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

Besides, to be justified notes a Passion, which presupposeth an Action; an Act Transient, not Immanent; or only Gods purpose to justify: nor can it be Gods Promise to justify: ⟨p. 326⟩For the Act, though it be Transient, yet it is only a Declaration what he will do; his promise to justify upon condition, is not Justifying, and therefore a man is not by the Covenant, without a further Act, Denominated Justified, though he be made justifiable by it. I conceive Justification is a Court term, Importing an Act of God as Judge, whereas his promising is not his Act as Judge, but Rector, thes. 42. you mention the Angels judging us Righteous, and Rejoicing therein; which whence it should be, but by a sentence passed in Heaven, I know not. Constitutive Justification, different from Declarative by sentence, I do not find expressed under the term [Justification] It would be considered whether any other Act besides the sentence, doth make a man just, but giving of faith; notwithstanding Christs Death, and the conditional Covenant before faith, a person is only justifyable; Conditionalis nihil ponit in esse. A person is upon giving of Faith justified; but not by giving of faith (that's an act of Sanctification) but by a sentence of God, Thes. 59. You make justification a continued act; now it being a transient act, I suppose it may not be well called a continued Act, which imports a successive motion between the terminus a quo, and terminus ad quem; whereas the act, whether by sentence, or Covenant, is not such a Motion. Its not to be denied, that the Benefit and Virtue of it is continued, but I think not the Act. If it be not smell, but saepe, yet it should be rather called Actus Renovatus, Repetitus, Iteratus, then continued I incline to think there is but one Justification of a person in this life, though there be frequent remissions of sin. Of this you may Consider.

Besides, to be justified notes a Passion, which presupposeth an Action; an Act Transient, not Immanent; or only Gods purpose to justifie: nor can it be Gods Promise to justifie: ⟨p. 326⟩For the Act, though it be Transient, yet it is only a Declaration what he will do; his promise to justifie upon condition, is not Justifying, and therefore a man is not by the Covenant, without a further Act, Denominated Justified, though he be made justifyable by it. I conceive Justification is a Court term, Importing an Act of God as Judge, whereas his promising is not his Act as Judge, but Rector, thes. 42. you mention the Angels judging us Righteous, and Rejoycing therein; which whence it should be, but by a sentence passed in Heaven, I know not. Constitutive Justification, different from Declarative by sentence, I do not find expressed under the term [Justification] It would be considered whether any other Act besides the sentence, doth make a man just, but giving of faith; notwithstanding Christs Death, and the conditional Covenant before faith, a person is only justifyable; Conditionalis nihil ponit in esse. A person is upon giving of Faith justified; but not by giving of faith (thats an act of Sanctification) but by a sentence of God, Thes. 59. You make justification a continued act; now it being a transient act, I suppose it may not be well called a continued Act, which imports a successive motion between the terminus a quo, and terminus ad quem; whereas the act, whether by sentence, or Covenant, is not such a Motion. Its not to be denyed, that the Benefit and Vertue of it is continued, but I think not the Act. If it be not smel, but saepe, yet it should be rather called Actus Renovatus, Repetitus, Iteratus, then continued I incline to think there is but one Justification of a person in this life, though there be frequent remissions of sin. Of this you may Consider.