# William of Paris on Temptations



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 29, 2008)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/william-paris-17851/

I thought others might benefit from these writings of William of Paris, quoted by William Ames, and commended by Gisbertus Voetius, on the subject of temptation. See my blog post for the full text.

William of Paris on Temptations - The PuritanBoard

William of Paris on Temptations, quoted by William Ames, _Conscience With the Power and Cases Thereof_, The Second Booke of Conscience, pp. 49-54, Certaine collections out of the Booke of William Paris concerning temptations, and the refifting of them, which I thought good here to fet down for the further illuftration of the Doctrine of temptations, because they are not read in the Author, except by a very few.



> _Firft, Temptation in one fenfe is nothing elfe but a triall, and to tempt is nothing elfe but to make a triall or experiment of anything, that we may know it, that is, that it may be difcover’d, and become manifest, and this is all that the Devill can de, hee cannot with frength conquer us, or caft us down. For unleffe we of our owne accord truft him, and deliver our felves into his hand, he can have no power over us. He can prevaile no farther againft us, then we give him leave or permit him. All that he can do therefore is to tempt us, that is to make an experiment what we are, whether weake or strong, whether we be fuch as will yield to him, or whether fuch as will refift him valiantly. And if in the beginning of the temptation, he finde that we make valiant refiftance, he defpairing of the victory, and being overcome and confounded, for the moft part departeth prefently. And this is the property of a tempter when hee hath made his argument, and found what he fought for, to furceafe the work of temptation._
> 
> II. _In another fense temptation fignifies, a fighting againft one, or a war, or a battell, and it is very likely that whatsoever the Devill attempts againft us is by way of fuch a fight, if we consider the matter but diligently. For he doth all that he doth with a purpofe and defire to conquer, whether he lay fnares for us, or whether he make tryall of us, or whether he pretend fome good things to deceive us, or whether he fmite us with the ftaffe, or fword, whether he undermine the wall of our defenfe, or whether he take from us our fpirituall food, or procure it to be taken away, for he doth do all thefe things with a defire to do us a mifchiefe. And in very deed, all thefe are parts of that war, or combate, wherewith hee fights againft us._
> 
> III. _Every finne hath its temptations, and againft the mind of man doth the devill fight, befieging it, in a circumventing way, and ordering his armies, and forces, againft the armies of virtues, and againft the Caftle of mans foule._


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 29, 2008)

Gisbertus Voetius, _Spiritual Desertions_, pp. 48-49:



> The question concerning general temptations -- namely, whether a person so abandoned or tempted in conscience could have true faith and be in the state of grace -- is treated (alongside the writers mentioned above) superbly by Richard Sibbes in his treatise _The Broken Reed_ and in his work _The Soul's Conflict and Victory over Itself_. Also, Thomas Goodwin does this in his treatise _The Child of Light Walking in Darkness_. For reasons mentioned earlier, the way and order in which, according to the papists, one may be healed of this disease is very deficient. However, where they do speak correctly, they speak very well.
> 
> Aside from the authors cited, John Gerson offers a number of things worth reading in his treatise _Remedy against Faint-heartedness_ and in another work entitled _Spiritual Beggary_. But surpassing all others is William of Paris, whose words one of our own men, William Ames, has included as an extract in his second volume of _Cases of Conscience_.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 23, 2008)

Keith L. Sprunger, _The Learned Doctor William Ames_, pp. 178-179:



> Ames's philosophy of conscience, which viewed conscience as syllogism and intellectual discourse, owed its main conception to the Schoolmen, or least to the "best of them," as Book One makes obvious. Foremost as his philosophers of conscience was the Dominican school of Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas.102 His favorite medieval theologian, however, was William of Paris (Guillaume d'Auvergne, a thirteenth-century bishop of Paris), whom he quoted often. When William talked about "usefulness and fruit" in religion, he sounded to Ames like an early promoter of practical divinity; he had even expounded the doctrine of living well -- "an scias bene vivere?" -- almost like a primitive Ramus or Perkins.103 In Book Two Ames copied extensively from William's teachings on temptation, "because they are not read in the Author, except by a very few."104
> 
> 102. Colavechio, _Erroneous Conscience_, pp. 45-72; Wood, _English Casuistical Divinity_, pp. 67-68.
> 103. Guillielmi Alverni Episcopi Parisiensis...Opera Omnia[/i] (Venice, 1591), p. 1.
> 104. Ames was quoting from William's "De tentationibus & resistentiis," in _ibid_, pp. 282-97.


----------

