Wesley Corpus

2. But our present question turns not on doctrine but discipline. ‘My first business,’ you say, ‘is to consider some very lax notions of Church communion which I find in your last Journal. Vol. ii. p. 335, you say, “Our Twentieth Article defines a true Church, a congregation of faithful people, wherein the true word of God is preached and the sacraments duly administered”’ (page 3). The use I would willingly make of this definition (which, observe, is not mine, be it good or bad) is to stop the boasting of ungodly men by cutting off their presence to call themselves of the Church. But you think they may call themselves so still. Then let them. I will not contend about it. But you cannot infer from hence that my notions of Church communion are either lax or otherwise. The definition which I occasionally cite shows nothing of my sentiments on that head. And, for anything which occurs in this page, they may be strict or loose, right or wrong. You add: ‘It will be requisite, in order to approve yourself a minister of our Church, that you follow her rules and orders; that you constantly conform to the method of worship she has prescribed and study to promote her peace’ (page 5). All this is good and fit to be done. But it properly belongs to the following question: ‘What led you into such very loose notions of Church communion, I imagine, might be your being conscious to yourself that, according to the strict, just account of the Church of England, you could not with any grace maintain your pretensions to belong still to her.’ Sir, I have never told you yet what my notions of Church communion are. They may be wrong or they may be right for all you know. Therefore, when you are first supposing that I have told you my notions, and then assigning the reasons of them, what can be said but that you imagine the whole matter