Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	faith_n	grace_n	justification_n	2,638	5	9.1538	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48861	The glory of free grace display'd: or, The transcendant excellency of the love of God in Christ, unto believing, repenting sinners, in some measure describ'd Wherein, 1. The doctrine about election, and the covenant of reconciliation is explained. 2. The error of the antinomians, who assert, that the filth of sin was laid on Christ, and that the holiness as well as the righteousness of Christ is made the elects while in the womb, &c. With their abuse of free-grace particularly detected and confuted. 3. In what sense our sins were laid on Christ, and Christ's righteousness made the believers, according to the sacred scriptures, evinced. 4. The glory of irresistible-grace, as exerted in the conversion of a sinner in opposition to the Arminian, cleared. 5. A modest defence of the sober dominican, about physical predetermination.	Lobb, Stephen, d. 1699.	1680 (1680)	Wing L2724B; ESTC R218819	67,996	163

sinner the only Subject capable of Justification A return from the digression shewing wherein Grace is highly glorified by some and wherein abused by others THus you see where these errors lead men and how such as do entertain one error do but prepare they way unto many For that which is remarkable is this Those persons who embrace the error I have now confuted do assert that the Elect are actually justified even in the womb though they know it not for saith one God laies the sins of the Elect on the Lord Jesus Christ by Obligation Execution and Application which Application as done by the Father is secret and manifest Secretly unto particular Elect Persons before they come into the world even while in the womb assoon as conceived for which Reason the Lord hath no more to lay to the charge of an Elect person yet in the height of iniquity and in the Excess of Riot and committing all the Abominations that can be committed even then the Lord hath no more to lay to that Persons charge than he hath to lay to the charge of a Person Triumphant in Glory though the Elect person knows it not So Dr. Crisp on Isaiah The Reading which is enough to engage a tender conscience to abhor it But to go on and shew the unsoundness hereof If the Elect assoon as they receive Being are in the sight of God actually justified by this secret Application of their sins unto Christ 't is impossible that any one Elect soul can be truly considered as born or as conceiv'd in sin for their conception and this secret application is in one and the same instant Neither do they need any Sanctification by the Spirit as I shall shew immediately neither can they be capable of a Pardon for they are not actually guilty nor by nature the Children of Wrath This is plain For Christs Holiness being made their Holiness assoon as they received their Being in the Womb there was no one instant in which they were sinners without perfect Holiness whence 't will follow that there is no Original sin no being by nature the Children of wrath no need of pardon for a pardon presupposeth Guilt as Guilt inferreth Sin where no Sin their no Guilt no Pardon yea and hereby Repentance and Faith in the blood of Christ for pardon is made of none effect But if it be said that although the Righteousness and Holiness of Christ is imputed unto the Elect assoon as they receive their Being yet the Elect may remain under the power of sin filthy unclean and polluted full of sinful spots and blemishes If so it must be acknowledged That one and the same person may be at one and the same time a Child of God and a Child of the Devil 1. As Christs Righteousness and Holiness is imputed unto him so He is the Child of God in a state of grace actually in Gods account justified having a right unto the Kingdom the Object of Gods special love and favour but yet 2. As he is under the power of sin and Unclean so he is the Child of the Devil and in a state of wrath actually unjustified in Gods account liable to eternal burnings the Object of Gods hatred being a worker of iniquity But how impossible is this Oh how dangerous to assert what can a man be at one and the same time the Child of God and also of the Devil He may as well be in Heaven and Hell at the same time bathing himself in the Rivers of pleasure that run at the right hand of God for ever even when tormented in that lake that burneth with Fire and brimstone What strange confusion is this but they say that the sin passing from the Elect ceaseth to be the sin of the Elect. q. d. The Elect are never in a state of sin or wrath though under the Power of sin The truth then is this The Righteousness of Christ is not actually imputed unto any under the reigning power of unbelief for he that believeth not is condemned already Joh. 3.18 The wrath of God abideth on on him ver 36. There is no Communication of any justifying pardoning grace to any that are not united unto Christ and whatever soul is united unto Christ he is so by Faith for as the Reverend Dr. O. it must be remembred that we require Evangelical Faith in order of nature antecedently unto our justification by the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ unto us which justifying Faith includeth in its nature the entire principle of Evangelical repentance so as that it is utterly impossible that a man should be a true believer and not at the same instant of time be truly penitent A man that continueth under the power of sin no way convinced of his lost estate out of Christ as is the case of many Elect persons a long time after they are out of the Womb is so far from being actually justified in the sight of God that he is not while so a meet Subject of justification Conviction of sin being a necessary antecedent unto that Faith that in order of nature goes before justification and therefore it must be considered that a Convinced sinner as the same Reverend Dr. hath largely proved is the only Subjectum capax justificationis But to return From what hath been said we may clearly see wherein the Grace of God is highly glorified and wherein by some 't is greatly abused 1. T is highly glorified in that the Son of God according to the eternal compact between the Father and the Son assum'd Humane Nature made under the Law voluntarily taking on him the Guilt and Punishment of our sins whereby poor faln man may be freed from both in being pardoned and in being delivered from the weight of that wrath which omnipotency was to inflict Now the Guilty may escape that guilt which tormenteth the consciences of many here and which is amongst the damned as a Gnawing Worm that continually adds to their insupportable horrors hereafter 2. Free-Grace is greatly abused by such as do assert 1. That the spots and blemishes of our sins are laid on Christ as if he who is infinitely pure had been defiled and stained with the Filth of our abominations as if infinite Wisdom could not find out a way to make a display of Free-Grace in the accomplishing faln mans salvation but by the making Jesus Christ God-Man subject unto the Pollution of sin Oh! How is God dishonoured by the bold confidence of Finite mortals who can presume to deny the Lord to be gracious unless his grace be made known in a way agreeable to their corrupt imaginations 2. To assert that the Grace of God is such as makes the Elect holy by Christs Holiness even when they are not only subject to much sin but are under the reigning power of the worst of sins is to abuse the Grace of God for these talk as if such as are in themselves impure unclean and unholy could while so be

currere 〈◊〉 Haec enim omnia nullatenus haberes nisi a Deo manere Gratuitae Donationis acciperes Non hoc homini dat natura sed Gratia Non hoc ex qual●… te condition is humanae habetur sed ex benignitate divinae illuminationis acquiritur Again Quicquid habes bonae voluntatis vel bonae operationis Deo assigna qui dedit Fulgent de convers ad Theod. Epist 6. towards the end 8. To assert That any while in unregeneracy may be united unto Christ or that any who savingly believe may not be united unto Christ is most false unsound and dangerously absurd 1. To be unregenerate is to abide in a state of sin altogether Unclean Filthy and Polluted at a distance from God and Jesus Christ how then can these be One what is Christ joyned to an Harlot or can light have any Union or Communion with darkness 2. A believer doth close with Christ which cannot be without Union 9. T is both unnecessary and unprofitable to dispute about a moment or instant of nature as to the precedency of Faith unto Union or of Union unto Faith e. g. whether Faith or the Union is in order of nature first it being evident that there is no instant supposable in which a soul who hath saving Faith is not united unto Christ or in which One united unto Christ hath not sound saving Faith But 10. This Faith and this union is in order of nature antecedent to an actual imputation of Christs Righteousness and consequently before our actual Justification in the sight of God Communion presupposeth Union and therefore Union must precede an actual imputation which is but the Communication of Christs Righteousness unto us Faith and Union being Simultanecus and at one and the same instant as Union even so Faith must precede the Communication of Christs Righteousness and our actual justification in the sight of God thereby 11. This Faith which doth so necessarily precede and go before the actual justification of a sinner is the † Fidem autem hominum Donum Dei esse fateamur sine enj●s Gratiâ 〈◊〉 currit ad gratiam Prosper Aq. Resp ad Gal. Object ad Obj. 8. gift of God infus'd into the soul by the holy Spirit that doth irresistibly carry on its work 1. Grace being the gift of God the first thing which the soul is capable of in the work of Regeneration or conversion is the receiving the gift or infused habit the soul doth recipere effectum agentis which is as much as Pati whence the soul the first instant or moment of conversion must be considered as passive 2. This Converting Grace is irresistible which may be evinced to any unprejudiced mind that will but consider that antecedently unto conversion the soul is obstinately bent towards sin The inclinations of the will are continually evil averse to what is good and both actually and habitually determined to vanity for which reason the Spirit in carrying on the work of conversion meets with great opposition from the sinner yea with such opposition as would altogether impede and hinder the Spirits work had not the power of the Spirit been great enough to conquer and overcome this habitual obstinacy of the will but the power of God's Spirit being greater than that of the Sinner the Sinner is overcome and converted How but by that Grace that is Irresistible it being most evident that 't is naturally impossible for finite power to prevail against what is infinite So clear 't is that converting grace is irresistible And surely had it not been so never one obstinate sinner no not one child of Adam since all are by nature obstinately rebellious sinners would be converted for such is the nature of our corrupt wills that they will never yield until overcome by an overstrong and irresistible power 12. This infused Irresistible grace is given unto the Adult ordinarily in the use of means as the preaching of the word c. Whence man though passive in the first moment of his conversion yet not so passive as some suggest 1. It must be noted that Man in conversion is not so passive as a Stone when thrown up into the Air For the infusion of Grace being into a Soul that is active life to the end the Soul may be the better prepared for action the Soul must be also active in the great work of conversion The infusion of Grace into the soul that is active life is not like the infusion of the soul into the body that is antecedently to its receiving the soul wholly unactive purely passive No the Lord doth consider the nature he hath given beings and his actions towards such beings are suitable to their natures As a meer passive thing is purely passive in its receptions even so what is essentially active cannot but be active in its receptions To insist on niceties concerning the opposition that is between action and passion and consequently on the seeming inconsistency some may judge to be in this expression active reception q. d. active passion is but to quibble since 't is impossible to suppose an Essentially-active-being to be in every regard as passive as pure matter is God carries on the work of conversion on man in a way agreeable unto that nature God hath given him which is by inlightening the understanding and by suscitating and stiring up the powers of the soul to their being duly conversant about their proper objects influencing and enabling the will to close with what is proposed in the word as good and accordingly understood and believed to be so Although we cannot comprehend how yet nothing more evident than that God doth irresistibly and yet most sweetly without laying any violence on our faculties draw us from sin unto Jèsus Christ * This notion is agreeable to the Sentiments of the Schoolmen as Marius Scrib de lib. Arb. disp 19. qu. 8. doth assert Dionys Carthusianus in 2. d. 39. q. 2. Capreolus d. 45. q. 1. Concl 5. Ferrariensis primo contr Gent. c. 88. Dreido opusc lib. de concordia Lib. arb et praed estinationis 2. p. c. 3. ad primum All these reconciling humane Liberty with the Irresistable Divine Will thus Dicunt enim Dei voluntatem et providentiam Dei tantae esse virtutis efficaciae ut licet et nulla potentia libertas refistere valeat omnes tamen causas quibus cooperatur suaviter moveat infinitae siquidem est virtutis sapientiae cum fit infinitae Sapientiae scit omnia suaviter disponere licet nobis videantur factu impossibilia cum verò infinitae sit virtutis attingit à fine usque ad finem fortiter ita ut per infinitam suam virtutem sciat etiam quae videntur dissonantia concordare et propter Sapientiam sine praejudicio humanae libertatis effectum suae voluntatis semper sortiri Et Cajetanus iisdem pene id videtur profiteri 1. p. q. 4. a 23. 9.19 ar 8.

is much above my Applauses hath namely That of the Reverend Doctor Owen about Justification which discourse although in it the same Truths on which I have insisted are particularly asserted yet hath given such satisfaction to the generality of the Congregational that they cannot but judge themselves greatly indebted unto the learned Author for that special service he hath therein done the Churches whence 't is become impossible that any unprejudiced person should consult the but now mentioned discourse and believe that in it he finds the sentiments of the Congregational and yet honestly assert the Congregational to be Antinomian and Abettors of the Errors I oppose For who without a running into the contrary Extreme can be more express in rejecting the Antinomian Error than the Doctor is in the mentioned Treatise for therein he asserts 1. The necessity of Faith as antecedent to our actual Justification in God's sight 2. That this Faith includeth in its nature the entire principle of Evangelical Repentance so as that it is utterly impossible that a man should be a true Believer and not at the same instant of time be truly penitent 3. That conviction of sin is a necessary antecedent unto this justifying Faith 4. That nothing but the Guilt and Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ it being impossible that the Sin itself formally considered or the Fault itself as distinct from the Guilt and Punishment of Sin should be laid on him These things being so nothing more undoubtedly true than that as the Errors I oppose are discountenanced by the generality of the learned and judicious Protestant even so it highly concerns all such as would adhere unto the Protestant Doctrines to beware how they close with the contrary Errors concerning which I would the rather Caution the well-meaning but weak Christian for these following Reasons 1. The asserting the Filth of Sin as 't is somewhat distinct both from the Guilt and Punishment of Sin to have been laid on Christ doth not only expose our blessed Lord and Redeemer to the worst of Reproaches but wholly incapacitate him for the accomplishing fallen man's salvation For if our Faults or Sins be made Christs then Christ must have suffered for his own Sins whereby he would have been made uncapable of suffering for ours yea and whereby he would have needed daily to have offered for his own Sins first contrary to that in Hebrews 7.27 But 2. The concluding the Fault and Guilt to be the same thing or which is much the same the Guilt to be the formal nature of Sin as it is a Notion attended with the Absurdities but now hinted if it be said to be laid on Christ even so it is moreover but in order to the introducing several dangerously Popish Errors viz. the making Justification and Sanctification the same Remission and Mortification of Sin one thing from all which 't will follow that if Original Sin or Concupiscence and Lust be pardoned in the Regenerate the formal nature of Sin is removed and although there remain the matter and the name of Sin yet 't is not formally Sin After this manner doth Bellarmine himself argue de Amiss grat stat pec l. 5. c. 7. lit C. Primum enim si verè crederent adversarii Reatum dimitti in Baptismo fateri deberent consequenter nihil esse in renatis quod habeat veram peccati rationem And why but because this Bellarmme doth with Phil. Melancthon consider Guilt as the Formale Peccati i.e. the Guilt and the Fault itself or the formal nature of Sin to be the same whence saith He Sublatâ rei formâ non manet ejus rei ratio sive natura cum forma sit praecipua pars naturae imo sit ipsa ratio quidditas rei And really Melancthon's Reply is very feeble Beware then of such as pretend high for the Protestant Religion who yet revile Conforming and Non-conforming Protestants and who seem to consider the Guilt of Sin and the formal nature thereof to be the same for that by such an unjust procedure none but the Papists can be any way advantaged 3. The asserting the Elect quatenus or as Elect to be pardoned in the womb and to be freed from the Filth of Sin by Christ's taking it on himself is a Doctrine that countenances the worst of Villanies For if I actually am pardoned in that I am Elect although I remain under the power of the worst of Sins what need I be any otherwise concerned about the salvation of my Soul What need I examine my heart search for sin mourn over it pray and hear the Word or abstain from any Debaucheries for that if I received not a Pardon with my Being I shall never gain it But if I then received it there is nothing more requisite than that I confidently persuade my self that it is so For these Reasons we may easily perceive the necessity there is that such as design the glory of God in the salvation of their own souls Take heed how they forsake the Protestant which is the Gospel Doctrine and follow two or three an inconsiderable number in entertaining Notions which if practically observ'd in their Principles and Consequences cannot but prove their eternal Ruine I say if practically observed both in their Principles and Consequences because I hope that through a special instance of infinitely FREE GRACE the Hearts of some whose heads have been filled with these Principles I oppose have been so averse from a practical closure with the dismal consequences that attend them as to be freed from the mischiefs that otherwise they would have fallen into But although some by an astonishing instance of Divine Bounty may be preserved and consequently although a few good men have embraced this Error in the Notion when they have hated it in the Practice yet 't is unsafe and really dangerous venturing on such hazards for although One may escape the Contagion yet thou may'st be infected to thy greater damage For the Lord's sake therefore consider what thou doest and endeavor that thou may'st be both sound in thy Notions and also in thy Practices for thereby thou wilt be in a better capacity of giving God the greater glory to the praise of infinitely FREE GRACE FINIS ERRATA Page 18. line 19. for shal read should P. 19. in the uses set before l. 13.1 and l. 16. for 3. r. 2. P. 22. l. 19. for 13. r. 16. for 5. r. 2. P. 27. l. 2. for sit r. sint l. 3. after obligatio r. poenae P. 28. l. 12. dele who P. 33. l. 10. for formerly r. formally P. 35. l. 26. after that r. as P. 72. l. 15. for proves r. prove P. 79. l. 18. after pene r. verbis l. 19. for q. 4. r. q. 14. and for 9. r. q P. 87. l. 19. for 12. r. 2. P. 88. l. 22. for qu. 5. r. qu. 4. P. 97. l. 5. r. art 3. for lect r. relect P. 101. l. 20. for excellently r. excellent Pag. 2. line 26. in the Appendix after to r. be

sinful Defections Propensions Words and Actions must pass from us into Christ but if this be not also impossible what is But 2ly T is Absurd and false For 2. If the Filth of our sin be laid on Christ then surely the Lord Christ is thereby made really filthy for as Guilt is laid on Christ and thereby Christ is made really guilty that is really guilty of another mans sin even so if the Filth of sin be laid on Christ then Christ must be really filthy for in quocunque inest abstractum de eo dicitur concretum the denomination is à forma denominante Filth on whomsoever 't is doth give the denomination of filthy but was our Lord Christ really filthy Was there any sin in any respect in him who knew no sin and in whom there was no guile Guilt is an extrinsecal respect of sin to the threatning of the Law and a man may be guilty of sin that is of anothers sin who hath no sin in him of his own but Filth the fault it self is so intrinsecal to sin that in whomsoever the Filth of sin is in him sin must be and were it a thing possible that the sin of the elect should pass from the elect to Christ it would make the Lord Christ a real sinner really Unclean Impure Filthy and Corrupt but who can entertain such a thought without abhorrence For 1. The Scriptures never assert that the Filth of sin was laid on Christ T is true our iniquities were laid on Christ that is the Punishment and Guilt of our iniquities as hath been proved but not the Filth of our iniquities neither was it necessary that any more should be laid on Christ than the Punishment and Guilt For the Lord Christ came only to exempt us from wrath to bring us into a state of Grace and to purchase a right to glory for us by his sufferings and perfect righteousness But 2. The Scriptures do most vehemently conclude that there was no spot in Christ 1. As Christ is God we cannot say that any Filth was on him without blasphemy surely that God who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity could never be so in love with the filth the worst of iniquity as to take it on himself Neither 2 Durst we aver that the Lord Christ with respect to his Humane Nature had the least Filth of sin either in or upon him For he was born an Holy thing Luke 1.35 therefore also that Holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God He was born with holy inclinations and propensions yea and all his Thoughts Words and Actions were holy all his lifetime for he fulfilled all Righteousness Matth. 3.15 ch 5.17 and at his death his blood was the pretious blood of him who was without blemish and without spot 1 Pet. 1.19 He did not sin neither was guile found in his mouth Ch. 2.22 For such an High Priest became us who is Holy Harmless Undefiled Separate from Sinners Heb. 7.26 Which could not be had he the least spot or blemish on him Note well Isa 53.9 3. In what part of Christ was the filth of sin laid or what was there in Christ that was either faulty or filthy was there any flaw in his understanding or were the inclinations of his soul after evil were his thoughts irregular or his words or actions dissonant from Gods Law The Filth of sin is a spiritual filth polluting the Soul but which part of his righteous soul was polluted was our Ignorance laid on Christ making Christ Ignorant or our Pride Stubbornness Uncleanness Sinful anger and Undue Passions in Christ was the Lord Christ Ignorant Proud Passionate or Unclean what sound believer doth not tremble at such thoughts as these But for the Filth of sin to be laid on Christ and yet the Filth of no one particular sin to be found on him is strange Oh that men who presume to contradict the Generation of the Just would shew what they mean by the filth of sin as 't is distinguished both from Guilt and Punishment and what they understand by the Fathers laying the Filth of sin on Christ or what by the words transacting the filth of sin on Christ For methinks 't is impossible that any truly gracious soul should conclude that the filth of sin the fault it self as distinguished from Guilt and Punishment can in any respect be laid on Christ Wherefore then consider 't is a great dishonor to Free-Grace to say that the Father laid the filth of sin on Christ for this is inconsistent with the Holiness and Wisdom of God and to set up Free-Grace to the reproach of Divine Holiness or Wisdom is to abuse it CHAP. V. A second Error of the Antinomians viz. The Elect made holy by Christ's Holiness Somewhat concerning Justification premised Several reasons against the Error Wherein its tendency to the subversion of a great part of the Christian Religion is evinced The third error considered its destructiveness to all Religion proved particularly To the Second THat as Christ is our Justification by the imputation of his Righteousness even so he is our Sanctification through the imputation of his holiness For 't is suggested that they must be perfectly Holy before their entrance into Heaven and that they are not made so in this life by the sanctification of the Spirit therefore it must be by the imputed Holiness of Christ That I may be the more clear in considering this I humbly apprehend it very necessary that I do acquaint the vulgar with the true notion of Justification and Sanctification In order unto which t is requisite that we remember the distinction that is between the guilt and the filth of sin Justification respecting the guilt Sanctification the Filth of sin Guilt of sin is an external respect of it with regard unto the sanction of the Law only and is separable from sin as the Reverend Dr. Owen also hath shewn of Justification pag. 285. But the Fault it self or the filth the transgression of the preceptive part of the Law is the formal nature of sin and is so intrinsecal thereunto as to be inseparable from it Justification then makes only an external relative-change by removing guilt and giving us a right to life and as it regards guilt it respects the past State Sanctification imports an internal and a physical change by introducing new light into the the heart and new principles inclinations and propensions towards God and regards the future state weakning the habits of sin strengthening the habits of infused Grace and thereby preventing much sin that otherwise would pollute the soul whereby the man is in part sanctified Justification is through the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ Sanctification is through the working of the Spirit of the same Lord Jesus Christ is our Justification by his blood and Righteousness and the same Christ is our sanctification by his Spirit For God hath chosen you to salvation through the

every man from the evil of his way Jer. 36.2,3,6 7. And is a may be a peradventure powerful enough to raise the hearts of men to great undertakings as to the things of this life and yet not sufficient to oblige us to act for God and glory or doth this may be prove a motive sufficient to engage the Ministers of Christ to endeavour the salvation of precious and immortal souls and yet insufficient for the moving you to the doing any thing for your selves surely this may be doth not argue only a Possibility but moreover a great Probability Thou art therefore O man inexcusable if thou neglectest thy duty and wilt not strive to enter in at the strait gate since by striving thou mayst have an entrance into the heavenly glory given thee 't is possible 't is probable but if thou wilt not strive for Heaven nothing more sure than that Hell will be thy portion Oh consider these things and remember * Si ergo à Justitia pietate quis desicit suo in praeceps fertur arbitrio suâ concupiscentià trahitur sua persuasione decipitur Aug. Resp ad Art sibi impos ad Art 13. That if you die in your sins your destruction will be of your selves you will be found self-condemned sinners to whom the Lord may say How often would I have gathered you together but you would not Man's sin and consequently his ruine is from himself and not from the Lord so Quae mala cum homines admittunt suis concupiscentiis cupiditatibus serviunt quas ab illa prima voluntariae praevaricationis labe traxerunt 4. Such is the corruption of humane nature since the fall as engageth all mankind to slight neglect scorn contemn and obstinately to despise all the common helps offered us It must be acknowledged that man after the fall remains a man whence whatever is essential unto the humane nature as such is to be found in him i.e. man is still a living rational creature his soul is still ennobled with the powers or faculties of understanding and will he is capable of knowing and willing These faculties are not totally eradicated or rooted out of the soul for that would be to destroy it Man is still man but a corrupt man that is though the natural powers and faculties remain yet they are sadly vitiated in that they are become the seat of vicious propensions dispositions and habits For the Understanding hath not only lost its primogeneal directive light and become darkness but the will is also strangely corrupted not in the Arminian sense alone as the Remonstrants express it * Act. Scrip. Synod min. Remonst in Explic. 3. et 4. art de Grat. c. who say Quare libertatem volendi indifferenter tam bonum salutare quam malum in statu lapsûs voluntati adesse negamus quin potius liberum Arbitrium ad bona istiusmodi non modo vulneratum sauciatum infirmatum inclinatum attenuatum est sed Captivatum perditum amissum viresque ejus non modo debilitatae cassae nisi restaurentur à gratia sed nul Free-will to what is savingly good say they is not only wounded and weakned but without a gracious restauration altogether lost i.e. the Understanding having lost its directive light and the will being a blind power cannot embrace what is savingly good not because of any weakness in the faculty of the will but for want of a a Guide to direct it In lapsu boni salutaris et salvifici cognitione destituta mens nequaquam illud ut volendum voluntati monstrare potuit nec voluntas illud velle But this is unsound for the weakness of the will is not meerly because of the blindness of the understanding but because 't is so subjected unto vitious propensions dispositions and habits The heart of man naturally runneth out after sin 't is bent to commit evil 't is obstinately resolved against what is savingly good and therefore morally impotent men sin because they will sin as appears both from Scripture and experience You will not come unto me that ye may have life you will have none of my counsel you will not return you are a stiff-neck'd people obstinate and rebellious whence the common assistances of Gods Spirit proves ineffectual and if God did not Glorify Free-Grace any further none not the Elect would return unto God for although Common Grace given unto all is sufficient to leave all men without excuse their non-improvement being their sin yet none are thereby effectually engaged to turn unto God in Faith no not the Elect who while unregenerate are as sinfully obstinate as any their souls being as much polluted with Ignorance sinfull defections inclinations and habits as others who are by nature Children of Wrath as others and for the same reason who are by nature as sinful and rebellious as others Who more vile than Manasseh in unregeneracy and who made more havock of the Church of Christ than Paul did in the days of his Ignorance Should the Lord leave all the Sons of men to themselves they would notwithstanding the Common Grace afforded them run on in sin to their eternal ruine Wherefore 5. As God did from Eternity in himself determine and by Covenant engage to give unto our Lord Jesus a Select number even so in time God glorifieth the freeness of his grace and shews himself faithful in giving some unto Christ Whoever duly observes what hath been already said concerning Election and the Covenant of Reconciliation made between the Father and the Son cannot believe the Lord to be a God of truth the faithful one and not consent unto this 6. That those who are given to the Lord Jesus Christ are by SPECIAL grace most powerfully yet sweetly drawn unto him by the Father For none cometh unto Christ but whom the Father draweth 7. God the Father giving this Select Number unto Christ they are by Faith through the Spirit united unto Christ For God in drawing and giving them unto Christ gives Christ the Spirit and Faith unto them They by being given unto Christ are taken into Covenant with Christ they are Christs and Christ is theirs the Union between them and Christ being a Covenant Union that is real but mystical That Lord Christ that is offered unto all upon their believving is actually given unto these and as all may have Christ if they believe these believe that they may have Christ God of his infinitely Free-Grace makes these a willing People in the day of his power Whence all that do turn from the evil of their ways they must ascribe the whole glory to God even to the praise of his Grace * P●…inde quoniam Demino in te misericorditer ope●… jam cidicisti in abundantia divitiarum tuarum non Gloriari hoc superest ut non confidas in virtute tua i.e. ne dep●…tes v●ripus tuis quod seculi facultates divitiasque contemans quod viam mandatorum Dei

done the Fact but he is said to Reus à Re quae ab eo petitur whence the guilty person is one qui defendit propulsat actionem vel accusationem yea and consequently he may be guilty although he did never really commit the Fault for to be Accused is to be guilty For this consult Dr. Owen of Justification Again to be guilty according to the Ancients is taken yet more largely as appears out of Cicero de Orator lib. 2. who was well acquainted with the word Reus although not so with Reatus and who saith Reos autem appello non eos modò qui arguuntur sed omnes quorum de re disceptatur sic enim olim loquebantur And agreeably hereunto Aelius Gallus lib. de signif verb. ad jus pertinentium Reum definit qui cum altero litem contestatam habet sive is agat sive cum eo agatur so Schard Whence although it be sometimes used for the Crime itself and again for the punishment inflicted for such a Crime yet 't is certainly somewhat distinct both from the Crime and the Punishment yea so distinct from the Crime that as one who never committed a Crime may in the sense of the Ancients be guilty even so 't was a wonder to some that any should conclude the Crime and the Guilt to be the same for Speigelius yea Schardius and Kakl on the word Reatus do agree in this take the words of the last Quapropter omnino falluntur scriptores post Accursium existimantes Juris consultos Reatus verbum pro Crimine usurpari eorumque sententia refutatur per l. 3. § quod patet F. de mun honor Non enim Crimen sed habitum illud pannosum statumque demissum significat l. fin F. ad leg c. Moreover 2. If we consider the use of the word as it doth presuppose a crime for which reason to say such an one is guilty is as if it had been said he hath done the Fact yet guilt as such is somewhat distinct from the Crime whence although the learned in the exercise of their freedom may use the word Reatus diversly yet 't is absolutely necessary that we consider the word Guilt as expressive of somewhat distinct from the Fault itself or that some other word that is as meet or more so be insisted on for such an End For what more evident than that as the doing this or the other thing contrary to the preceptive part of the Law is sin even so from this sin as it regards the retributive part of the same Law there results a liableness to punishment an obnoxiousness thereunto which liableness being but the result of the sin is not the sin itself 't is only somewhat resulting from sin as it regards the penal part of the Law which is the thing the learned generally mean by Guilt and if not fitly enough express'd by Guilt or by Reatus by what English or Latin term can it be better made known 'T is a liableness or an obnoxiousness unto punishment To be Guilty is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui reus est poenae à Judice definitae or propriè obnoxius è re judicata obnoxious to the punishment for some fault which as it is a liableness unto punishment may be called Reatus poenae but as 't is such a liableness propter culpam it may be called Reatus culpae But if any of the learned will say that there is 1. Reatus Facti 2. Reatus Culpae And 3. Reatus Poenae distinct from each other and mean 1. That the Fact is done 2. That this Fact is a breach of the Law 3. That he that did this Fact is by the Law to be punished since by Reatus culpae as much seems to be intended as the sin itself the breach of the Law although such learned persons may use their own freedom yet it must be duly remembred that in their sense I do not assert That Reatus Culpae i.e. the sin itself formally considered is laid on Christ but the Reatus Culpae i.e. the Guilt which is somewhat distinct and separable from the Fault itself is laid on Christ for I understand by Guilt call it Guilt of Fault or Punishment an obnoxiousness unto wrath for some fault which is somewhat distinct from the fault itself But moreover 3. That Guilt I mean the Guilt of the Fault is distinct from the Fault itself is evident in that it may be on such as never really committed the actual sin or did the fault for thus it was with reference unto the guilt of Adam's sin which is really the Guilt of his Posterity who are such as have not actually and in a proper sense really sinned We did not actually sin in Adam and yet the guilt of his actual sin is so much ours that we are justly punished for it What more evident than that the corruption of nature which we receive with our Beings is penal a just punishment which necessarily presupposeth Guilt which Guilt must be the result of some anteceding sin but since 't is impossible it should be the result of any sin that hath been really and in a proper sense actually committed by us it must be for the sin of our first Parent which being so it follows 1. That there may be real Guilt on him who hath not really in a proper sense sinned and therefore to say He is guilty is not as much as to say He hath really committed the fault 2. That the Guilt of the Fault or a liableness to punishment for sin may be on him in whom the actual sin the foundation of that Guilt is not For it must be acknowledged that 't is naturally impossible that Adam's actual sin should pass from him to us and yet nothing more true than that the guilt of the same actual sin is made our guilt and we are as liable to punishment in the eye of God the righteous Judge as if we had actually and in a proper sense committed the sin 3. That the guilt of our sin the guilt of our fault which I humbly conceive is best express'd by the Latine Reatus Culpae may pass from us to Christ even when the sin or fault itself doth not or rather cannot 4. The reason why I so much insist on this distinction between the formal nature of sin and guilt is because of that light we may thereby receive in order to our clearer comprehending the fundamental mistakes of the Papists about Justifcation who sometime insisting on guilt as the formal nature of sin understand by remission of sin the Mortification thereof and by Justification Sanctification Whence we may perceive on what ground that Reverend Bishop Dr. Usher told a person of great worth and learning from whom I had it That the Papists did not hold any such thing as the pardon of sin distinct from the mortification of sin if I mistake not For if the guilt be the same with the sin