Treatise Letter To Dr Conyers Middleton
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | treatise |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-treatise-letter-to-dr-conyers-middleton-001 |
| Words | 387 |
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.