(3.) That regenerate ^iersons sin not with their ivhole and full consent. Consent may be taken two ways: — First, Morally, for the approbation of the thing done. So the apostle says, tliat in the inward man he did " consent to the law that it was good," Rom. vii. 16; that is, he did approve it as such, like it, delight in it as good : and thus a regenerate man never consents to sin, no, nor un- regenerate persons neither, unless they are such as, " being past feel- ing, are given up to work lasciviousness with greediness." A rege- nerate person is so far from thus consenting to sin, that before it, in it, after it, he utterly condemns, disallows, hates it, as in himself and by himself committed. Secondly, Consent may be taken in a ]3hy- sical sense, for the concurrence of the commanding and acting prin- ciples of the soul unto its operations. And in this sense an unregene- rate man sins with his full consent and his whole will. A regenerate man doth not, cannot do so: for though there is not in that consent to sin which his will, inclined by the remaining disposition of sin in it, doth give, aD actual sensible reaction of the other principle, yet there is an express 12 ft- consenting; and by the power that it hath ill the soul (for habits havC power in and over the subjects wherein the)' va:e), it preserves it from being wholly engaged into sin. And this is the great intendment of the apostle, Hem. vii. 19-22.
From what hath been spoken will easily appear what answer may
be given tO th6 -former argument, to wit, that notwithstanding any
^ins that either the Scripture or the experience of men doth evince
iat the saints may fall into, yet that they never sin or perpetrate
sin with their full and whole consent, whereby they should be looked
upon in and under their sins in the same state and condition with
unreo-enerate persons, in whom sin reigneth, committing the same
sin ''And how insufficient any thing produced by Mr Goodwm m
defence of the argument laid down at the entrance of this chapter,
is to remove the answer given unto it from believers not smnmg
with their whole consent, may easily be demonstrated. This he thus
^''^f'some, 7o maintain this position, that all the sins of true be- lievers are sins of infirmity, lay hold on this shield : 'Such men, they say 'never sin with their whole wills, or with full consent ; therefore they never sin but through infirmity.' That they never sin with full consent they conceive they prove sufficiently from that of the ajiostle, ' For the good that I would I do not: but the evil that I wou d not, that I do Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it but sin that dwelloth in me.' I answer, first. That the saints cannot sin but with their whole wills or full consents is undeniably
XV.] THE SINS OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 5] 7
proved by this consideration, — namely, because otherwise there should be not only a plurality or diversity, but also a contrariety of wills in the same person at one and the same instant of time, namely, when the supposed act of evil is produced. Now, it is an impossi- bility of the first evidence that there should be a plurality of acts, and these contrary one to the other, in the same subject or agent at one or the same instant of time. It is true, between the first movings of the flesh in a man towards the committing of the sin and the completing of the sin by an actual and external patration of it, there may be successively in him not only a plurality but even a contra- riety of volitions or motions of the will, according to what the Scrip- ture speaketh concerning the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh ; but when the flesh, having prevailed in the combat, bringeth forth her desire into act, the Spirit ceaseth from his act of lusting: otherwise it would follow that the flesh is greater and stronger in her lusting than the Spirit of God is in his, and that when the flesh lusteth after the perpetration of such or such a sin, the Spirit as to the hindering of it lusteth but in vain ; which is contrary to that of the apostle, ' Greater is he that is in you' (speaking, as it is clear, of the Spirit of God unto true believers) ' than he that is in the world,' meaning Satan and all his auxilia- ries,— sin, flesh, corruption."
Ans. What we intend by the saints not sinning with their whole wills hath been declared. That there is not a consistency in the explanation we have given Mr Goodwin asserts, because it would infer " a plurality, yea a contrariety of wills in the same person at the same time." That there is a plurality, yea a contrariety of wills, in the Scripture sense of the expression of the will of a man, Avas before from the Scripture declared ; not a plurality of wills in a phy- sical sense, as the will is a natural faculty of the soul, but in a moral and analogical sense, as it is taken for a habit or principle of good or evil. The will is a natural faculty. One nature hath one will. In every regenerate man there are two natures, the new or divine, and the old or corrupted. In the same sense, there are in him two wills, as was declared. But saith he, " It is an impossibility of the first evidence, that there should be a plurality of acts in the same subject at the same time, and these contrary one to another." But, —