Wesley Corpus

5. Their Fourth proposition is, “The sinfulness of that state into which man fell consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin; the want of that righteousness wherein he was created; and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indis posed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.” On the first article of this you say, “Adam’s first sin was attended with consequences which affect all his posterity. But we could not, on account of his sin, become obnoxious to punishment.” (Page 99.) By punishment I mean evil, suffered on account of sin. And are we not obnoxious to any evil on account of Adam’s sin? To prove the rest of the proposition, they cite first, Rom. iii. 10-20. On which you remark, “The Apostle is here speaking of Jews and Gentiles, not in a personal, but in a national, capacity. “The mouth, says he, of all sorts of peo ple is ‘stopped, and both Jews and Gentiles are brought in guilty; for I have proved that there are transgressors among the Jews, as well as among the Gentiles.” (Page 102.) Not at all. If he proved no more than this, not one person would “become guilty before God.” Not one “mouth” of Jew or Gentile would “be stopped,” by showing, “there were Jewish as well as Heathen transgressors.” I proceed to your observations:-- (1) “In this whole section there is not one word of Adam.” There is enough in the next chapter but one. The Apostle first describes the effect, and afterwards point out the cause. (2.) “He is here speaking, not of all men, but of the Jews; of those alone who were “under the law,’ (verse 19,) and proving from their own writings that there were great cor ruptions among them as well as other people.” (Page 103.) He is speaking of them chiefly; but not of them only, as appears from the ninth verse: “We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin: As it is written, There is none righteous,” (neither among the Jews nor Gen tiles,) “no, not one.” Does this respect them in their na tional only, not personal, capacity?