Treatise Doctrine Of Original Sin
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | treatise |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-treatise-doctrine-of-original-sin-117 |
| Words | 372 |
Our apprehension is indis
tinct, our judgment false, our reasoning wrong in a thousand
instances. So it always was; and so it is still, after all the care
we can possibly take: Therefore, “our faculties are not a
sound and fit for right action as Adam’s were before he sinned.’
“But any man of common understanding might havedressed
and kept the garden as well as he.” I can neither affirm no
deny this; for we know not how he dressed and kept it. “Nor doth it appear, that in giving names to all the crea. tures, he showed any extraordinary penetration into thei
natures; for that the names he gave truly expressed the
several qualities of them is a mere fiction, without any foun. dation in Scripture history, or the names of animals in the
original Hebrew.” (Page 171.)
This is really strange that any man of learning should be
so hardy as to affirm this, after the numberless instances
which have been produced of Hebrew names expressing the
most essential property of each animal. And is this supposition likewise “without any foundation
in Scripture history?” What is that? “And the Lord
God brought every beast of the field, and every fowl of the
air, unto Adam, to see what he would call them;” to make
proof of his understanding. “And whatsoever Adam called
every living creature, that was the name thereof.” (Gen. ii. 19.) Now, whether those names were Hebrew or no, (which
you affect to doubt,) can it be supposed that God would have
permitted them to stand, if they had not suited the nature of
each creature? It is bold therefore to affirm, that “many
of his posterity could have given names to them as well as
he ; and that therefore this is not a proof that he had any
capacity superior to us.” (Page 172.)
You proceed: “Surely his eating the forbidden fruit is no
evidence of superior abilities.” (Page 173.) And it is no
evidence of the contrary; “seeing,” as you yourself observe,
“what his special temptation was, we do not know.” There
fore, neither do we know whether any of his posterity could have
overcome it; much less, that “many of his posterity have over.