Wesley Corpus

Yet this no way contradicts, what is matter of daily experience, that we have a natural propensity to evil. Nay, the latter of these texts strongly confirms it; for if there be no such propensity, how comes “foolishness” (that is, wickedness, in the language of Solomon) to be “bound in the heart of a child?” of every child, of children in general, as the phrase manifestly imports? It is not from education here: It is sup posed to be antecedent to education, whether good or bad. “O, foolishness means only strong appetite.” (Page 193.) Yes, strong appetite to evil; otherwise it would not call for “the rod of correction,” or need to be “driven far from him.” “Objection 6. Might not Adam's posterity be said to sin in him, as Levi is said to ‘pay tithes in Abraham?’ (Heb. vii. 9.)” If the querist means, not to prove a doctrine already proved, but only to illustrate one expression by another, your answer, that “it is a bold figure,” (page 195) does not at all affect him. It is so; but still it may be pertinently cited to illustrate a similar expression. “Objection 7. “But there is a law in our members which wars against the law of our minds, and brings us into captivity to the law of sin and death.’ (Rom. vii. 23.) And does not this prove, that we come into the world with sinful propensities?” (Page 199.) You answer, (1) “If we come into the world with them, they are natural; but if natural, necessary; and if necessary, then no sin.” (Page 200.) If the consequence were good, with regard to what is so natural and necessary as to be irresistible, yet certainly it is not good with regard to those propensities which we may both resist and conquer. You answer, (2.) “The Apostle does not in this chapter speak of any man as he comes into the world, but as he is afterward depraved and corrupted by his own wicked choice.” Where is the proof? How does it appear that he does not speak of men corrupted both by choice and by nature?