The fallacious Ground of this Argument of M. Gis. C. XV. fay tobe the tendencyofit, thoughthe dire& fenceofthe whole is not fo ob- 339 vious to mee: by that expreffion, the evill that Iwouldnot, that I doe, you in- tend either theexprefíìon of hewould not or, that he did; ifthe latter; then vott fay, hedid not finneordinarily and frequently, but only upon furprifalis, which is freely granted, but is not at all to your purpofe, but rather mucha- gainft its If youattend that part ofit, which holds out hisReniteney againfi the evill he did, in theexpreffronofIwouldnot, then you fay, it was not ordi- narywith theApofile to nill the evill that he did, but in cafe offurprifall to finne, which I believe is not intended; for is it credible , that any one fhould think that in theordinary courfe ofamans walking there fhould be nooppo- fition made to finne,the fallingwhereintomen are liable, but uponfurpriealls andanticipations by temptation , as it is phrafed there fhould. Nor is it on the otherfide, that he intends the things that he didordinarily, but was fur-, prized by temptation, then it mightbe otherwife. But firfi is a Saint tobe fuppófed to finne ordinarily, tofinne notprevailedon by temptation? is not all finne from temptation ? doe they finne a&wally but upon the furprifall of 'temptation? to impofe this upon theApoftle, that he íhould fay trulyfor the moil part, or in my ordinarywalking , I doe notfinne, but withall, i will it not, but when I am furprized with temptations, then it is otherwifewith inee, there isno,Renitency in my will to finne , is doubtleffe towrong him; He Both not limit his not willingof the evil] he did to any confideration whate- ver, but fpeakes it generally , as the confiant fiate and condition of things with him. Secondly, in the beginningof thisSeelion, the Willing o f finne, was antece- dent tothe finne : here, it is fomething that may be allowed in ordinary cafes, but not at all inextraordinary; fo that thefe twoexpofitions put together a- mount to thus muh. Ordinarily theApofile antecedent toanyfinningbefore the lufling ofthefpirit ceafed, did not Will the thing that he did, which was e- vill, but in cafeoftemptation it wasnotfo; that is antecedently tohis a&ingof that whichwas evill, he hadno oppofition in the inward man unto it; nor tu- ftingofthe fpiritagainfiit, which how it can be made good againfi him; whofe heart is upright, and who hates every evillmay, I know not. Thirdly it isconfeffed that ordinarily Believersfinne at no worfea rate than that expreffedby theApofile; But what doth that containe ? Ifwouldnot, be re- ferred to their doing offinnes, then you grant that which all this while you haveendeavoured to oppofe, and are reconciled toyour owne contradi&ion in thefirft evidence finne cannot ordinarilyor extraordinarily be committed but by an allofthe will, and yet ordinarily, there isa diffent ofthe willalfo thereunto.Ifyou adhereto your otherformer interpretation that the willing a gainftfin committed, is antecedent to the commitmentofit,60 layd afleepebefore the perpetrationofany finne, then this al'fo is impofed onyou, that thereare finnes whereunto theymay be furprifed by temptations, that antecedently to the commitment of them, they do Pot, not -wills that as to them, thespirit lullethnot againsi theflefh; whiéh.is notoriofly falte; for the Beth lufleth a gaihft theSpirit and all the wages ofit and all the fruits thereof, and theSpi-, rit lufteth againfi the flesh; with all its wayes and fruits. Fourthly it appeares then that this being the defcription of a Regenerate' man, which the Apofile gives, as to indwelling finne, and all the fruits there of,that it is moltridiculous to exempt his frame in refpe&of fuch finnes as they may fall into by furprifalls oftemptations, from this defcription ofhim, and fo to frame this diftin&ion-to the Apofiles generali Rule, that it holds in ca- fes ordinary, butnot in extraordinary, when nothing in the whole Context givesthe leafs allowanceor continuance tofuch a limitation. X x ? Ir
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=