Wesley Corpus

You go on: “Under this head may, not improperly, be considered their undutiful behaviour to the civil powers.” What proof have you of this? Why, a single sentence, on which I laid so little stress myself, that it is only inserted by way of parenthesis, in the body of another sentence: “Ye learned in the law, what becomes of Magna Charta, and of English liberty and property? Are not these mere sounds, while, on any pretence, there is such a thing as a press-gang suffered in the land?” Upon this you descant: “The legislature has, at several times, made Acts for pressing men. But no matter for this; touch but a Methodist, and all may perish, rather than a soldier be pressed. He who had before bound himself not to speak a tittle of worldly things is now bawling for liberty and property.” Very lively this! But I hope, Sir, you do not offer it by way of argument. You are not so unlearned in the law, as not to know, that the legislature is out of the question. The legis lature, six years ago, did not appoint press-gangs, but legal officers to press men. Consequently, this is no proof (and find another if you can) of our undutiful behaviour to the civil powers. 32. “Another natural consequence,” you say, “of Method ism, is their-mutual jealousies and envyings, their manifold divisions, fierce and rancorous quarrels, and accusations of one another.” (Vol. I. p. 252.) I shall carefully attend whatever you produce on this head: And if you prove this, I will grant you all the rest. You First cite those words: “Musing on the things that were past, and reflecting how many that came after me were preferred before me, I opened my Testament on those words: ‘The Gen tiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness; but Israel, which followed after the law of righ teousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.’” And how does this prove the manifold divisions and rancorous quarrels of the Methodists? Your Second argument is: “Mr. Whitefield told me, he and I preached two different gospels;” (his meaning was, that he preached particular, and I universal, redemption;) “and therefore he would not join with me, but publicly preach against me.” (Section xix. p.