The Glory of Free Grace Displayed, Appendix – Errata
THE APPENDIX.
SInce the preceding Diſcourſe hath been finiſhed, I have had the advantages of ſuch Remarks on ſome Particulars therein contain'd, as do call for a fuller Explanation of my thoughts concerning them; for which Reaſon, I muſt preſume on the Candor of the Reader, in adding this following Appendix.
§ 1. I have inſiſted much on the diſtinction there is between the Sin itſelf, and the Guilt of the Fault, which ſome think to be but one, and the ſame thing; for Reatus, being à Re, it doth intimate, that the being guilty of Sin, imports no more than that he is a Real Sinner, (i.e.) hath really ſinned, or broken the Law; whereas I humbly conceive, it doth moreover import a liableneſs to Puniſhment for Sin: But that I may be the more full in the diſcovering my thoughts, it will be proper to conſider,
1. The Impo…t of the word Guilt, which in Latine is Reatus, a word not very ancient; for,ſay the Learned, "Dictio Reatus Ciceroni & aliis antiquis inuſitata, primùm à M. Meſſala conficta, ut Fabius autor eſt lib. 8." So Schard. But how novel ſoever this word is, yet, among the Romans it ſignified the quality, and ſtate of the Accuſed; which was repreſented to be ſad and diſimal, by the poor, filthy, ſqualid garments the accuſed did wear, yea, and by Hair and Beards undreſſed, "Reatus, ſtatus, & conditio Reorum, (h.e.) ut Budaeus ait, Habitus demiſſus, pannoſus, ſqualidus, & miſericordiae aucupator," whence Martial. lib. 2. Epigram.
Si det iniqua tibi triſtem fortuna reatum
Squalidus haerebo pallidiorque Reo.
The like may be concluded from what is mentioned by Plinie, lib. 7. ad Suram. And alſo by Aul. Gell. noct. Attic. lib. 3. c. 4.] All which was done, thereby to engage the Judges to a more compaſſionate procedure, they being anciently conſidered as Guilty, as ſoon as Accuſed, and conſequently, before it appear'd, that the Fault, of which they were Accuſed, was Really committed by them, whence although Reus ſit à Re, it is not as if the perſon had been denominated Guilty meerly becauſe he had really 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, 'tis 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, 'twas 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 'tis 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, 'tis 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? 'Tis a liableneſs, or an obnoxiouſneſs unto puniſhment: To be Guilty, is foreign, q. d foreign, qui reus eſt poenae à Judice definitae, or propriè obnoxius è re judicata, obnoxious to the puniſhment forſome fault, which as it is a liableneſs unto puniſhment, may be called Reatus poenae, but as 'tis 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 'tis 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 'tis 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 itſelf, remittere peccatum, or the removing guilt can be but the deſtroying the formal nature of ſin, the ſin itſelf, and conſequently pardon of ſin the ſame with mortification. Again, the Papiſts, conſidering guilt as the Formale Peccati, do with the greateſt confidence conclude, that Concupiſcence being pardoned in the Regenerate, the guilt thereof removed, the formal nature thereof is gone, and 'tis no more formally ſin in them. But ſince, the ſin formally conſidered is ſomewhat diſtinct from the guilt thereof, (as I have proved in the preceding diſcourſe) the ground of theſe Popiſh miſtakes is detected; and that which follows is a great Truth inſiſted on, viz. The difference there is between Holineſs and Righteouſneſs; for as ſin regards the preceptive part of the Law, even ſo doth Holineſs; the former being a diſconformity, the latter a conformity thereunto: And as the immediate reſult of ſin with reference to the retributive part of the Law is Unrighteouſneſs, even ſo contrarily the immediate reſult of Holineſs is Righteouſneſs: the one Dignitas poenae propter inobedientiam, the other Dignitas praemii propter obedientiam; for contrariorum eadem eſt ratio: Which being ſo, we eaſily may ſee how our ſin is imputed unto Chriſt in its guilt, even when ſin formally conſidered is not laid on him. Yea, and how Chriſt's obedience is made ours in its Righteouſneſs, when the formal, ſubjective Holineſs of Chriſt is not.
§ 2. I have introduced Maeratius as one, who diſtinguiſheth inter Reatum culpae & poenae, though I have not, as yet, found him to be expreſs in his doing ſo; but, the reaſon, which prompted me to ſingle out this Schoolman, is his diſtinguiſhing inter dignitatem poenae, & obligationem ad poenam, which is the ſame that Bellarmine intends by the Guilt of the Fault, and that of the Puniſhment.
§ 3. In order to a fuller vindicating the Dominicans, I humbly conceive it neceſſary to ſuggeſt, that they, in their oppoſing Peter de Aliaco, who judg'd the ſecond cauſe to be no proper cauſe, [it not being the fire that burns, but God in the fire, &c.] do aſſert the ſecond cauſe to be a proper, though not a ſolitary cauſe. This I prove out of Molina himſelf, who, although he is no way a lover of the Dominican Dogmata; yet doth aſſert, that Aquinas the great Phyſical Predeterminant, doth regard the notion of Pet. de Aliaco as fooliſh, and as what contradicts a general experience, and our common ſenſe, it being more abſurd than the Notion of Antonius Cordubenſis and Abailardus, that is followed by ſome of the Nominals, to which Scotus (as Molina ſaith) gave too great countenance, even when it cannot be ſaid that the Phyſical Predeterminants did ſo. Molina in primum Th. q. 14. Art. 13. diſ. 1,2,3, &c.
§ 4. In this laſt Chapter I have alſo inſiſted on the report the Schoolmen make of things, ſhewing into what Paſſions an eſpouſed intereſt did anciently drive men. For Bellarmine aſſerts Durandus to have been a Follower of Pelagius, but how truly, let the learned judge; for, although I have mention'd it, I think my ſelf no way oblig'd to believe it. Again, the ſame Bellarmine doth prove, that Durandus himſelf makes God to be the Author of Sin; but if ſo, how is it poſſible that what Le Blanc ſaith ſhould be true, when he aſſerts it to be the ſenſe of all, that if Durandus be in the right, as to this point,there will be no difficulty in clearing God from the but-now-mentioned reproach: But what is the more ſurprizing is this, That Bellarmine hereby doth but revile his own Notion, if the learned Mr. Baxter (who is well acquainted with the Schoolmen) doth not miſtake; "For, ſaith he, I do verily believe that Durandus and his Followers, under the name of ſupporting the Natural, and Free Faculties did mean incluſively, that which Bellarmine pleadeth for, A general concourſe to the Act as an Act. And that they differ in words, not in ſenſe." Thus the Learned ſpend their time in contradicting themſelves as well as one another.
§ 5. I have moreover inſiſted on the different apprehenſions the old Philoſophers entertain concerning thoſe inſuperable difficulties that are about Predetermination, &c. thereby to intimate, that the confident Schoolmen, and their ſeveral Sectators, do but actum agere, and conſume their ſtrength on needleſs Controverſies, to the great diſadvantage of true Religion. Theſe acting in Divinity, as our Virtuoſi do in Philoſophy, who, by a zealous attempt to eſtabliſh their new dogmata (as they call them) do not walk in any untrodden paths; The Copernican Hypotheſis about the motion of the Earth, as alſo the learned Fancies about the Earth, and Inhabitants that are ſaid to be in the Moon, as well as that ſolid Truth aboutthe Antipodes, ſo much reproached by Lactantius, were all known in Cicero's, if not in Plato's, or Pythagoras's dayes. For this, conſult Cicero. Quaeſt. Acad. l. 2. "Habitari ait Xenophanes in Luna, eamque eſſe terram multarum urbium, & montium. Portenta videntur: ſed tamen neque ille qui dixit jurare poſſet ita ſe rem habere, neque ego. Nonne etiam dicitis, eſſe è regione nobis, è contraria parte terrae, qui adverſis veſtigiis ſtent contra veſtigia noſtra, quos Antipodas vocatis? Cur mihi magis ſuccenſetis, qui iſta non aſpernor, quam eis, qui quum audiunt, deſipere vos arbitrantur? Nicetas Syracuſius, ut ait Theophraſtus, Coelum, Solem, Lunam, Stellas, ſupera denique omnia ſtare cenſet, neque praeter terram rem ullam in mundo moveri: quae cùm circum axem ſe ſumma celeritate convertat, & torqueat, eâdem effici omnia, quae ſi ſtante terra, Coelum moveretur. Atque hoc etiam Platonem in Timaeo dicere quidam arbitrantur, ſed paulò obſcuriùs."
Thus both our New Philoſophers, and the Old Schoolmen, do but trace the Ancient Heathen in their particular Fancies, concerning things not only unreveal'd, but moreover, too high for vain Mortals to reach unto. The New Philoſophers confidently ſolve, as they ſay, the inſolvable Phaenomena in the Natural world; and the Schoolmen with no leſs boldneſs overcome (at leaſt in their own conceit) the invincible difficulties inthe Moral. The New Philoſophers can (if you will believe 'em) acquaint you with the particular methods of God in creating and conſerving all Beings, ſhewing How, or after what particular manner every natural effect is produc'd; and the Schoolmen are as expreſs in demonſtrating the particular modes of Divine concourſe, not only unto every good, but alſo unto every ſinful Action; though ſtill it muſt be aſſerted, that the difficulties which occur unto both in theſe attempts, are moſt certainly uncapable of a clear, diſtinct, and ſatisfying Solution; for which reaſon the vanity of each in their Eſſays, is equally to be neglected; for the Schoolmen are as vain, and conſequently as liable unto juſt rebukes, as are the New Philoſophers; Do the New Philoſophers revive the old Dogmata of the Heathen? ſo do the Schoolmen: Do the New Philoſophers diſturb the world with their learned Folly? ſo do the Schoolmen. And muſt the New Philoſopher be ſeverely checkt for his Preſumption in Philoſophy? then ſurely, much more ſo muſt the Schoolman for his greater confidence in Divinity. For, might Divinity be freed from the perplexing abuſes of theſe Schoolmen, as every other Doctrine, even ſo this of Free-grace in all the great inſtances thereof, would ſuddenly appear to the view of the Vulgar, affording them the moſt ſatisfying comforts and ſpiritual advantages deſirable.
§ 6. In the Cloſe of all, 'twill be neceſſary, that in order to the undeceiving the weak, I do evince, that the Doctrines I aſſert are according to the Holy Scriptures, as moſt rightly underſtood by the generality of our Proteſtant Divines; not only the Calviniſt beyond the Seas, but alſo the Reformed Divines at home, viz. The Church of England, and the Nonconformiſt, whether Presbyterian, or Congregational: which, concerning the great Doctrine about our actual juſtification in the ſight of God by Faith in Chriſt's blood, I'll particularly evince, and the rather, becauſe 'tis the practice of Deceivers to draw Proſelytes to their Errors, by repreſenting the Truth they oppoſe, as what is either Arminianiſm, Socinianiſm, or Popery; and the Error, they eſpouſe, as what is the true Proteſtant Doctrine, whereby ſuch as are juſtly haters of the abovementioned Errors, and lovers of the Proteſtant Truths, are tempted, for this ſingle reaſon, to abandon the Truth, and entertain an Error in its ſtead.
I. That the Church of England (who certainly are truly Scriptural, and Proteſtant, in this great Doctrine about Juſtification by Faith) do in their Articles, and Book of Homilies concur with me, is evident to any that ſhall, without prejudice, peruſe them. Yea, this Church is ſo zealouſly concern'd for the eſtabliſhing this Truth, [viz. Our Juſtification by Faith in Chriſt's blood, and conſequently that none of the Elect are actually in God's ſight juſtified, while under the reigning power of unbelief, &c.] that, whoever will receive any advantages from her, muſt ſo chearfully aſſent and conſent thereunto, that 'tis become impoſſible, that any of her Sons honeſtly recede from it; yea, they muſt be ſo expreſs in their profeſſion, that nothing but a Popiſh diſtinction can be ſubtile enough to extricate their Conſciences from the bonds into which by Conformity, they have brought themſelves: Whence many ſober Conforming Divines, whoſe Principles are really Proteſtant, [or which is the ſame, truly Scriptural] cannot but be fill'd with a kind of horror and aſtoniſhment, to obſerve, how far ſome of the zealous Sons of the Church have receded from this Doctrine. The truth of this is to be found in that learned, and once dignified Conforming Divine Doctor Tully, in his Book de Juſtif. Paulin. c. 3. p. 23. where he ſaith—"Quippe vehementer non mihi ſolum, ſed aliis quamplurimis mirari ſubit, quâ vel obſcuriſſimâ rationis umbrâ, quâ ſe defendant verecundiâ, qui ſe Eccleſiae Anglicanae Filios, etiam obſequentiſſimos dici volunt, quique ut tales, manu, & fide data toties in illius doctrinam conſenſum formaverint, cum eâ nihilominus bellumapertè gerant." But the Doctors wonder is heightned, when he reflects on the 35th Article about Homilies, amongſt which, that of Juſtification is one, aſſented and conſented unto by ſome, who in their Writings and Diſcourſes fully ſhew, that they conſent to no ſuch thing. But if the Doctor had but call'd to mind the Paraphraſe of Franciſc. à Sancta Clara on this mention'd 35th Article de Homiliis, the ſurprize might, at leaſt in ſome meaſure, be removed: for that this Popiſh Caſuist aſſures them, that they may give in both their Aſſent and Conſent unto every Homily, as to what contains both godly and wholſom Doctrines, even when they do not conſent unto the whole thereof as ſuch: and his reaſons are prodigiouſly ſtrong, [i.e. to ſuch as deſign an eſpouſing Popery, when 'tis their intereſt to do ſo,] it being agreeable to the ſentiments of ſeveral Popiſh Doctors, which is ſufficient to make the greatest impoſſibilities become Probable. Conſider how particular, and expreſs ſuch are, as do Conform, in the giving in their Aſſent and Conſent, and what Franciſc. à Sancta Clara's Paraphraſe is, and you cannot but be convinced, that as to this I am in the right. The ſentiments of Franciſc. à Sancta Clara, are as follows—"Nec tenentur Proteſtantes ob haec verba in Articulo ſtatim in ſingula verba, vel ſententias Homiliarum jurare; nam ut olim Turrecremata, cum ipſa Eccleſia Doctorum aliquorum opuſcula probat, non ob id intelligendum eſt, omnia in eis contenta probari. Sicut in conſtitutionibus 6 Synodi, aliquorum Doctorum opera probata ſunt, quod etiam in decretis legitur, diſt. 15. non tamen omnia verba & particulas approbat, ut conveniunt Doctores. Hoc etiam exactiſſimè tradunt Doctores Pariſienſes, exponentes Bullam Urbani quinti approbantem doctrinam S. Thomae, in qua ſcripſit Tholoſanis, ejus doctrinam, ut bene dictam, & catholicam teneri debere. Dicunt tamen Pariſienſes, praedictam approbationem non eſſe univerſalem, ſed tanquam doctrinae utilis, & in multis probabilis; prudenter igitur quae ſanam doctrinam ſapiunt, populo legenda, alia, neglectui habenda." So far Franc. à Sancta Clara. But to return. It muſt be acknowledged that the Church of England is ſo Orthodox in this great doctrine about Juſtification, that the greateſt Sophiſtry of either her open Enemies, or pretended Friends, who profeſs themſelves to be Her moſt obedient Sons, can never with the leaſt colour of reaſon evince the contrary.
II. The Nonconformiſts alſo, are as right in this, whence whatever any particular perſon among them may aſſert, 'tis the judgment of the generality, whether Presbyterian or Congregational, That our Juſtification is by Faith in Chriſt'sblood: and conſequently our actual juſtification in God's ſight, doth not precede, but follow Faith. That the Presbyterians are right in this is acknowledged by ſome, who aſſert the Congregational (notwithſtanding their profeſſed owning the Presbyterians Confeſſion of Faith) to be Antinomian, of which I do the rather take ſome notice, becauſe in an eſpecial manner ſuch, as are of that Error, attempt the countenancing it, by ſaying, that 'tis embraced by the Congregational; than which nothing more untrue, as may be evinced by a due peruſal of the Declaration of their Faith, agreed and conſented unto by their Elders and Meſſengers in their meeting at the Savoy, Octob. 12. 1658. And might the world be ſo happy, as to ſee a very Elaborate Confutation of the Antinomians, written by a very acute and ſolid Perſon, a great Diſputant, viz. Mr. Stone of New-England, a Congregational Divine, it would eaſily appear, that the Congregational are not Antinomian. However, although this Excellent MS. hath not ſeen the light, yet another Treatiſe, whoſe worth 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 themſelvesgreatly indebted unto the learned Author for that ſpecial ſervice he hath therein done the Churches; whence 'tis 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 'tis 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 'twill 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 'tis 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 Nonconforming 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 ownſouls, 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, 'tis 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.
End of the text · Stephen Lobb, The Glory of Free Grace Displayed (1680)