Wesley Corpus

You add, ‘I appeal to any reasonable man whether you have not acted as an ordinary, nay a bishop, in Kingswood.’ If you mean in ‘declaring those disorderly members were no longer of that Society,’ I admit your appeal whether I therein acted as a bishop or as any steward of a Society may. ‘Nay, you have gone far beyond the generality of the Dissenters themselves, who do not commit the power of excommunication and appointing to preach’ (that is another question) ‘to the hands of any private minister.’ ‘The power of excommunication.’ True; but this was not excommunication, but a quite different thing. How far, in what circumstances, and in what sense I have ‘appointed men to preach’ I have explained at large in the Third Part of the Farther Appeal. But I wait for farther light, and am ready to consider as I am able whatever shall be replied to what is there advanced. 8. Your general conclusion is: ‘Whatever your pretences or professions may be, you can be looked upon by serious and impartial persons, not as a member, much less a minister, of the Church of England, but as no other than an enemy to her constitution, worship, and doctrine, raising divisions and disturbances in her communion’ (Second Letter, p. 76). ‘And yet you say, “I cannot have greater regard to her rules,” “I dare not renounce communion with her”’ (page 15). I do say so still. I cannot have a greater regard to any human rules than to follow them in all things, unless where I apprehend there is a divine rule to the contrary. I dare not renounce communion with the Church of England. As a minister, I teach her doctrines; I use her offices; I conform to her rubrics; I suffer reproach for my attachment to her. As a private member, I hold her doctrines; I join in her offices, in prayer, in hearing, in communicating. I expect every reasonable man, touching these facts, to believe his own eyes and ears. But if these facts are so, how dare any man of common sense charge me with renouncing the Church of England