To Potential Subscribers (March 25, 1757)

To Potential Subscribers

1There were at least two published versions of this appeal for subscriptions to JW’s The Doctrine of Original Sin. The version printed in Felix Farley’s Bristol Journal is followed here, with substantive variants in other printings noted. JW’s volume was published later that year (see 12:155–481 in this edn.).

[London]
[March 25, 1757]

Proposals for Printing by Subscription,

The Doctrine of Original Sin

By John Wesley

Occasioned by the Writings of Mr.

2June 25, Newcastle, has ‘Dr.’ in this and the other four instances.

John Taylor

78

Conditions:

I. The work will contain about five hundred pages, octavo, on good paper and new leather.

3June 25, Newcastle, omits ‘octavo’ and ‘and new leather’.

II. The price to subscribers of a book in quires is five shillings, half to be paid at the time of subscribing.

III. Subscribers for six will have a seventh gratis.

IV. The work is ready to be put into the press.

Subscriptions are taken in by T. Trye, near Gray’s Inn Gate, Holbourn; Robinson, in Ludgate Street; J. Hodges, at London Bridge; and at the Found[e]ry, in Upper Moorfields, London; J. Fox, Westminster Hall; and J. Jolliffe, St. James’s Street, Westminster. By J. Palmer, in Wine Street; J. Wilson, in Peter Street, and J. Long, in Tower Lane, Bristol. By W. Shent, in Leeds; and R. Akenhead,

4April 23, 30 alter to ‘R. Fleming’.

in Newcastle upon Tyne.

5June 25, ‘Subscriptions are taken by James Fleming, Michael Calendar, and at the Orphan House.’

London, March 25, 1757

It has been constantly affirmed by Mr. John Taylor’s admirers ‘that his book upon Original Sin has never been answered’. And it is in some sense true. Indeed presently after the publication of it Dr. [David] Jenning[s] published a tract which contained strong and pertinent remarks on many parts of it. Not long after, Mr. [Samuel] Hebden of Suffolk wrote several excellent treatises on the same subject, in which the most considerable arguments used by Mr. Taylor are calmly and solidly refuted. Dr. [Isaac] Watts then wrote his ingenious book entitled The Ruin and Recovery of Human Nature, some parts of which strike at the very foundation of Mr. Taylor’s hypothesis. Lastly, Mr. [James] Hervey has, in his Dialogues, many beautiful strokes, whereby he rescues the Scripture from Mr. Taylor’s misrepresentations.

Nevertheless, as none of these have followed him step by step, from the beginning of his book to the end, it is still confidently affirmed, ‘That he is unanswered, and therefore, unanswerable’.

79

Is there not then a loud call for some person to treat him in a different manner? To examine this unanswered, unanswerable work from the very beginning to the end? To weigh every argument there advanced both ‘in the balance of the sanctuary’

and (wherever the nature of the thing admits) in the scale of impartial reason?

This is what I have attempted to do, although with this great disadvantage (besides many others) that I have not time to weigh every point so throughly and answer it so fully as the importance of it requires. Nevertheless I flatter myself the impartial reader will find a clear and rational answer (if not very correctly or elegantly expressed) to every argument Mr. Taylor has advanced. And I trust this is done ‘in the spirit of meekness’;

without anger, without bitterness, and without contempt. I think I speak the truth only. And I know I ‘speak’ that ‘truth in love’.

9Cf. Eph. 4:15.

Though not with coolness or indifference, as being most thoroughly convinced the whole cause of revealed religion is at stake, and that it stands or falls with the doctrine of original sin. Could I once be persuaded to give up this, I must give up the Christian system with it. Nor could I ever after concern myself with any other religion than that of Seneca or Marcus Antoninus.

11Apr. 16 & June 25, ‘Antonius’.

I would only add that, as I have here one point of view, I meddle with no other

controversy. I touch not in any degree on things disputed between Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants, or any other Christians. No serious Christian of any denomination will find here any positions that ‘[en]gender strife’,

132 Tim. 2:23.

or any that will not be allowed by all who agree to the plain sense of that weighty declaration, ‘As in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.’

141 Cor. 15:22.