A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Of Iuſtification.
§. 1. Wherein we are agreed. §. 2. Juſtification, what in Scripture acceptation. §. 3. What it ſuppoſeth. §. 4. God juſtifies actions. §. 5. Such a fruit of Juſtification before God. §. 6. Of Rahab. §. 7. Of Juſtification in foro Conſcientiae §. 8. Of the Conditions. §. 9. Of Commutative Juſtice. § 10. Of a Compact. §. 11. Of Grace purchaſed. §. 12. Of the Purchaſe of the Covenant. §. 13. Whether God be a Debtor. §. 14. Particularly aſſerted againſt Mr. H.
§. 1. I Shall not detain the Reader in criticizing on the ſignification of Juſtification in the Hebrew and Greek Language, it amounting to what our Engliſh word means, and our adverſaries in a great meaſure agreeing with us therein (tho differing enough in the modus (as appears in the foregoing Chapter) that Juſtification is directly oppoſed to Condemnation, That it is a forinſick or Law-Term, and that properly it is a Law-Sentence, diſtinctly and per ſe underſtood. That God is the great Juſtifier. That the Perſon juſtified is always upon the account of ſome righteouſneſs of that Law that juſtifieth. That this righteouſneſs muſt be legally his that is juſtified, i. e. imputed to him without denial of it ſelf; and that Juſtification is the ſentential pronouncing a perſon righteous and accepted by the Lawgiver, free from condemnation, righteous in his ſight, and enſtated in all advantages that this righteouſneſs of his brings him into. Thus far I take it we are agreed, what little wordy differences there is, we ſhall not concern our ſelves about, nor trouble the Reader with.
§. 2. Juſtification in Scripture, and in our uſual and common acceptation, is any Vindication of a Perſon or Action from a Charge or Accuſation brought in or alledged againſt them, and this in the largeſt ſenſe wherein a man is ſaid to juſtifie God, Pſal. 51.4. Its one mans juſtifying another, or vindicating their actions, and this done by pleading for, or defending them, Job 27.5. and 33.32. or practically, by doing the ſame thing or worſe, Ezek. 10.51.55. Or a man is ſaid to juſtifie himſelf, Job 32. Luke 10.29.
§. 3. Juſtification being allowed to be a Forinſick Term, it muſt always ſuppoſe a Forum or Court where it is. And all Juſtification muſt be ſuppoſed to be in one at leaſt, or all theſe Courts, Forum Dei, Mundi, Conſcientiae, a true Believer is ſometimes juſtified in all, as to his State and Actions; ſometimes in one, and not in another. The Court, or Forum Dei, is where God ſits as Lawgiver, and righteous Judge of his Law, where every one that is ſaved muſt find Acquittance and Acceptance. Forum Mundi, is of two kinds, 1. Common, wherein the actions of men are judged of, either by Vogue and Reports of the Vulgar, or by the Courts of Judicature among men. 2. It is more ſpecial in Eccleſiis, to be tried and judged in a Church of Chriſt. 3. Forum Conſcientiae, where God ſits a Judge, and brings the Sinner to the Bar, and Trial, and accordingly Sentence of Condemnation or Juſtification paſſeth upon a man, or on his Actions. As to the firſt of theſe, all men are tried as unto their State, and they are there juridically acquitted or condemned in foro Dei, i. e. legis, either by a Judgment on their own righteouſneſs, which is called legal righteouſneſs, or upon a Judgment on them according to the righteouſneſs of another, called Evangelical, becauſe its of abſolute promiſe to a Sinner, and the freeſt Gift in the World. As to the ſecond Forum, the Courts of the World, the World many ways call Courts of Judicature, and will have Judgment upon men, in the former Court the Judgment is always according to truth, but its not ſo here, for a man may be acquitted there, and condemned here, both Perſons and Actions; nay, let me ſay, a perſon may be acquitted in foro Dei, and yet his Actions juſtly condemned in foro humano, i. e. mundi, but then I do not ſay, thoſe actions are accepted in foro Dei, but are burnt for Hay and Stubble, as men do juſtifie themſelves and others in this foro mundi very often; ſo doth God himſelf juſtifie his children and their actions that are ſo condemned by, and ungrateful to the World: God doth as it were come into it, and vindicate his accuſed Saints, where Satan takes it upon him as his Prerogative to accuſe the Brethren, when his Accuſations run high, God looks upon his Honour engaged to vindicate ſuch, in thoſe eminent, unaccountable, and condemned Actions which they do for his Names ſake. Here we read of God's own vindicating and bearing Teſtimony to the actions of his children that looked ſtrange in the eye of the World. God's juſtifying thoſe Actions before the World is called Juſtification, and their Actions Righteouſneſs; not that the perſons were juſtified thereby, but that they were approved fruits of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, received by Faith; yea we find, when God comes into the Court of the World to declare Perſons or Actions, to be approved by him, its uſually in ſome extraordinary thing wherein they were Eminent, and ſuffered much thereupon, at leaſt in their good Name, if not otherwiſe.
§. 4. In this caſe, God juſtifies the Act of Phineas, in taking upon him to execute Judgment in the caſe of Zimri and Cosbi, the action lay condemnable in Phineas, as a raſh action, which proceeded from an uſurped Authority, he being not High-Prieſt, nor having any particular Commiſſion from Moſes. This Action God teſtifies to as a holy and righteous Act, (tho it looked ſo extrajudicial) and ſhould be looked upon as a righteous act to all Generations. Phineas was a juſtified perſon long before, Numb. 25.12, 13. Pſal. 106.30, 31. So Abel offered a more excellent ſacrifice than Cain, was he not in an accepted and juſtified ſtate before God? for God firſt accepted Abel, and then his Offering, and becauſe his Offering, notwithſtanding God's acceptation, was condemned by Cain, and no doubt by his Poſterity, he obtained witneſs that he was righteous, foreign, whereby he was witneſſed unto, for God witneſſed in foro mundi, to the righteouſneſs of Abel, i. e. to his Juſtification, in that he made it appear by his manifeſted acceptance, undoubtedly Fire came down from Heaven and conſumed the Sacrifice; here the Apoſtle ſaith, God teſtifying of his Gifts, and this was a teſtimony of his Perſon that he was righteous, but this is not the juſtification of his Perſon, for if he had not been juſtified in foro Dei, yea Conſcientiae too, he could not by faith have offered a Sacrifice ſo well pleaſing to God, wherefore to ſhew to the World that he was an accepted perſon, God teſtifies to his Services. So Enoch, he had ſome eminent Teſtimony from God before his Tranſlation, againſt all the calumniating and blaſpheming Poſterity of Cain. So Noah alſo, in his Generation a Preacher of the righteouſneſs of faith, he had a Teſtimony in the Ark, and the Salvation that he and his Houſe had to both the Worlds and yet this Teſtimony was not that Juſtification which he had before God, for he was heir of the righteouſneſs of God by faith, foreign, he was become the heir, not upon building the Ark, but was ſo before.
§. 5. God's appearing then to witneſs to the Ways and Actions of his People in the World, which the children of men are ſtill condemning of, and their Perſons and Profeſſion for, is not their Juſtification before God, but an eminent fruit thereof. Abraham when he offered up his Son Iſaac, he exerted the eminent fruit of a tried Faith, which the World would be apt to condemn as one of the heinouſeſt and moſt unnatural in the World, therefore God juſtifies this Action of his, and therein recommends him for the moſt Eminent Believer, he not ſtaggering in his faith of the promiſe notwithſtanding, believing that God could raiſe his ſon from the dead, and if he ſhould ſlay his ſon, that God would do it rather than not fulfil his Promiſe. Now I dare appeal to our moſt ingenuous Oppoſers, whether they think Abraham was not juſtified before this great Action of his, and what can James his Juſtification be more than God's declaring in foro mundi, that this ſtrange action of his, wherein he was a Wonder to the World, and for which he ſtood ready to be condemned by it, was highly approv'd by him, and an eminent Fruit and Teſtimony of his Faith. It appears by the context that James underſtood nothing but that a True Faith brings forth Works, witneſſing in foro mundi, to the truth of it, and James 2.10. and that the offender of the Law in one point, is guilty of all, and that he that is ſaved by faith, is ſaved by a lively faith, ſuch as will ſhew it ſelf by works, and ſuch as God will teſtifie to by his Word or Providence, or both, that they are wrought of God.
§. 6. The like may be ſaid of Rahab, The World would condemn her for a treacherous Harlot in betraying her Native Country to deſtruction: But this action of juſtified Rahab being a ſignal fruit of her Eminent Faith, is ſignally owned by God himſelf, and her ſtrange action juſtified to the World, that when the Walls of Jericho fell, her houſe ſtood only, and ſhe ſaved with the Honour and Renown of an exemplary believer in the Church, yea God honoured her ſo far, as to come into the Line of the Meſſiah. Hath not God gloriouſly juſtified his Saints, i. e. by teſtifying to their Gifts and Services to the World, whence elſe hath been that eminent Spirit viſible and aſtoniſhing to the World, whereby they have not only rejoiced to ſuffer for the Name of Jeſus in the ſpoil of their goods, but in giving their bodies to death, and overcame all the Reproaches and Blaſphemies of their cruel enemies, by faith in the blood of the Lamb, and Word of the Teſtimony: Was not that admirable Preſence of God with them, not only which we read of Heb. 11. but in other Martyrologies. The Witneſs of God to their Gifts in and to the convincing the World, to which they had never come, had they not been freely juſtified by God before. I am aſhamed to ſee that Men ſhould think that the Saints in their great Services and Sufferings ſhould be of ſuch ſervile and baſe Spirits, as to be bargaining with God by their Works when they were frying in the Flames.
§. 7. There is alſo a Juſtification in foro Conſcientiae, which is received by faith, and cannot be received but by faith, and its a cloſing in with the judgment of God according to truth. Juſtification muſt be before any perſon can receive it; the Aſſembly do moſt accurately tell us what Juſtification by faith is, We ſay not, that no man that ſays he believes not his Juſtification is not juſtified, nor every one that ſays he believes it, is juſtified, but we ſay, That every one that believes truly is juſtified, and every one that's justified, ſhall believe.
God's Juſtification of a Sinner, is his Juridical Sentence concerning his Eternal State and Condition, which admits not of majus and minus in God, but admits of different times of application, and of degrees of manifeſtation; it finds nothing in the creature, nor makes any change but relative, wherein God is firſt in relation, juſtifying and applying that Grace to us, and therefore we are wholly paſſive, till by vertue of Union with Chriſt by the Spirit, the Spirit of Life raiſing us from the dead, we are enabled to believe whereby we make a ſenſible re-application of the Grace of Juſtification to our ſelves, and being juſtified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. But more of this infra.
§. 8. The Judge of all the World muſt judge righteouſly, i. e. according to his righteous Law, for as that is norma officii to us, ſo it is of judicii to him; now here is the Myſtery, How God can juſtifie a ſinner according to moſt perfect law, and do it freely foreign. Mr. H. in his Medio. p. 5. hath this Quaery, The Goſpel requires Faith, Repentance, new Obedience, how then are we juſtified and ſaved by Grace? how is it free when it is not vouchſafed but upon condition? This difficulty hath made ſome run into the Extream, that the Covenant of Grace is without conditions. Reſp. It is ſuch an extream Argument againſt the Neonomian Doctrine, that all their Skill and Sophiſtry neither hath, nor can anſwer, and the Argument ſtands thus, If nothing doth eſſentially diſtinguiſh a Covenant of Works from a Covenant of Grace, but the Conditionality of it, then a Covenant of Grace muſt have no Condition, and whatever Covenant hath a Condition, is a Covenant of Works; but there's nothing can diſtinguiſh; becauſe the Antecedent is true, therefore the Conſequence. There can be nothing in ſenſe to invalidate either Propoſition, for the diſtinguiſhing formal difference between the one Covenant and the other, muſt be Condition, and no Condition, where the true Oppoſition lieth, for the promiſe of both Covenants are life, therefore the ſpecial and formal difference lieth in conditionality, & none; now to ſay, it lies in the nature of the condition, will appear moſt abſurd. 1. If it be the littleneſs of the Condition makes a Covenant of Grace; this I deny, for the promulgated Covenant of Works was laid upon the leaſt condition imaginable, the forbearing to eat in Apple, but let us hear what Mr. H. will ſay to make a Covenant of Works a Covenant of Grace, p. 5. I ſay readily the Grace of God and of the Goſpel is free, and therefore not conditional; well, but how, wherein is the freedom? In that it accepts of the ſinners Faith and Repentance, when he needs not, or when according to the law he was not tied to it. Reſp. Was the Man awake or aſleep when he ſaid this, he ſays its free becauſe God accepts of his Faith and Repentance, that's the ſame freedom whereby I may be ſaid to give a Man a Horſe when I accept of Money which he was to pay me for it: Is not a Covenant a Bargain? Was it not ſo to Adam? Was it poſſible he ſhould ſay, he need not accept it? What doth he make of his New-Law-Covenant? need not God keep it? where was God's Faithfulneſs and Truth when he made that Covenant? doth not that bind him to accept our Faith and Obedience as the Condition? According to the law he is not tied; Why will an honeſt Man ſpeak ſo equivocally to juſtifie a cauſe his Conſcience tells him, or ought to do, that it is nought, he ſays, according to the law, I pray what law? the Old or New? Doth he not ſay, that Faith and Repentance is the Condition of the New Law? and is not God bound to accept of them by that Law? Oh but he is not bound to accept of them by the old law: It is juſt as if a Man brings the Money that I ſold ſuch a Commodity for, and I tell him, I will not take the Money unleſs he will confeſs, I gave him it freely, no ſaith he, I make a tender of the Money with which I bought it, I will neverly for the Bargain, and ſay you gave it me, when I bought it, to which I reply, I am not bound by law to accept the Money. What law? the law that the King and Parliament made for the Pole-Tax. H. Unleſs Man's Obedience were perfect, but he is bound by the new law to accept imperfect. Obedience. H. our Divines ſay uſually, becauſe its not of merit— but this labours with ſome defect of light, if man had performed the condition of the covenant of Works, it might have bin ſaid upon this reaſon that Life and Salvation had bin ſtill of Grace and Free, as not merited, while theſe conſiderations hinder merit. How might Man's Obedience in the Covenant of Works be ſaid to be of Free Grace? becauſe his were not proportionable to the reward; no more are good Angels works to this day, there was Grace in making the Covenant on eaſie Terms, but when the Covenant is made, the Reward is merited ex pacto, by the performed Conditions: Hence the Apoſtle's reaſoning remains unſhaked, they that are juſtified of debt, are not of grace.
§. 9. Mr. Humphry makes a fearful bungling about this buſineſs, and lends us for our help a diſtinction about merit, and ſaith, There is a debt or merit of Commutative Juſtice, and of diſtributive; it is impoſſible that any ſhould engage the Almighty in the former. Reſp. But the Almighty may engage himſelf in it to the creature, may there not be place for commutative Juſtice between a ſuperiour and inferiouur? between a King and People all obligatory Covenants upon terms of mutual performances are primarily fulfilled in a way of commutative Juſtice; diſtributive Juſtice comes in for redreſs in caſe of non-performance of mutual agreements, or upon complaint thereof. Of the latter [i. e. diſtributive Juſtice] there is a merit or debt upon compact or ſtrict retaliation; it is true, that there is nothing Man does, or can do in the ſtate of innocency could merit upon ſtrict retaliation. Reſp. I ſuppoſe he means by his term of ſtrict retaliation, rewarding juſt ſo much as the value of the work, more, i. e. to reward man juſt as much as the value of not eating an Apple, but the reward promiſed, was infinitely more, and it was promiſed upon ſo ſmall a Condition, therefore upon the performance of the condition, the reward, as great as it was, would have become due ex pacto, and hence a true debt. But he tells us what a Compact is.
§. 10. Mr. H. A Compact may be two-fold, Ʋpon Terms equal or unequal: Ʋpon terms equal, we know the reward doth become debt, and may he ſaid to be merit; notwithſtanding by way of ſtrict Retaliation, or upon account of equal benefit, the performance of the condition would require no ſuch matter. Reſp. Equality of Terms in an Agreement is, ſo much for ſo much, the mutual performance whereof is ſtrict retaliation. Tho the Term is foreign to the matter in hand, for it belongs to revenge in giving a man as good, or rather bad as he brings. I deny, that Compact upon Terms equal or unequal, do alter the nature thereof, ſo that the Condition is not a Merit, and the Promiſe a Reward. He ſaith, If I agree to give a man 2 s. 6 d. for his days work, I muſt pay the debt tho the Emolument be not worth half the money. Here he anſwers himſelf in his ſtrict retaliation, and tho the condition is worth little, yet it is the Compact that makes the Debt upon the performance. And he ſays, If I promiſe a poor man a ſhilling for leading my Horſe to the next Stile, its Alms, an act of Grace. Reſp. It ſeems here's but 18 d. difference between Works and Grace. An agreement to give a man 2 s. 6 d. for a Days Work makes a Debt, but an agreement to give a ſhilling for leading his Horſe, is Alms; he allowed the mans Days-work prov'd not to be worth above a ſhilling, and yet ex pacto, he was indebted to him 2 s. 6 d. and why I pray, Is it not as good a Debt to the poor man that he bargains with to lead his Horſe to the next Stile? he will ſay, it was not worth ſo much in ſtrict Retaliation, no more was the other man's Days-work; if he had given the man the ſhilling, and afterward ſaid, prethee lead my Horſe to the next Stile, he would have ſaid, ay Maſter, and thank you too; but if he agree with him, when he hath done his work, he could demand the Wages as Debt, tho it may be he would thank him for ſo eaſie a Bargain. He tells us, The firſt Covenant was upon Terms equal, and if man did his duty, tho with the ability God gives him (as if I agree with a man to work with my Tools) the reward is of Merit or Debt. Anſw. If he means equal in value, I deny that the Firſt Covenant was ſo any more than the New Law covenant: Ay, but if he means equal as to obligation in a way of commutative Juſtice, i. e. that God is as much bound to perform his part after covenanting, as Man to perform his, then I ſay the New Covenant is as equal as the old, for each is but equality of obligation; but he goes on, When he gives us the reward, which is eternal life thro his Son, upon obedience which is imperfect [that is upon a new covenant upon terms unequal] he gives it freely. R. Here it plainly appears what he means by terms equal and unequal, that it is as to intrinſick value, that a covenant of works are terms equal (wherein alſo he contradicts himſelf) i. e. man's perfect obedience in the ſaid covenant is ſo much for ſo much, as good as the reward, its a days-work in it ſelf worth the Wages promiſed, whereas before he ſaith it was not; but now he ſaith, when the wages are more worth than the work, its on terms unequal; but the terms unequal do not change the nature of a Bargain to make it none; for there are different Bargains, ſome better, and ſome worſe; but is the new law covenant a better Bargain or worſe than that of the covenant of Works? I take it to be much the harder, becauſe of the incapacity of the Covenantee: Man in the ſtate of Perfection could much eaſier perform the condition of the covenant by perfect obedience than he can now in his lapſt ſtate perform the condition of the new law by imperfect, as may eaſily be demonſtrated from theſe mens Principles, they affirming, that the performing the condition is not by natural power and ſtrength.
§. 11. But Mr. H. returns after this excurſion in ſaying, p. 7. That the grace of Juſtification is purchaſed by Chriſt, is apparent by Rom. 3.24. The purchaſe of Grace (being free in the exerting its ſelf) is a contradiction; for what God doth by Grace, he doth ſua ſponte, without motion thereto by externals, and its meerly of his own good will and pleaſure, I will have mercy on whom I will: Our Divines ſay, the covenant of Grace was not purchaſed, no not by Chriſt; but the way of the execution of this covenant was in and through Chriſt and his Purchaſe; that God might not infringe his Juſtice in the leaſt in exerting his Grace to the Salvation of Sinners. This Mr. H. oppoſeth and ſaith, If the Notion of free did ly in the conception our Divines ordinarily frame, then could it not be the fruit of Chriſt's purchaſe; for how can that which is purchaſed in their ſenſe, be free? Reſp. There's much more reaſon to ſay, how can that which is purchaſed in Mr. H.'s ſenſe be free? There's leſs reaſon that a thing purchaſed in the Original and Fountain ſhould be free, than what is purchaſed in the Streams; therefore Mr. H's. Anſwer cuts off his own legs; for if the Grace of God be not free becauſe it comes to us in and through Chriſt, and as the fruits of Chriſt's Purchaſe, then when this gratia dans is purchaſed how can that be free? He proceeds
§ 13. Whereas it is this Grace certainly is the main fruit of Chriſt's Redemption, viz. that the new Covenant ſhould be eſtabliſhed. Reſp. Here it appears that he aſſerts, That the Grace whereby the New Covenant was made, was purchaſed grace, therefore not free by his own aſſertion, becauſe purchas'd, he ſays, Chriſt purchaſed the Grace of the New Covenant, therefore the covenant and all in it: So you ſee, he will have Purchaſe in our ſenſe, inconſiſtent with Free Grace; but purchaſe in his ſenſe more comprehenſive, to be Free Grace; but now he will have the freeneſs to ly in beſtowing freely the works which ſhould make the reward due to him; To which I anſwer, its one thing to juſtifie for the Works wrought, and another to give them: Mr. H. calls this latter, infuſion of Grace and Sanctification; but Juſtification is declaring a man righteous by the ſaid Works.: Now if this Grace giving the condition be purchaſed, then Faith and Obedience was purchaſed by Chriſt, contrary to Mr. H. who ſaith it comes only as the gift of election: Hence it appears, that he will have Grace in the root to be purchaſed as to exhibition of the whole covenant, but not as to the performance of the main part of it.
§. 13. See then how the Grace of God is made free in the ſenſe of the Apoſtle, not upon the account that man cannot merit at God's hand, ſeeing God can be a debtor ex pacto regimine gratiae paterno. Reſp. God can be a Debtor to ſinful Man ex pacto, but then 1. Its upon pactum abſolutum, not ſuch a Covenant as makes man's works meritorious. 2. It is in and through Chriſt only that God is a Debtor in the way of Juſtice. 3. Its meerly Free Grace that hath brought about the Sinners Salvation by Chriſt, and not purchaſed. by himſelf. 4. God is not, nor ever will be a Debtor to ſinful Man, to juſtifie him for or by any works done by him either here or hereafter. 5. Therefore whatever is the fruit of Free Grace in us, is free in reſpect of us on whom it is beſtowed; we do not merit or deſerve it in the leaſt, neither doth God reward any of his Children regimine foederis operum, ſuch as the New Law is and muſt be, which rewards us upon our own fulfilling the condition, But upon the account here mentioned (before refuted) which is a moſt direct anſwer, becauſe we have ſhewed the indirectneſs and falſity of it— And I declare, that God's Abatement of Terms, and requiring a new Condition, is that which therefore makes it free, ſeeing it is tendred and obtained without performance of the old. Reſp. The changing of Terms in a covenant doth not make it free, if God had changed the terms of the old covenant from perfect obedience to imperfect, it had not made it free, becauſe the condition is Works ſtill, for here the change is but a change from one compact to another, viz. Abatement of terms, and requiring new terms in the room. What if a man gets his Creditor, (of whom he complains he hath a hard Bargain) to make another Bargain upon eaſier terms, this is a favour indeed, but its juſtice, conſidering he had brought him under too hard terms before, but yet he doth not therefore give the commodity to him becauſe he allows him eaſier terms, but makes another Bargain upon other terms. So here, the new law is as much a Bargain as the other, tho upon eaſier terms, which cannot be admitted. He proceeds to refute Auguſtine, about the works of the law, according to Paul's ſenſe, which we ſhall examine when we come upon that Point.
§. 14. We ſhall here gather the ſum of what according to truth, is to be aſſerted and defended againſt Mr. H. and the reſt.
1. That the covenant of Works was not made with Man upon equal Terms, for his perfecteſt Obedience could never be equal with the promiſed Reward.
2. That the New-law Covenant is upon as equal Terms, according to the nature of the Law, and they differ not in nature from the old covenant being works, if they differ in degree, its the covenant which hath made it ſo, and the Promiſe is as much a reward to the imperfection, as it was in the old to a perfect condition, by God's conſtitution.
3. God is free, and can be bound by none but himſelf, and its his Grace to covenant with the creature any way, but when God hath freely, without purchaſe, covenanted upon Terms of the creatures performance, he maketh himſelf a Debtor thereupon, let the Terms be perfect or imperfect.
4. In the pretended new-law covenant, where faith and obedience are the conditions, Man merits ex pacto, and God become a Debtor to him as much as he ſhould have bin to Adam if he had ſtood, hence the Apoſtle cannot mean juſtifying freely by grace in Mr. H's ſenſe: But when we are ſaid to be juſtified freely by Gods grace, is meant, …. That it is of the pleaſure of God's Will, not upon any external Motive, no not of Chriſt's Death, that God exerts the Grace of Juſtification, he is gracious to whom he will.
2. It is free in that the Object of it, upon whom it falleth, is a ſinner every way undone and miſerable, without Works or Qualifications, much leſs deſerving of this Grace, and this is the chief meaning of the Apoſtle in Rom. 3.
3. The providing, giving and beſtowing Chriſt and his righteouſneſs is an high act of Grace, that a ſinner may be juſtified at the Bar of Divine Juſtice, that a ſinner, according to the Myſtery of his Will and gracious Diſpenſation may be fully acquitted thro Chriſt from the fiery Law, and diſcharged from all the charges thereof by the higheſt Juſtice.
4. That as it was Free Grace every way to us, conſidered in our ſelves, therefore a Covenant of Promiſe without conditions required on our part, hence abſolute; ſo it was a higher Covenant of Works to the Second Adam than ever the Firſt was under, and whereas Mr. H. objects and ſays, then we are juſtified by the law: I anſwer, 1. Where did he ever ſee Juſtification but by a Law. 2. He makes his to be by the new Law, which law we deny to be in rerum natura. 3. As we are juſtified by the Grace of God, ſo it is in Chriſt Jeſus, and a Believer in Chriſt needs no New Law to juſtifie him, he is juſtified by the Law in Jeſus Chriſt, and yet freely by Grace.