Letters 1749
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | letter |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-letters-1749-037 |
| Words | 272 |
3. However, you will affirm it, were it only to have the pleasure of confuting it. In order to which, you recite three passages from his writings wherein he interprets Scripture weakly enough; and then add, after a strained compliment to Dr. Grabe and a mangled translation of one of his remarks: 'His Works are but little else than a wretched collection of interpretations of the same kind. Yet this pious Father insists that they were all suggested to him from heaven.' (Page 30.) No; neither the one nor the other. Neither do interpretations of Scripture (good or bad) make the tenth part of his writings; nor does he insist that all those which are found therein were suggested to him from heaven. This does not follow from any passage you have cited yet; nor from his saying in a particular case, 'Do you think I could have understood these things in the Scriptures; if I had not by the will of God received the grace to understand them'
4. However, now you clap your wings. 'What credit,' say you, 'can be due to this Father, in the report of other people's gifts, who was so grossly deceived, or willing at least to deceive others, in this confident attestation of his own' (Ibid.) The answer is plain and obvious: it is not clear that he attests his own at all; consequently, as yet his credit is unblemished.
'But he did not understand Hebrew, and gave a wrong derivation of the Hebrew word Satan.' Allowing this, that he was no good etymologist, his credit as a witness may be as good as ever.