Wesley Corpus

I am therefore so far from self-inconsistency in tolerating the former and not the latter, that I readily should be self-inconsistent were I to act otherwise: were I to break, or allow others to break, an ordinance of man, where there is no necessity, I should contradict my own principle as much as if I did not allow it to be broken where there is. As to the latter change, that ‘I deny my brethren the liberty of acting according to their own conscious, and therefore show a spirit of persecution,’ I again allow for the fact, but deny the consequence. I mean, I allow the fact thus far: some of our preachers who are not ordained think it quite right to administer the Lord’s supper, and believe it would do much good. I think it quite wrong, and belive it would do much hurt. Hereupon I say; ‘I have no right over your conscience , nor over mine; therefore both you and I must follow our own conscience. You believe it is a duty to administer; do so, and therein follow your own conscience. I verily believe it is a sin, which consequentially I dare not tolerate; and herein I follow mine.’ Yet this is no persecution, were I to separate from our Society (which I have not done yet) those who practice what I believe is contrary to the Word and destructive of the work of God. Last week I had a long letter from William Darney, [See letter of Feb. 9, 1750.] who likewise wonders we should be of so persecuting a spirit as to deny him the liberty of thinking and speaking in our Societies according to his own conscience. How will you answer him, and excuse Ted and Charles Perronet from the charge of persecuting their brother They then said (as did all), ‘Let him preach Calvinism elsewhere (we have no fight to hinder him); but not among us, because we are persuaded it would do much hurt.’ Take the answer back: if it was good in one case, so was it in the other likewise.