Wesley Corpus

Treatise Letter To Dr Conyers Middleton

AuthorJohn Wesley
Typetreatise
YearNone
Passage IDjw-treatise-letter-to-dr-conyers-middleton-001
Words387
Universal Redemption Catholic Spirit Religious Experience
1. You begin your preface by observing, that the “Inquiry” was intended to have been published some time ago; but, upon reflection, you resolved to “give out, first, some sketch of what you was projecting;” (page l;) and accordingly “published the ‘Introductory Discourse,’” by itself, though “foreseeing it would encounter all the opposition that prejudice, bigotry, and superstition are ever prepared to give to all inquiries” of this nature. (Page 2.) But it was your “comfort, that this would excite candid inquirers to weigh the merit and conse quences of it.” (Page 3.) 2. The consequences of it are tolerably plain, even to free the good people of England from all that prejudice, bigotry, and superstition, vulgarly called Christianity. But it is not so plain, that “this is the sole expedient which can secure the Protestant religion against the efforts of Rome.” (Ibid.) It may be doubted, whether Deism is the sole expedient to secure us against Popery. For some are of opinion, there are persons in the world who are neither Deists nor Papists. 3. You open the cause artfully enough, by a quotation from Mr. Locke. (Page 4.) But we are agreed to build our faith on no man’s authority. His reasons will be considered in their place. “Those who have written against his and your opinion,” you say, “have shown great eagerness, but little knowledge of the question: Urged by the hopes of honours, and prepared to fight for every establishment that offers such pay to its defenders.” (Page 5.) I have not read one of these; yet I would fain believe, that neither the hope of honour, nor the desire of pay, was the sole, or indeed the main, motive that urged either them or you to engage in writing. But I grant they are overseen, if they argue against you by citing “the testimonies of the ancient Fathers;” (page 6;) seeing they might easily perceive you pay no more regard to these than to the Evangelists or Apostles. Neither do I commend them if they “insinuate jealousies of consequences dangerous to Christianity.” (Ibid.) Why they should insinuate these, I cannot conceive: I need not insinuate that the sun shines at noon-day. You have “opened too great a glare to the public,” (page 7) to leave them any room for such insinu ation.