Wesley Corpus

You quote, fifthly, these words: ‘I spent an hour with Stonehouse. Oh what paa, “persuasiveness of speech,” is here! Surely all the deceivableness of unrighteousness.’ (Journal. ii. 394.) But there was no fierceness or rancor on either side. The passage, a fragment of which you produce as a sixth argument, stands thus: ‘A few of us had a long conference together. Mr. Cennick now told me plainly he could not agree with me, because I did not preach the truth, particularly with regard to Election.’ He did so; but without any rancor. We had a long conference; but not a fierce one. (ii. 408-9.) You, seventhly, observe, ‘What scurrility of language the Moravians throw out against Mr. Wesley!’ Perhaps so. But this will not prove that ‘the Methodists quarrel with each other.’ ‘And how does he turn their own artillery upon them!’ This is your eighth argument. But if I do, this no more proves the ‘mutual quarrels of the Methodists’ than my turning your own artillery upon you. 33. Having, by these eight irrefragable arguments, dearly carried the day, you raise your crest, and cry out, ‘Is this Methodism And reign such mortal feuds in heavenly minds’ Truly, sir, you have not yet brought one single proof (and yet I dare say you have brought the very best you have) of any such feuds among the Methodists as may not be found among the most heavenly-minded men on earth. But you are resolved to pursue your victory, and so go on: ‘What are we to think of these charges of Whitefield and Wesley and the Moravians one against another’ The Moravians, sir, are out of the question; for they are no Methodists: and as to the rest, Mr. Whitefield charges Mr. Wesley withholding Universal Redemption, and I charge him with holding Particular Redemption. This is the standing charge on either side. And now, sir, ‘what are we to think’ Why, that you have not proved one point of this charge against the Methodists. However, you stumble on: ‘Are these things so Are they true, or are they not true If not true, they are grievous calumniators; if true, they are detestable sectarists. Whether true or false, the allegation stands good of their fierce and rancorous quarrels and mutual heinous accusations.’