Wesley Collected Works Vol 9
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | treatise |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-wesley-collected-works-vol-9-385 |
| Words | 368 |
You, and I, and every man, must acknowledge, that uneasy
and unruly passions are coeval with our understanding and
memory at least, if not with our very being. “Again: Adam by his sin brought sufferings on himself
and his posterity. Yet it does not follow, that his nature was
corrupt. Therefore, though others by their sins bring suffer
ings on themselves and their posterity, it will not follow that
their nature is corrupt, or under the displeasure of God.”
Two very different things are here blended together. The
corruption of their nature is one thing, the displeasure of
God another. None affirms that those sufferings which men
by their sins bring on themselves or posterity prove that
their nature is corrupt. But do not the various sufferings of
all mankind prove that they are under the displeasure of God? It is certain no suffering came upon Adam till he was under
the displeasure of God. Again: “If our first parents, by their sin, brought suffer
ing both on themselves and others, and yet their nature was
not originally corrupt, nor under the displeasure of God, it
clearly follows that the nature of those who suffer purely in
consequence of their sin is not originally corrupt, nor are they
under God's displeasure.” This argument is bad every way. For, 1. At the time when Adam. brought the sentence of
suffering both on himself and others, his nature was corrupt,
and he was under the actual displeasure of God. But, 2. Suppose it were otherwise, all you could possibly infer, with
regard to his posterity, is, that their suffering does not prove
their corruption, or their being under the displeasure of God. How could you think their suffering would prove them not
corrupt, not under God’s displeasure? Therefore, neither
this nor the preceding argument (seeing both are utterly
inconclusive) “take off anything that Dr. Watts has said,”
touching the present state of the world, as a proof of God’s
displeasure, and the natural corruption of man. So far,
therefore, is “his argument from the sinfulness and misery
of mankind from being altogether insufficient in every part,”
that it is strong and conclusive, anything you have advanced
to the contrary notwithstanding.