Wesley Corpus

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’