Wesley Corpus

06 To Benjamin Ingham

AuthorJohn Wesley
Typeletter
YearNone
Passage IDjw-letter-1746-06-to-benjamin-ingham-002
Words381
Universal Redemption Christology Catholic Spirit
5. ‘Therefore to publish things which ought to have been buried in eternal oblivion is what I do not like.’ This whole matter of asking pardon you seem to mistake, as Count Zinzendorf did before. I wish you would consider the answer I gave him: ‘They asked my pardon for using me ill. I replied, that was superfluous: I was not angry with them; but I was afraid of two things, -- (1) that there was error in their doctrine; (2) that there was sin (allowed) in their practice.’ This was then, and is at this day, the one question between them and me. Now, this cannot be buried in oblivion. That error and sin have spread too far already; and it was my part, after private reproof had been tried again and again to no purpose, to give public warning thereof to all the world, that, if possible, they might spread no farther. 6. ‘Mr. Wesley is partial throughout his Journal.’ I want to know the particular instances. ‘In what he mentions of me, he does not represent our conversation rightly.’ Then it is the fault of my memory. But be so kind as to point out the particulars that are not rightly represented. ‘He has done the cause of our Savior more mischief than any one else could have done.’ Tell me how, unless you mean the Antinomian cause by the cause of our Savior. ‘I have several times gone to Mr. Wesley to explain matters and to desire him to be reconciled.’ Several times! When, and where You surprise me much! Either my memory or yours fails strangely. 'In truth, it is he that has stood out.' Alas, my brother! What an assertion is this! Did not I come three years ago (before that Journal was published) in all haste from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and my brother in five days from the Land's End, to a supposed conference in London [see Journal, iii. 84-6.] Was this standing out But with what effect Why, Mr. Spangenberg had just left London. None besides had any power to confer with us. And, to cut us off from any such expectation, James Hutton said they had orders not to confer at all unless the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London were present.