Wesley Corpus

Your Lordship adds: ‘Their innovations in points of discipline I do not intend to enter into at present; but to inquire what the doctrines are which they spread’ (page 7). ‘Doctrines big with pernicious influences upon practice’ (page 8). Six of these your Lordship mentions, after having premised, ‘It is not at all needful, to the end of guarding against them, to charge the particular tenets upon the particular persons among them’ (page 7). Indeed, my Lord, it is needful in the highest degree. For if the minister who is to guard his people, either against Peter Bohler, Mr. Whitefield, or me, does not know what our particular tenets are, he must needs ‘run as uncertainly and fight as one that beateth the air.’ I will fairly own which of these belong to me. The indirect practices which your Lordship charges upon me may then be considered, together with the consequences of these doctrines and your Lordship's instructions to the clergy. 5. ‘The first that I shall take notice of,’ says your Lordship, ‘is the Antinomian doctrine’ (page 8). The second, ‘that Christ has done all, and left nothing for us to do but to believe’ (page 9). These belong not to me. I am unconcerned therein. I have earnestly opposed, but did never teach or embrace them. ‘There is another notion,’ your Lordship says, ‘which we find propagated throughout the writings of those people, and that is the making inward, secret, and sudden impulses the guides of their actions, resolutions, and designs’ (page 14). Mr. Church urged the same objection before: ‘Instead of making the Word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only his secret impulse.’ I beg leave to return the same answer: ‘In the whole compass of language there is not a proposition which less belongs to me than this. I have declared again and again that I make the Word of God “the rule” of all my actions, and that I no more follow any “secret impulse” instead thereof than I follow Mahomet or Confucius.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. iii 5.]