever doubted or denied, they never were plainly perceptible.' I cannot discern any force in that consequence: however, if they are afterward 'denied, they are not from Him "in whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."' Neither is this consequence good. Though God is ever the same, man may either assert or deny His works. 'The spirit of man and his fancies or opinions may vary; but God and His facts cannot.' Thus far they can and do: God does not now bear witness as He did before. And this variation of the fact makes way for a variation in the judgment of him who had that witness, but now hath it not. 'You may be fully of opinion to-day that the Scriptures are of God, and doubt of this to-morrow. But what is this to the purpose' Very much. I am as fully convinced to-day that the Scriptures are of God as that the sun shines. And this conviction (as every good gift) cometh from the Father of lights. Yet I may doubt of it to-morrow. - I may throw away the good gift of God. 'But we were speaking not of man's opinions, but of God's facts.' We were speaking of both of man's opinions, or judgment, concerning God's facts. 'But could he to whom Christ said, "Thy sins are forgiven thee," ever doubt or deny that Christ said so' I question not but in process of time he might, particularly if he drew back unto perdition. But, however that be, it is no 'blasphemous supposition,' but a plain, undeniable truth, that the god of this world can obliterate what the God of heaven has strongly imprinted upon the soul yea, and that he surely will, unless we stir up the gift of God which is in us by earnestly and continually watching unto prayer.

I presume you do not deny that a believer, one who has the witness in himself, may make 'shipwreck of the faith,' and consequently lose the witness (however it be explained) which he once had of his being a child of God The darkness which then covers his soul again, I ascribe (in part) to the energy of Satan, who evergei, 'worketh,' according to the Apostle, in the children of unbelief, whether they did once believe or no. And has he not much power even on the children of God to disturb, though not to destroy to throw fiery darts without number, especially against those who as yet are but weak in the faith to inject doubts and fears sometimes unbelieving, sometimes even blasphemous thoughts And how frequently will they be wounded thereby, if they have not put on the whole armor of God!

10. You add: 'If we reply, There are enthusiasts in the world, you can keep your temper no longer; and the only answer is, If we perceive not that witness in ourselves, we are ignorant of the whole affair, and doomed to the "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."' I said not so. I can keep my temper (blessed be God) if you call me an hundred enthusiasts, if you affirm I am ten times more of an enthusiast than that poor Quaker probably was. 'Smith' referred to a Quaker which he was fully persuaded was who had brought him a message received from God. The sharpest word I said was, 'If a man does not know who it is that testifies with his spirit he is a child of God, he is ignorant of the whole affair.' But I felt no anger when I said this. Nor do I now. Though I still think (because you say it yourself) that you are ignorant of this whole affair, of the inward testimony for which I contend. Yet am I far from dooming you to everlasting fire. What you know not, I trust God will reveal unto you. Least of all was this my 'only answer to your supposition 'that this perceptible testimony is only an imagination, unless I am altogether in a dream.' I have given some other answer, and a pretty full one, to the objection such an one, I think, as the nature of the thing admits, at least as my capacity would allow.

11. I have largely considered, both in the Third Part of the Appeal and in the latter part of the Second Letter to Mr. Church, the unreasonableness of the common demand to prove our doctrine by miracles. I cannot but refer you to those tracts, having neither time nor inclination actum agere. 'To do the same thing repeatedly.' Only I would weigh what you have now advanced in support of that demand. 'If the enthusiast is as confident of his inspiration as one really inspired is of his, a third person has a right to call for other proof than confident assertions' that is, for miracles. So you explain yourself in the following sentence. Let us try how this consequence will hold in a particular instance: 'The Spirit said unto Paul, Go not into Macedonia.' When he related this to his companions, ought they to have replied, 'We call for other proof of this than your confident assertion, seeing enthusiasts are as confident of theirs as you are of this revelation' If you say, 'They had seen his miracles at other times'; I know not that: perhaps they had, perhaps they had not. But to step a little forward: 'If in the days of Origen and Chrysostom external miraculous powers were ceased, while internal inspiration still remained,' what becomes of your demand here It is totally excluded; although there were, in those days also, pretenders to what they had not. And yet there might have been other sufficient reasons for believing the assertion of Origen, Chrysostom, and St. Bernard too, that they had this internal testimony. Such was, besides the holiness of their lives, that great and standing miracle their saving so many souls from death and hiding a multitude of sins. 12. There are at least as many pretenders to the love of God as there are to the witness of His Spirit. But does this give me a right, if a man asserts he loves God, to demand his proving that assertion by miracles Not so; but by their fruits I shall know a real and a pretended love of God. And in the same manner may I know him that has the witness of God's love from an enthusiastic pretender to it. But if a man disclaims it, he sets himself out of the question. It is beyond dispute that he has it not.

Neither do I want miracles in order to determine my judgment with regard to scriptures variously interpreted. I would not say in this case, 'Show me a sign,' but 'Bring forth your strong reasons'; and according to these, weighed in an even, impartial scale, would I incline to one side or the other. 13. From the beginning of our correspondence I did not expect you to alter your judgment touching those points wherein we differed. But I was willing (and am so still) to hear and consider whatever you should advance concerning them: and so much the rather, because in the greatest points we do agree already; and in the smaller, we can bear with each other, and speak what we apprehend to be the truth in love. Let us bless God for this, and press on to the mark. It cannot be long before we shall be quite of one mind, before the veil of flesh shall drop off, and we shall both see pure light in the unclouded face of God.