Wesley Corpus

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.