A commentary upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the…A commentarie upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the…

whereby it is clearly insinuated, that it is another kind of delight, which the Believer hath in delighting in God, than any unrenewed man can have, seeing it's an other kind of delight than he hath in any other thing. And wherein this kind of difference consisteth we may gather from what is said. 1. There is supposed to be a different principle, to wit, an infused gracious habit, which must precede this act. 2. There is a different end, the one seeketh to please his own curiosity, the other respecteth God and his own spiritual good. There is, 3. a different motive; the one delighteth in it, because it is profitable, or honourable, or pleasing to himself to know such things, the other delighteth in God Himself, as acted therein from the excellency that is in himself, and the love that he hath to himself, and the spiritual satisfaction that he hath in it. 4. There is a reduplication in the act, they not only delight in God, but in him as God, moved thereto out of true love to God, which (saith he) the natural man doth not. Now, these four being granted by the said Reverend Author, and being the very same thing upon the matter with that which formerly we asserted, we may see that beside any consideration of the degree, there must be a concurrence of these qualifications, wherein ordinarily the difference in kind, betwixt saving grace and common, is placed; and the thing that they call the physical and real difference being acknowledged by him, as by others; it is not of great moment to debate for the terms of physical or moral. Seeing then, upon the one side, the supremacy of Gods interest in the act is not denied, and that in respect to its eminent degree, if it be well understood; and upon the other the concurrence of these qualifications is acknowledged, The difference cannot be great: for understanding of this difference (which must be less than appeared at first) we would consider these two, 1. That when the degree of grace is spoken of, it may be considered either more strictly, as contradistinguished from the former qualifications, ⟨p. 127⟩which in this respect are said to be the kind of the act; or, it may be considered more largely, as it comprehendeth the principle, motive, end, &c. and so it taketh in the former qualifications. It seemeth that this Learned Author, when he speaketh of the degree, doth take it in this large sense;

whereby it is clearly insinuated, that it is another kind of delight, which the Believer hath in delighting in God, than any unrenewed man can have, seing it's an other kind of delight than he hath in any other thing. And wherein this kind of difference consisteth we may gather from what is said. 1. There is supposed to be a different principle, to wit, an infused gracious habite, which must precede this act. 2. There is a different end, the one seeketh to please his own curiosity, the other respecteth God and his own spirituall good. There is, 3. a different motive; the one delighteth in it, because it is profitable, or honourable, or pleasing to himself to know such things, the other delighteth in God Himself, as acted therein from the excellency that is in himself, and the love that he hath to himself, and the spirituall satisfaction that he hath in it. 4. There is a reduplication in the act, they not only delight in God, but in him as God, moved thereto out of true love to God, which (saith he) the naturall man doth not. Now, these four being granted by the said Reverend Author, and being the very same thing upon the matter with that which formerly we asserted, we may see that beside any consideration of the degree, there must be a concurrance of these qualifications, wherein ordinarily the difference in kind, betwixt saving grace and common, is placed; and the thing that they call the physicall and reall difference being acknowledged by him, as by others; it is not of great moment to debate for the termes of physicall or morall. Seeing then, upon the one side, the supremacy of Gods interest in the act is not denied, and that in respect to its eminent degree, if it be well understood; and upon the other the concurrance of these qualifications is acknowledged, The difference cannot be great: for understanding of this difference (which must be lesse than appeared at first) we would consider these two, 1. That when the degree of grace is spoken of, it may be considered either more strictly, as contradistinguished from the former qualifications,