Wesley Corpus

A guardian of what? What is it that you have 'deliberately engaged yourself to defend'? The constitution of the Church of England. And is not her doctrine a main part of this constitution? a far more essential part thereof than any rule of external order? Of this, then, you are a formal guardian; and you have deliberately engaged yourself to defend it. But have you deliberately engaged to defend her orders to the destruction of her doctrine? Are you a guardian of this external circumstance when it tends to destroy the substance of her constitution? And if you are engaged, at all events, to defend her order, are you also to defend the abuse of it? Surely no. Your rank, your station, your honour, your conscience, all engage you to oppose this. (5) 'But how can it consist with the duty arising from all these to give encouragement, countenance, and support to principles and practices that are a direct renunciation of the established constitution, and that in their genuine issue' (or natural tendency) 'are totally subversive of it?' Are the principles of those clergymen a direct renunciation of the established constitution? Are their practices so? Are either the one or the other 'totally subversive of it'? Not so: their fundamental principles are the very principles of the Established Church. So is their practice too; save in a very few points, wherein they are constrained to deviate. Therefore it is no ways inconsistent with your duty to encourage, countenance, and support them; especially seeing they have no alternative. They must either be thus far irregular or destroy their own souls, and let thousands of their brethren perish for lack of knowledge. (6) Nay, but their 'principles and practices are of this character. For (I) They gather congregations and exercise their ministerial office therein in every part of this kingdom, directly contrary to the restraint laid on them at their ordination and to the design of that parochial distribution of duty settled throughout this nation. (ii) They maintain it lawful for men to preach who are not episcopally ordained, and thereby contradict the Twenty-third Article. (iii) They disclaim all right in the bishops to control them in any of these matters, and say that, rather than be so controlled, they would renounce all communion with this Church. (iv) These principles they industriously propagate among their followers.'