Burgess - BT715 B85 1654

To the Readw. t. Let the htt~rt-{earching Chri}itm diflengNi{b~etween Gracein the Idea or definition of it, and the reAl:exi(lence Df itin it's fubjefl. When Divines do write or fpeak about grace, they commonly defcribe it in it's abfrra– tted and exaCt nature : even as Tully deciphers his Ora– tors, .or Platohis Commonwealth. Now becaufe the people of God reade and hear fuch rules and definiti· · ons , they conclude they have not grace, becaufe not according to fuch a defcription. But grace in a defini– tion is one thing~and grace in the heart is another thing: !he participationofgrace is not asperteaas the defcription of it. ~ · 3. Let them conftantly confider the difference IJetween truth of grAce tmd perfei1ionofgrAce. Not attending to this many times breedeth perplexing doubts; perfceti· on of parts is one thing, and of degrees is another. It's true this definition is doubted of, thinking that to af~ firm even aperfetlion <:>f parts, though not of degrees, bordereth too much on Pelagiamfm, and that: no man bath perfe&ion of parts, but is to grow therein, as much as 'in degrees. But certainly it there be -not a perfeCtion of parts, then believers could not be faid to be regenerated, to be new creatures, to have the image of God repaired in them ; forthefe expreffions do neM cdfarily fuppof~che eflence, though not the perfeCtion of godlinefs. Let therefo(e the humble foul afpire and breathe afcer-perfeCtion, but take comfort in the difco– very of the truthof grace, though in a low degree. . 3· Let them mala"' d?fferencc betweentr~tb of~race,and the evidence or ajfora~ceof it. It's no good argument eo conclude they have tt not, becaufe they perceive it not: Somedifeafes take away the fcnfe of natural life, and ~ no wonder then if there be fuch obfirudion at do · fometimes