Wesley Corpus

W. esteems the Minutes the standard of orthodoxy. In 1771, he signs a paper, owning them to be unguarded. In 1772, he tells us, he does not know but it would have been better, not to have signed that paper at all !” (Page 13.) Suppose all this true, what will it prove? Only that I made a concession which was made an ill use of. But “Mr. F.’s defence makes poor Mr. W. appear more and more inconsistent. Mr. W. declares the Minutes to be unguarded:” (That is, “not enough guarded” against cavil lers:) “Mr. F. defends them, and strives to reconcile them with the Declaration. But then comes Mr. W., and tells us, he does not know, but it had been better not to have signed it at all.” And what then? Why, “hereby he intimates, that he has fixed a different sense upon the Minutes from that which they originally bore.” No such thing; he intimates this and no more, that by that well-intended concession, he had given occasion, to those who sought occasion, of offence against him. So all this laboured charge vanishes into air; and no more proves inconsistency than high-treason. 42. We come now to the main point, perfection; the objections to which spread almost throughout the book. But the question is not, whether the doctrine be true or false; but whether I contradict myself concerning it. As to what occurs in the fourth and fifth pages, it may therefore suffice to say, I do believe (as you observe) that real Christians (meaning those that are “perfected in love”) are freed from evil or sinful thoughts. And where do I contradict this? “You say, I cannot prove the facts alleged against some professors of perfection. Indeed I can.” (Page 10.) If you could, that would not prove that I contradict myself on this head. “But one at Worcester writes, ‘I can send you an account of two or three shocking instances of bad behaviour among the professors of perfection here.’” Perhaps so. But will that prove my inconsistency? 43. Awhile since, Mr. Ma--d related to me the whole story of Samuel Wi-n. I know not that I ever heard of it before, but only some imperfect fragments of it.