Wesley Corpus

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. Nor is there the least resemblance between the Apostle's calling Timothy his “own son in the faith,” and his affirming that even those who are now “saved by grace,” were “by nature children of wrath.” To add, therefore, “Not as they came under condemnation by the offence of Adam,” is only begging the question once more; though, it is true, they had afterwards inflamed their account by “their own trespasses and sins.” You conclude: “‘By nature, therefore, may be a meta phorical expression, and consequently is not intended” (may be in the premises, is not in the conclusion 1 A way of arguing you frequently use) “to signify nature in the proper sense of the word; but to mean, they were really and truly children of wrath.” (Page 114.) But where is the proof? Till this is produced, I must still believe, with the Christian Church in all ages, that all men are “children of wrath by nature,” in the plain, proper sense of the word. 7. The next proof is Rom. v. 6: “While we were yet with out strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” You answer, (1.) “The Apostle is here speaking, not of mankind in general, but of the Gentiles only; as appears by the whole thread of his discourse, from the beginning of the Epistle.” (Page 115.) From the beginning of the Epistle to the 6th verse of the 5th chapter is the Apostle speaking of the Gentiles only ? Otherwise it cannot appear, “by the whole thread of his discourse from the beginning of the Epistle.” “But it appears especially from chap. iii.9: ‘What then? Are we, Jews, ‘better than they, Gentiles?” (Page 116, &c.) Nay, from that very verse he speaks chiefly of the Jews.