Wesley Corpus

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. Though, to save appearances, you gravely declare still, “Were my argument allowed to be true, the credit of the gospel miracles could not, in any degree, be shaken by it.” (Page 6.) 4. So far is flourish. Now we come to the point: “The present question,” you say, “depends on the joint credibility of the facts, and of the witnesses who attest them, especially.” on the former. For, “if the facts be incredible, no testimony can alter the nature of things.” (Page 9.) All this is most true. You go on: “The credibility of facts lies open to the trial of our reason and senses. But the credibility of witnesses depends on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us. And though in many cases it may reasonably be presumed, yet in none can it be certainly known.” (Page 10.) Sir, will you retract this, or defend it? If you defend, and can prove, as well as assert it, then farewell the credit of all history, not only sacred but profane.