1. The sum of this part of the reply is. That what Paul speaks is true of the ordinary course of believers, but not of extraordinary surprisals. This seems, I say, to be the tendency of it, though the direct sense of the whole is not so obvious to me. By that expres- sion, " The evil that I would not, that I do," you intend either the expression of " he would not," or " he did." If the latter, then you
528 DOCTRINE OF THE SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE. [CHAP.
say lie did not sin ordinarily and frequently, but only upon surprisals; which is freely granted, but it is not at all to your purpose, but rather much against it. If you intend that part of it which holds out his renitency against the evil he did, in the expression of " I would not," then you say it was not ordinary with the apostle to nill the evil that he did, but in case of surprisal to sin: which I believe is not in- tended; for is it credible that any one should think that, in the ordi- nary course of a man's walking, there should be no opposition made to sin, [the] falling whereinto men are liable [unto], but upon "sur- prisals and anticipations by temptation," as it is phrased there should? Nor is it [credible], on the other side, that he intends the thing that he did ordinarily, but [when he] was surprised by temptation then it might be otherwise. But, first, is a saint to be supposed to sin ordi- narily, to sin not prevailed on by temptation? Is not all sin from temptation? Do they sin actually, but upon surprisal of temptation? To impose this upon the apostle, that he should say, " Truly, for the most part, or in my ordinary walking, I do not sin, but withal I will it not; but when I am surprised with temptations then it is other- wise with me, there is no renitency in my will to sin," is doubtless to wrong him. He doth not limit his not-willing of the evil he did to any consideration whatever, but speaks of it generally, as the con- stant state and condition of things with him.
2. In the beginning of this section, the nilling of sin was antece- dent to the sin; here it is something that may be allowed in ordi- nary cases, but not at all in extraordinary. So that these two ex- positions put together amount to thus much: "Ordinarily the apostle, antecedent to any sinning, before the lusting of the Spirit ceased, did not-will the thing that he did, which was evil ; but in case of temptation it was not so;" — that is, antecedently to his acting of that which was evil, he had no opposition in the inward man unto it, nor lusting of the Spirit against it; which how it can be made good against him whose heart is upright and who hates every evil way, I know not.
3. It is confessed that " ordinarily believers sin at no worse a rate than that expressed by the apostle." But what doth that contain? If "would not" be referred to their doing of sins, then you grant that which all this while you have endeavoured to oppose, and are reconciled to your own " contradiction of the first evidence," — sin cannot, ordinarily or extraordinarily, be committed but by an act of the will, and yet ordinarily there is a dissent of the will also thereunto. If you adhere to your other former interpretation, that the willing against sin committed is antecedent to the commitment of it, and laid asleep before the perpetration of any sin, then this also is imposed on you, that there are sins whereunto they may be surprised by temptations tliat, antecedently to the commitment of
XV.] THE SINS OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 529
them, tliey do not not-will, — that as to them " the Spirit histeth not against the flesh ; " which is notoriously false, for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and all the ways of it and all the fruits thereof, and th^ Spirit lusteth against the flesh with all its ways and fruits.
4. It appears, then, this being the description of a regenerate man which the apostle gives, as to indwelling sin and all the fruits thereof, that it is most ridiculous to exempt his frame, in respect of such sins as he may fall into by surprisals of temptations, from this description of him, and so to frame this distinction to the apostle's general rule, that it holds in cases ordinary, but not in extraordinary, when no- thing in the whole context gives the least allowance or countenance to such a limitation.
It appears, then, notwithstanding any thing offered here to the contrary, upon due consideration of it, that believers sin not with their whole wills and full consents at any time, nor under the power of what temptation soever they may fall for a season ; and that be- cause of the residence of this principle of a contrary tendency unto sin in their wills, which is always acting, either directly in inclining unto good, or in taking off or making remiss the consent of the will to sin, notwithstanding the prevalency of the principle opposite thereunto by its committing of sin.