Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions…

And then either there must be some kind of particular Justification from particular sins after faith, of the nature of our renewed particular Pardon; or else what will become of us for them? For sure if the Law be so far in force against the actions of Believers as to make and conclude them Guilty and Obliged to Punishment (as much as in it lieth) and so to need a frequent pardon (for pardon is a discharge from Guilt, which is an Obligation to punishment;) then it must needs be in force to Judge them worthy condemnation, and so to Accuse (and as much as in it lies to condemn) them; and so they must need also a particular Justification. But then according to my Judgement, 1. There is a sure Ground said of both in the Gospel or new Law or Covenant. 2. And the said New Law doth perform it, by the same Power by which it did universally justify and pardon them at the first. There needeth no addition to the Law. The change is in them: And the Law is said Moraliter ager• quod antea non actum erat, because of their new Capacity, necessity and Relation. As if your Fathers Testament do give you a thousand pound at his Death, and twenty shillings a week as long as you live after, and so much at your marriage, &c. here this Testament giveth you these new sums (after the first) without any change in it; and yet by new moral Act; for it was not a proper gift, till the Term expressed, or the condition performed: and if that term had never come, nor the condition been performed, you had never had right to it: so I conceive, Gods Gospel Grant or Testament doth renew both our Remission and particular Justification. If Satan say, This man both deserved death by sinning ⟨p. 344⟩since he Believed (as David) must we not be justified from that Accusation?

And then either there must be some kind of particular Justification from particular sins after faith, of the nature of our renewed particular Pardon; or else what will become of us for them? For sure if the Law be so far in force against the actions of Believers as to make and conclude them Guilty and Obliged to Punishment (as much as in it lyeth) and so to need a frequent pardon (for pardon is a discharge from Guilt, which is an Obligation to punishment;) then it must needs be in force to Judge them worthy condemnation, and so to Accuse (and as much as in it lyes to condemn) them; and so they must need also a particular Justification. But then according to my Judgement, 1. There is a sure Ground said of both in the Gospel or new Law or Covenant. 2. And the said New Law doth perform it, by the same Power by which it did universally justifie and pardon them at the first. There needeth no addition to the Law. The change is in them: And the Law is said Moraliter ager quod antea non actum erat, because of their new Capacity, necessity and Relation. As if your Fathers Testament do give you a thousand pound at his Death, and twenty shillings a week as long as you live after, and so much at your marriage, &c. here this Testament giveth you these new sums (after the first) without any change in it; and yet by new moral Act; for it was not a proper gift, till the Term expressed, or the condition performed: and if that term had never come, nor the condition been performed, you had never had right to it: so I concieve, Gods Gospel Grant or Testament doth renew both our Remission and particular Justification. If Satan say, This man both deserved death by sining