Wesley Corpus

This supposes, they might have done them “by nature, or their natural powers.” But how does it appear, that, “by nature,” here means, By their mere “natural powers?” It is certain they had not the written law; but had they no supernatural assistance? Is it not one God “who works in ” us and in them, “both to will and to do?” They who, by this help, do the things contained in the law, we grant, “are not the objects of God’s wrath.” “Again: He affirms, the Gentiles had light sufficient to have seen God’s eternal power and Godhead.” (Rom. i. 19 -21.) They had; but how does it appear that this was the merely natural light of their own unassisted reason? If they had assistance from God, and did not use it, they were equally without excuse. “Nay, if their nature was corrupt, and therefore they did not glorify God, they had a fair excuse.” (Page 112.) True, if God had not offered them grace to balance the corruption of nature: But if he did, they are still without excuse; because they might have con quered that corruption, and would not. Therefore we are not obliged to seek any other sense of the phrase, “By nature,” than, “By the nature we bring into the world.” However, you think you have found another: “By nature, may signify really and truly. Thus St. Paul calls Timothy, ‘yvmatov tekvov, “his own, genuine son in the faith; not to signify he was the child of the Apostle, but that he was a real imitator of his faith. In like manner he calls the Ephesians, $voet Tekva, ‘genuine children of wrath; not to signify they were related to wrath by their natural birth, but by their sin and disobedience.” (Page 113.) This is simply begging the question, without so much as a shadow of proof; for the Greek word in one text is not the same, nor anyway related to that in the other.