The fallacious Ground ofchis Argument of M. G's. CXV promifed to them inthe covenant ofGrace; But what will here followto the 357 fupportmentof Mr Goodwin's Hypoth.efir, that therefore in all their fnnes or in any oftheir finnes, they finne with thefull andwhole coif-bit oftheir mills, I fuppofe he alone knowes. Se&. 26. He endeavoures to take offthat ofthe Apoftle Rom. 7.19, 20. S. 23 from appearing againft him in this caufe ofthe Saints finning with their whole wills and confents; not not-willing the things they do, to this end he tells us That when theApofilefaith the evillwhich Iwould not that Ido,his meaning is not that he did that which at thefame time, that he didit, he was not willing either in whale or inpart to do, but that hefometimes did that upon afirprifä1l by temptation or through incogitancy, wbich he was not habitually willingor difpojed in the inwardman to do; But this no wayes implyes but that at the time when he did the evill hefpeakesof hedid it with the fullandentire confent ofhis will. Anf r. It is probable theApoftle knewhis owne meaning, and álfo how to expreffe it, havingfo good a teacher to that end and purpofeas he had; now he affuresus in the perfonufa Regenerate man that as what He would He didnot,fo what He didHe wouldnot,He hated it v.' 5,t6.And againe he did that which he would not,and therein contented to the Lawby his not willingofthat he did) that it was good; which whether it expreffe not a Renitency of the will, to that which was done inpart,';and fo farre as to make theA&ionit felfe remiffe and not to enwrappe thewhole confent ofthe will, hefarther declares v, 17. tellingus that there isa perfe& unconfenting i, or internall principle in the very doing ofevill; Is isno more I that do it, butfine that dwelleth in me. 2. The Apoftledoth not fay, what he was not habitually willing to, but what he was habitually unwillingto; that îs, what thebent ofhis will lay ha- bitually againft, having a&wall inclinations, and eliciteaCis alwayes to the contrary, though fometimes overcome; Neither in his difcourfing of it, doth he mention at all thefurprifall offin upon incogitancy, & inadvertency but the conftant frame& temper ofa regenerate man,upon the powerfull a&ing, & ftrivingofthe principleof luft and fin dwelling in him, and remaining with him; which faith theApoftle, doth often carry them out todo thofe things, which are cbntraryto theprincipleofthe inward man, which habitually con. demnes andactually willsnot, or rathernillsthe things that are fodone; even in their doing. Andthis Both manifeft fufficiently that when hedid the evill he fpeakesof, he did it not with the full and entire confent o fhis will as men do, in whom there is no fuch principle oppofiteto finne, and finning, as is in him that is Regenerate; therebeing very much taken offby the habituall principleofGrace that is in them, and its conftant inclinations to the con- trary. But he farther argues, ifwe fisall afrme, thatthe contrary bent oe motions O. 24. ofhis will,at other times, is a fìfcient proofe, that when he did the evill, we f peeke of, he didit not with his whole will, or fulneffe of confent, infilcha fence is a di,flinguifhingCharatler betwixt men Regenerate and unregenerate, we (hall bring Herod,and Pilate, andprobably yudas himfelfe into the fill, ofmen Rege- nerate with a thoufandmore whom theseripture Inowesnot, underany fuch name orrelation; viz. all thofe whole judgmentsand confciences fiendagainfi the evill ofthewayes andpratlifer wherein they walk'. And this heproves at large to the endofthe Se&ion,in the inflance ofHerod, and Pilateproceeding againft their owne Judgements andConfciences in the killing ofJohnand ofour Saviour. X x Anf,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=