Wesley Corpus

Upon this you descant: ‘The legislature has at several times made Acts for pressing men. But no matter for this; touch but a Methodist, and all may perish rather than a soldier be pressed. He who had before bound himself not to speak a title of worldly things is now bawling for liberty and property.’ Very lively this! But I hope, sir, you do not offer it by way of argument. You are not so unlearned in the law as not to know that the legislature is out of the question. The legislature six years ago did not appoint press-gangs but legal officers to press men. Consequently this is no proof {and find another if you can) of our undutiful behavior to the civil powers. 32. ‘Another natural consequence,’ you say, ‘of Methodism is their mutual jealousies and envyings, their manifold divisions, fierce and rancorous quarrels, and accusations of one another.’ I shall carefully attend whatever you produce on this head; and if you prove this, I will grant you all the rest. You first cite those words: ‘Musing on the things that were past, and reflecting how many that came after me were preferred before me, I opened my Testament on those words: “The Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness; but Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness”’ (ii. 324). And how does this prove the manifold divisions and rancorous quarrels of the Methodists Your second argument is: ‘Mr. Whitefield told me he and I preached two different gospels'’(his meaning was that he preached particular and I universal redemption); ‘and therefore he would not join with me, but publicly preach against me’ (sect. xix. p. 341, &c.). Well, sir, here was doubtless a division for a time; but no fierce and rancorous quarrel yet. You say, thirdly: ‘They write and publish against each other.’ True; but without any degree either of fierceness or rancor. You assert, fourthly: ‘Mr. Wesley in his sermon on Free Grace opposes the other for the horrible blasphemies of his horrible doctrine.’ Sir, away with your flourishes, and write plain English: I opposed the doctrine of Predestination, which he held; but without any degree either of rancor or fierceness. Still, therefore, you miss the mark.