Wesley Corpus

3. But 'leaders of sects,' you say, 'whatever principles they pretend to, have seldom scrupled to use a commodious lie' (page 83). I observe you are quite impartial here. You make no exception of age or nation. It is all one to you whether your reader applies this to the son of Abdallah or the Son of Mary. And yet, sir, I cannot but think there was a difference. I fancy the Jew was an honester man than the Arabian; and though Mahomet used many a commodious lie, yet Jesus of Nazareth did not. 4. However, 'Not one of these Fathers made any scruple of using the hyperbolical style' (that is, in plain English, of lying), 'as an eminent writer of ecclesiastical history declares' (ibid.). You should have said an impartial writer. For who would scruple that character to Mr. Le Clerc And yet I cannot take either his or your bare word for this. Be pleased to produce a little proof. Hitherto you have proved absolutely nothing on the head, but (as your manner is) taken all for granted. 5. You next relate that famous story from Tertullian: 'A woman went to the theatre, and returned possessed with a devil. When the unclean spirit was asked how he dared to assault a Christian, he answered, " I found her on my own ground."' (Ibid.) After relating another, which you endeavour to account for naturally, you intimate that this was a mere lie of Tertullian's. But how is that proved Why, 'Tertullian was an utter enemy to plays and public shows in the theatre.' He was so; but can we infer from thence that he was an utter enemy to common honesty 6. You add: 'The Fathers themselves own that even the Jews, yea, and the heathens, cast out devils. Now, it will be granted that these Jewish and heathen exorcists were mere cheats and impostors. But the Fathers believed they really cast them out. Now, if they could take their tricks for the effects of a supernatural power, well might they be deceived by their own impostors. Or they might think it convenient to oppose one cheat to another.' (Pages 84, 87-8.)