Wesley Corpus

(2.) It was sent, not to the leaders of Methodism, but to one who was no Methodist at all. (3.) That it was a false account, I do not know: But your Lordship may easily put it out of dispute. And many have wondered, that your Lordship did not do so long ago, by printing the Charge in question. (4.) I did never confess it was a false account; nor any person by my consent, or with my knowledge. (5.) That account was never reprinted at Cork at all. (6.) When it was reprinted at Dublin, your Lordship had not disowned it. (7.) My brother was not in Dublin, when it was done; nor did either he or I know of it till long after. Therefore, when my brother was asked, how he could re print such an account, after your Lordship had publicly disowned it, I do not at all wonder, that “he did not offer a single word in answer.” Whether this, as well as my former Letter, be “mere rant and declamation,” or plain and sober reason, I must refer to the world, and your Lordship's own conscience. I am, My Lord, Your Lordship’s most obedient servant, May 8, 1752. To IN ANSWER. To LIMERICK, June 8, 1750. 1. Why do you not subscribe your name to a performance so perfectly agreeing, both as to the matter and form, with the sermons you have been occasionally preaching for more than a year last past? As to your seeming to disclaim it by saying once and again, “I am but a plain, simple man; ” and, “The doctrine you teach is only a revival of the old Antino mian heresy, I think they call it; ” I presume it is only a pious fraud. But how came so plain and simple a man to know the meaning of the Greek word Philalethes? Sir, this is not of a piece. If you did not care to own your child, had not you better have subscribed the Second (as well as the First) Letter, George Fisher ?” 2. I confess you have timed your performance well. When the other pointless thing was published, I came unluckily to Cork on the self-same day. But you might now suppose I was at a convenient distance.