Wesley Corpus

you say not a word more about it; but slip away to those “zealous champions who have attempted” (bold men as they are) “to refute the ‘Introductory Discourse.’” (Page 11.) Perhaps you will say, “Yes, I repeat that text from St. Mark.” You do; yet not describing the nature of those powers; but only to open the way to “one of your antago mists;” (page 12;) of whom you yourself affirm, that “not one of them seems to have spent a thought in considering those powers as they are set forth in the New Testament.” (Page 11.) Consequently, the bare repeating that text does not prove you (any more than them) to have “spent one thought upon the subject.” 7. From this antagonist you ramble away to another; after a long citation from whom, you subjoin: “It being agreed then that, in the original promise, there is no intimation of any par ticular period, to which their continuance was limited.” (Pages 13, 14.) Sir, you have lost your way. We have as yet nothing to do with their continuance. “For till we have learned from those sacred records” (I use your own words) “what they were, and in what manner exerted by the Apostles, we cannot form a proper judgment of those evidences which are brought either to confirm or confute their continuance in the Church; and must consequently dispute at random, as chance or preju dice may prompt us, about things unknown to us.” (Page 11.) Now, Sir, if this be true, (as without doubt it is,) then it necessarily follows, that, seeing from the beginning of your book to the end, you spend not one page to inform either yourself or your readers concerning the nature of these miraculous powers, “as they are represented to us in the history of the gospel;” you dispute throughout the whole “atrandom, as chance or prejudice prompts you, about things unknown to you.” 8.