Wesley Collected Works Vol 10
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | treatise |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-wesley-collected-works-vol-10-397 |
| Words | 386 |
Barely ‘to demonstrate his sovereignty” is a principle of action
fit for the great Turk, not the most high God.”
You see, there needs only to correct the mistake of the
printer, who sets the commas on the wrong word, and this
“specimen too of my want of integrity” vanishes into nothing. Suffer me to observe once more, (and let it be once for all,)
that the sending false quotations of a man’s book to himself,
and that while there was not the least design or thought of
publishing what was so sent, could never be a proof of want
of integrity, but of attention, or at most, of understanding. (5.) But this will not avail in the following case: “Review a
passage of your book on Original Sin. Here you scruple not to
overleap the bounds of sincerity and truth. Aspasio had said,
‘As Adam was a public person, and acted in the stead of all
mankind; so Christ was a public person, and acted in behalf of
all his people. As Adam was the first general representative
of this kind, Christ was the second and the last. Here you
substitute the word mankind instead of this kind. I at first
thought, it might be an inadvertency, or an error of the press,
till I looked to the bottom of the page, where I found the
following words inclosed within the marks of the same quota
tion:” (That is, the commas, which ought to have been set
five lines sooner, are set at the end of the paragraph:) “‘All
these expressions demonstrate, that Adam (as well as Christ)
was a representative of all mankind; and that what he did in
this capacity did not terminate in himself, but affected all
whom he represented. (Original Sin, page 268; Dialogues,
page 137.) Then I could no longer forbear crying out,
“There is treachery, O Ahaziah !’” (Page 278.)
Treacheryl Cui bono P “For what end?” Can any guess? What was I to gain thereby? Of what possible advantage
could it be, either to me or to the cause I was defending? What possible view could I have therein? And would I
cheat for cheating sake? I was not here talking either of
general or particular redemption. I purposely declined
entering into the question throughout that whole treatise.