Treatise Doctrine Of Original Sin
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | treatise |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-treatise-doctrine-of-original-sin-012 |
| Words | 364 |
quâm pingui macer est mihi taurus in agro /
Idem amor eritium est pecori, pecorisque magistro. Idem amor The same love in the bull and in the man |
What elegance of sentiment 1 Is it possible anything can
exceed this? One would imagine nothing could, had not the
same chaste poet furnished us with yet another scene, more
abundantly shocking than this:
Pasiphäen nivei solatur amore juvencil
“He comforts Pasiphäe with the love of her milk-white
bull!” Nihil supra ! * The condoling a woman on her unsuc
cessful amour with a bull shows a brutality which nothing can
exceed! How justly then does the Apostle add, “as they did
not like,” or desire, “to retain God in their knowledge, God
gave them over to an undiscerning mind, to do those things
which are not convenient!” In consequence of this, they were
“filled with all unrighteousness,” vice of every kind, and in
every degree;--in particular “with fornication,” (taking the
word in its largest sense, as including every sin of the kind,)
“with wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, with envy, mur
der, debate, deceit, malignity;”--being “haters of God,” the
true God, the God of Israel, to whom they allowed no place
among all their herd of deities;--“despiteful, proud, boasters,”
in as eminent a degree as ever was any nation under heaven ;
“inventors of evil things,” in great abundance, of mille nocendi
artes,t both in peace and war;--“disobedient to parents,”--
although duty to these is supposed to be inscribed on the hearts
of the most barbarous nations;--“covenant-breakers,”--even
* Nothing can exceed this.-EDIT. t A thousand arts of annoyance.-EDIT. of those of the most solemn kind, those wherein the public faith
was engaged by their supreme Magistrate; which, notwith
standing, they made no manner of scruple of breaking, when
ever they saw good; only colouring over their perfidiousness,
by giving those Magistrates into their hands with whom the
“covenant” was made. And what was this to the purpose? Is the King of France, or the republic of Holland, at liberty
to violate their most solemn treaties at pleasure, provided
they give up to the King of England the Ambassador, or
General, by whom that treaty was made?