A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. The Neonomian Doctrine of Iuſtification Examined.
Section 1. Mr. H's. Definition of Juſtification. §. 2. Imperfect Obedience not to be accepted by God to Juſtification. §. 3. Juſtification not without Life. §. 4. Of the Form of Juſtification. 5. What is the account of Chriſt's righteouſneſs. §. 6. Chriſt's Merits put to account are imputed. §. 7. Diſtinction between Pardon, and bearing with our defects. §. 8. A Pardon general, becomes abſolute. §. 9. Juſtification by Infuſion and by Imputation diſtinguiſhed. §. 10. Of Juſtifying the Ʋngodly. §. 11. Whether Old Law Righteouſneſs or New be beſt. §. 12. Mr. H's. Myſtery, which he ſaith Dr. O. did not underſtand.
MR. H. defines Juſtification thus, It is an act of God's free Grace, whereby God imputes to every ſound Believer his Faith for Righteouſneſs, upon the account of Chriſt's Satisfaction and Merit, giving him Pardon and Life as the benefits of it. Right. of God, p. 25.
Reſp. For the Genus he refers the proof to the Aſſembly, but he repreſenteth himſelf ſhort of the Aſſembly, who ſay, Juſtification is an act of God's free Grace unto ſinners, for which they quote Rom. 3.21, 24, 25. Now Juſtification barely conſidered as ſuch, is an act of Juſtifice, unleſs it be ſpoken with this condition, and I find Mr. H's. Notion of it will not bear this connection; for his Juſtification is of a perſon only, that is ſubjectively righteous, our Juſtification and his are diſtinguiſhed toto genere, for he ſaith, the object of his Juſtification is a righteous perſon, to ſuch an one Juſtification is due; its no act of Grace to juſtifie ſuch an one, a ſound Believer. By Faith he means Repentance and New Obedience, as the conditional terms of the New Law, which being performed by any one, he is not juſtified by free Grace, but legally he can challenge it by the New Law.
§. 2. This Faith and New Obedience, tho imperfect, God accepts in the room of perfect righteouſneſs, not accounting it perfect. Reſp. It is abſurd to ſay, God accepts it in the room of perfect; for if ſo, it ſhould come in, in place and room of the perfect in the Covenant of Works, God putting out that condition, and putting in this, but this imperfect comes as terms in another law, ſo it hinders not the terms of another. 2. No, why ſhould God account it perfect if it be as they ſay, but the law of God is perfect, and tho God judgeth the righteouſneſs morally imperfect in compariſon of the righteouſneſs of the firſt law, yet he muſt reckon it a perfect condition of the new law, it being as much as the law requires, and therefore a condition perfectly performed, for elſe it can never be pleaded or imputed at its Bar; but he ſaith, he accepts it, if he accept it its by its ſelf, or for the ſake of a better righteouſneſs; now no law can accept any righteouſneſs by its ſelf, but it muſt be eſteemed by its ſelf to be a full righteouſneſs compleatly to anſwer the demands of the ſaid law; if the law accept it for or in the righteouſneſs of another, it thereby declares the inſufficiency of the man's own righteouſneſs being ſuch as the law cannot juſtifie him for; but the ſufficiency of the other righteouſneſs for which he juſtifies him, this now will bring in Chriſt and his obedience into the new law, where our Neonomians will permit him to have nothing to do, but only as a Legiſlator, as for his Obedience and Satisfaction, it belonged to the old law only, with purchaſe of the new-remedying law. Laſtly, its Nonſence, that any law, or God in a law, ſhould impute Faith and Obedience for righteouſneſs which is not perfectly ſo, according to the law conſtitution, but he doth it upon the account of the Merits and Satisfaction of Chriſt: How upon the account? and is the Merits and Satisfaction of Chriſt put in the Ballance with our imperfect righteouſneſs to make it up? or is Chriſt's righteouſneſs imputed to it that it cannot be, unleſs imputed to the perſon? which he denies, how then muſt we underſtand this Gentleman? for the Satisfaction and Merits of Chriſt is only effective, becauſe Chriſt was ſo kind as to purchaſe Merit, and ſatisfie God for the new law, without which he could not have been juſtified by our imperfect righteouſneſs, and this is all they intend by it, for the Merits of Chriſt's ſake, a plain and facile ſimile may be given, A Man ows a great deal of Money to his Creditor that's ſuing of him in Court, a friend of the Debtor and Creditor interpoſeth and brings the Creditor to a Compoſition of 10 s. 5 s. or 1 s. in the pound; theſe Writings brought into the Court, the Action is diſmiſſed for the Merits, Purchaſe and procurement of this perſon, who now brought the Debtor under the new law of Compoſition, which if the Debtor do not pay he is ſuible upon his Compoſition: Now this is all theſe men make of the Merits of Chriſt, its only his bringing God to the New Law Compoſition.
§. 3. Pardon and Life, he adds, as effects of Juſtification: We have already ſhewed what an abſurd thing Juſtification is without Pardon, Pardon being eſſential to it; but it ſeems to be as abſurd, if not more, that there ſhould be Juſtification without life; for if by condemnation a man be dead in law, then certainly, by Juſtification, wherein Condemnation is taken off, the perſon is made alive in law. But Mr. H. will have a man to be juſtified, and both ly under the guilt and condemnation of ſin; for he adds to theſe which he calls Benefits. a right to impunity; ſo that Juſtification lays but in the foundation of impunity, they are not from under punity, Juſtification brings only an expectation of Pardon, Life, Impunity hereafter, but none of theſe are in hand.
§. 4. When I ſay, this Righteouſneſs (or Faith) is the form, I underſtand it in the ſence as theſe Divines do, who ſay, Chriſts righteouſneſs is the form, or Remiſſion is the form, not the form of that Imputation, but of Juſtification paſſively taken. Reſp. Then the plain meaning is that Mr. Humph. underſtands our righteouſneſs to have that place in cauſality of Juſtification, which others give to the righteouſneſs of Chriſt; if other Divines ſay, that Chriſt's is the formal reaſon of Juſtification, in the ſenſe that they take Chriſt's righteouſneſs to be the formal cauſe in the perſon juſtified, he takes a man's own righteouſneſs to ſtand in genere cauſalitatis, this is Diametrical Oppoſition, and therefore not only to be ſcrupled, but to be contradicted and deteſted. Hum. Not the form of that Imputation, but of Juſtification paſſively taken. Reſp. Mr. H. confounds his Notion by his obſcure Logick; for there is a great difference between the form of a thing, and formalis ratio agentis, the form is an eſſential cauſe, and enters the effect, the effect made up of the vis of all the cauſes hath exiſtence from concourſe of all the cauſes, the formalis ratio is cauſa movens efficientem, & non ingreditur effectum, tho the form doth, which is another thing. Now Juſtification in the abſtract is forma juſtificationis in concreto, or in the perſon juſtified, and there is not any other form, as Juſtitia is the form of juſtus, or of a man imputed juſt, that the imputation makes him legally juſt, to be juſt and imputed ſo is one thing in law, and to be juſtified is another. Now the juſtice of a man is the form of the juſt man, and the formalis ratio of Juſtification, and this he ſaith is the form of Juſtification paſſively taken; this we deny, and for Juſtification is active, but the juſtified is the paſſive, where Juſtification it ſelf is the form. Again, we deny that our righteouſneſs is the formalis ratio of Juſtification; Remiſſion indeed belongs to the form it ſelf, but the formalis ratio of Juſtification is external to the form, and therefore to be conſidered apart from it. This only by the way
§. 5. I add at laſt upon the account of Chriſts Merits, or through Chriſt, or for Chriſts ſake, becauſe this faith of ours or Evangelick Righteouſneſs, hath ſo many defects in the beſt Chriſtians, that if thro the ſacrifice of Chriſt they were not pardoned, and through his Merits thoſe imperfect duties which are done accepted, it could not be imputed to us for Righteouſneſs. Reſp. Chriſt is beholden to him to bring him at laſt, tho but at the fagg end of Juſtification: But how comes Juſtification to be at laſt upon the account of Chriſt, for we are formally juſtified upon the account of our own righteouſneſs, i. e. perfectly ſo, for what is formally exiſtent is perfectly ſo, and that by our own righteouſneſs, i. e. upon the account of it, for the effect quod è cauſis exiſtit, is ſuch upon the account of all the cauſes, but eſpecially upon account of the form; now he that is formally thus juſtified, muſt be upon all accounts juſtified, and needs nothing to be added to it: Why then upon the account of Chriſt's Merits? why, becauſe Chriſt purchaſed a law of righteouſneſs which could not juſtifie perfectly, but leaves the perſon juſtified in a need of further righteouſneſs for Juſtification, if the Merits and Sacrifice of Chriſt muſt come in upon the account of which a man is juſtified, then he is not juſtified before, and Chriſt's righteouſneſs is the juſtifying righteouſneſs only; for our own leaves us unjuſtified by Mr. H's own confeſſion, i. e. it leaves us in ſuch a caſe that no man of ſenſe can ſay we are juſtified; for by his own words, the righteouſneſs of the new law is not, cannot be imputed to us for righteouſneſs, unleſs it be pardoned and accepted in Jeſus Chriſt, and therefore this law cannot juſtifie any one upon his inherent righteouſneſs, for its moſt abſurd to ſay, it can juſtifie, when it cannot impute its own righteouſneſs by reaſon of the defects thereof.
§. 6. I find Mr. H. is at a great loſs in eſtabliſhing his Notion upon a right bottom, he ſeems to ſuſpect that Chriſt may come off a loſer by it, and he will moſt fearfully. I do more eſpecially ſignifie thereby that Chriſts righteouſneſs which cannot be imputed to us as a formal cauſe of our Juſtification is and muſt be very carefully brought to our account, and granted to be imputed, and the meritorious cauſe of our acceptation.
Reſp. I am glad to ſee this ſaying, wherein he hath overthrown his own Doctrine, tho uttered in a great contradiction; for he ſaith, Chriſt's cannot be imputed, and then it muſt be imputed; but why cannot it in the firſt place? That which is put to our account in Juſtification, whether as to the part or to the whole of our righteouſneſs is imputed, but according to Mr. H. the Merits of Chriſt's is put to our account, and therefore the Merits of Chriſt (to ſpeak more diſtinctly) thus put to our account, are the materialis & formalis ratio of our Juſtification; for if the merits of Chriſt be put to our account in Juſtification, its but trifling to ſay, its only the effects, if one man pay for another in part or whole, its the money it ſelf paid that is put to his account, and therefore imputed to him in Court; and indeed he ingeniouſly confeſſeth he learned of Mr. B. to mend his Notion, and allowed Chriſt's Merit to be the material cauſe of our Juſtification; but that which he amends with one hand he ſpoils with another, and thereby runs into groſſer logical Abſurdities, ſaying, Becauſe I make our faith the formal in Juſtification. Reſp. Very good, The matter is in one ſubject, in Chriſt, and the form in us another; Cauſa per qua res eſt id quod eſt is in us, ex qua in Chriſt in a legal act, Chriſt's righteouſneſs is but generical, matter which is as much for all the world as a Believer; but the formal part, the proprium & differentia is in the ſubject, Man; this in law is always the meritorious part; Money in general turns no Cauſe there, but its the Propriety that this or that man hath that doth it; now its not Chriſt's righteouſneſs in ſpecial that doth the buſineſs, but righteouſneſs in general that Chriſt hath brought in, as a material part, but its mans righteouſneſs in ſpecial that is the principal eſſential cauſe, according to Mr. H.
§. 7. After this I diſtinguiſh between this pardoning, and bearing with the defects of our Faith, Repentance and new Obedience, which are the condition of the Goſpel Covenant, and ſo our Goſpel Righteouſneſs, or that which is Imputed for Righteouſneſs; and that General or Total Pardon, &c. Reſp. If Juſtification be upon performing theſe as a law condition, what need all this talk about bearing with our defects? If the Goſpel Covenant run in theſe Terms, he that doth what he can ſhall live; therefore Man doing what he can, leaves no room for bearing with defects, he fulfils the Law in doing what he can. Again, if this be imputed to us for righteouſneſs by the law, and we diſcharged and declared righteous thereon, it is enough. Where alſo obſerve what imputation the Neonomians owns, its imputation of our own righteouſneſs to our ſelves: And ſuch a righteouſneſs as is none, becauſe imperfect and ſinful; but yet imputed for righteouſneſs to us, as if it were perfect; what's the reaſon then that its found defective after imputation, if imperfect by imputation comes in the room and doth as well as perfect? Nay, what's the reaſon that this righteouſneſs that is ſuch a paultrey one, which can do nothing (by their own conceſſion) in Juſtification without Chriſts, muſt have the honour of being imputed to us? but Chriſt muſt not, cannot be imputed, and why I pray? Becauſe tho' its acknowledged to be perfect and compleateſt righteouſneſs, yet it may not be imputed to us for ours, becauſe performed by Chriſt and not by us. I pray let me ask, whether it would not more comport with the honour of God, the nature of a Goſpel and common Reaſon, to impute legally to a delinquent the payment of another which is perfect full and compleat, then to impute to him the payment of his whole debt, for 10 per Cent. or 6 d. or 4 d. Nay, after this acceptance how honourable would it be to the Court, to ſue to the King for the pardon of the Priſoner for paying ſo little.
§. 8. But let us come to the other part of the diſtinction — And that general and total Pardon which the Covenant promiſes, and becomes Abſolute upon performing the Condition. Reſp. Either the Neonomians have loſt their underſtandings, or think all other Men have, and ſo think they may impoſe what they pleaſe upon them; for here he diſtinguiſhes betwixt a conditional Goſpel Covenant, and a Goſpel Covenant upon conditions, a total Covenant and a partial, a total upon conditions, and a partial abſolute upon performance of conditions, and all theſe one new law Covenant; a Covenant that pardons upon conditions, and a Covenant abſolutely pardoning upon conditions. The total pardon, if that which pardons all the World upon conditions not performed, and yet it damns them too for non performances, a pardoning Covenant that damns all, for it remains not a pardon upon conditions when any one performs the conditions, its then abſolute; but did ever any one know that a conditional Covenant when the condition is performed abſolute, i.e. without conditions? if any Man buy a Houſe of his Neighbour for a Summ of Money, will he ſay after he has paid his Money, my Neighbour gave me this Houſe, for an abſolute promiſe is a promiſe of free Gift. He proceeds, The one of theſe is that very Grace, or Act of Grace it ſelf, as goes into that Act of Imputation, or Act that imputes our Faith for Righteouſneſs when the other ſtill is the Effect or benefit following juſtification. Reſp. The Man is in a Wood: The one of theſe an act of Grace, which of them? That which hath conditional pardon without performance, or that which upon performance becomes abſolute, the total general, or the partial, particular, which I know not, but one it is; that is an Act of Grace going into the Act of Imputation: Imputation is an Act of Juſtice in ſtrict acceptation, becauſe its never but of righteouſneſs, tho' to bring righteouſneſs to a ſinner, to whom the Law imputes righteouſneſs is an act of Grace, as Juſtification is, but it muſt not be his own righteouſneſs, for that excludes Grace.
§. 9. He is a little cautious of Mr. B's. opinion, that Juſtification is the making us righteous, but he ſaith he will diſtinguiſh, there is a making a Man juſt by infuſion or by Imputation; that by infuſion, is Regeneration, which the Papiſts hold, and which we diſtinguiſh from Juſtification.
Reſ. The righteouſneſs by which they'll have a man juſtified is that of Regeneration, and that of Works, the Papiſts way has more of Grace in it, becauſe theirs is Juſtification of the ungodly, as Regeneration is Sanctifying the ungodly. Some he ſaith are for Juſtification by pardon, and ſo a Man is righteous by non-imputation of Sin, but he is not for this neither, becauſe he keeps pardon and non imputation of Sin for a conſequent of Juſtification; he will have a Man juſt in the Eye of the Law, and yet under the imputation of Sin; well how will he have it to be? Its by imputation of what righteouſneſs? Chriſts? no, its by Imputation of our Faith to us for righteouſneſs.—Our Faith and Evangelical Obedience being imperfect and ſinful, and we are unrighteous in the Eye of the Law for all that, but God in his judging us according to the Law of Grace, doth allow of that, [i. e. Sin] for Chriſt's ſake, inſtead of all which the Law requires to our Juſtification.
Reſp. Here you ſee what a parcel of righteouſneſs this New Law righteouſneſs is, its imperfect ſinful as to Sins of omiſſion and commiſſion and we are for all this righteous in the eye of the moral Law, but God judging by the Law of Grace, he allows all the Sin againſt his own Law for Chriſt's ſake, Chriſt hath merited Gods allowing our ſinful righteouſneſs, i. e. Unrighteouſneſs and juſtified us for it, but ſeeing here is all this done by the Law of Grace, how comes it to paſs that it doth not pardon theſe Sins, but they muſt go to another Bar for Pardon? Why, becauſe the Law of Grace, tho' it juſtifies the performer it pardons no Sin, becauſe no Law can ſuppoſe its own condition to be ſinful, but if there be Sin in the condition (as theſe Men ſay again and again there is) the Law of Grace allows it, (its certainly an Antinomian Law) allows that Sin that Gods moſt Holy Law condemns, God here muſt deny himſelf; and to ſay he allows it for Chriſts ſake, is to make Chriſt the Miniſter of Sin, die for allowance of Sin, and eſtabliſhing of it by Law, and if God by a new Law hath eſtabliſhed this ſinful Obedience inſtead of all which the old Law required, what need of asking pardon of the ſaid Law? Gods abolition or relaxation of the old Law, and ſetting us upon Obedience to a New Law, and the performances thereof inſtead of what the old Law required, freed us from Sin and there needs no pardon for not performing perfect obedience, for that would have been ſin in the eye of the new law, it requiring imperfect obedience, imperfection and ſinfulneſs being the formality of the condition, and therefore it muſt needs forbid perfection as moſt contrary to it, and condemn all glorified Saints.
§. 10. By this may that expreſſion of the Apoſtle he rightly underſtood, God juſtifies the ungodly, not in ſenſu divlſo, ſo that he that is ſo before his Juſtification is no longer ſo afterwards, but in ſenſu compoſito, our Faith or Evangelical Obedience in regard to the law [he ſhould have ſaid the law of Works] or in regard of thoſe Works that are required by the law to our juſtification, are no righteouſneſs within its own nature [therefore unrighteous] would juſtifie us; but God conſtitutes it ſo by the law of the Goſpel, and according to that law imputes it to us for righteouſneſs.
Reſp. I need ſay no more to this, but that it is both in ſenſu diviſo & compoſito an ungodly interpretation, That God ſhould make that righteouſneſs by an after law, which he had made moral unrighteouſneſs by a former; and impute that by one law for righteouſneſs to Juſtification, which he had imputed by another law for ſin to condemnation: Is God as Man that he ſhould ly, or as the Son of Man that he ſhould repent? The ſence of the place is not difficult, it is that juſtifies a ſinner as ſuch, or elſe its no act of Free Grace, that when the Grace of Juſtification toucheth on the perſon of a ſinner, he is no more godly than when the Grace of Regeneration toucheth upon him; tho the Grace of God lays hold on a ſinner in both theſe reſpects, finding them ungodly in all reſpects, yet it leaves them not ſo: His enſuing Suppoſition is very impertinent, ſuppoſing that which never was nor never will be, viz. That a Believer living regenerate can never be juſtified by the law of works, by his own righteouſneſs; No, he can be juſtified by no law, neither did God ever make any law to account any mans unrighteouſneſs, righteouſneſs: I can call that unrighteouſneſs which the law of Works condemns, and God never intended by his Grace, nor Chriſt never died to purchaſe ſuch a Juſtification; far be it.
§. 11. Mr. H. ſhewing ſome diſreliſh of Mr. B. for agreeing with Bellarmine and the Council of Trent in the Doctrine of Infuſion, which he ſaith he took up of Le Blanc, That God doth make men righteous by inherent Grace before he doth juſtifie them. A thing that Mr. H. muſt grant according to his Principles, tho he will diſtinguiſh nomine tenus only, as to the ſame thing, calling inherent Grace in reſpect of Juſtification righteouſneſs, and in reſpect of Sanctification Holineſs, according to a ſuppoſed diſſerent imputation. He accordingly diſtinguiſheth of a threefold making a man juſt. 1. By Converſion or Regeneration, and this Auguſtine and the Papiſts [he might have added Mr. B. and the Quakers.] 2. By Pardon, and this is Mr. Wotton's. Or 3. By the righteouſneſs of God, and this is my Juſtification, I will call it mine.
Reſp. As he underſtands the righteouſneſs of God much good may it do him. I deſire it not, I know no ſound Proteſtant will put in for a ſhare in his Righteouſneſs or Juſtification, nor deſire either like his. We will let him alone to chide the Papiſts about infuſion of righteouſneſs, and let him clear himſelf from being a Papiſt in the Point of Juſtification if he can; let us ſee how he acquits himſelf, The Papiſts Opinion is, that the Grace of God infuſed is the formal righteouſneſs that juſtifies us according to the law of works; they of Trent thought of no other; but our imperfect Faith and new Obedience is a conformity to that which God hath made a condition of life by the law of Grace, and is our formal righteouſneſs according to that law, being made ſo by God when he imputes it to us for righteouſneſs. By the Evangelical Law this is our righteouſneſs; we are made righteous, i. e. not guilty of the non-performance of the condition, according to Mr. B.
Reſp. According to his own Quotation the Papiſts hold as Mr. B. and he, that habitual righteouſneſs is infuſed by God, ſo far as that a man endued therewith may be accounted truly righteous; they do ſuggeſt that they do not intend a perfect righteouſneſs, but ſo much as may admit at leaſt of an acceptillation, which Mr. H. gives us to underſtand the Neonomians approve of, and Mr. Fox and others tell us the Notion of a New Law was long ago among the Papists, and there's no doubt now our Neonomians have ſo briskly Trumpt up that old muſty piece of Popery, they will willingly fall in Hand-and-Glove with them, and rectifie their flaws according to the Neonomian Edition, they will call their works Evangelical, and calculate them to the height of the new Law, and carry all their merits thither, ſeeing there's in all probability the faireſt Market, and they bear the beſt Price there, their unrighteouſneſs will be called righteouſneſs, and his ſins will be allowed, there is no need of ſo many Indulgences, for one new-law-allowance will paſs for all. Again, do not the Papiſts ſpeak of the ſame Works, Faith, Repentance, New Obedience? and what if they ſay they are the meaſure of conformity to the Law of Works? do they ſay they are juſtified by them abſolutely conſidered? do they not ſay for the ſake of Chriſt's Merits? why may not they be as well juſtified by the old-law-works for the merits of Chriſt's righteouſneſs as our Neonomians, by a new-law-righteouſneſs through the merits of Chriſt's righteouſneſs; for of the two, I had a thouſand times rather truſt to Juſtification by an old law righteouſneſs through the merits of Chriſt, than to a new-law-righteouſneſs through our own merits; for Paul we know, and the old law we know, but as for the new law and the righteouſneſs thereof, we ſay, who are ye? and what is the Evangelical? in plain Engliſh, it is a plain contradiction to the law of works; when that chargeth all the world as guilty before God, this new law ſaith ſin maketh them not guilty, but is their righteouſneſs; and the Evangelical Law finds them not guilty of non performance of the condition. The Moral law ſaith, if a man kills another he is guilty of non-performance of the condition, but the Evangelical ſaith, tho he kills a man, if he repent, and give ſome Alms, his killing a man makes his other obedience but imperfect, which is the true nature of the condition, and therefore he is not guilty of the non-performance of the condition.
§. 12. There's a myſtery here which he ſaith Dr. O. nor Mr. B. never gave its due conſideration, for Dr. O. ſaith, There's an imputation of a thing to us that is ours, and that is judging it ours, and dealing with us accordingly, or of a thing that is not ours, and that is by donation, and dealing with us according to it made ours, our righteouſneſs cannot, but Chriſts righteouſneſs muſt be imputed to our Juſtification. To which he thus anſwers, As there is an imputing to a man a thing that is his, and a thing not his, ſo there is an imputing to a perſon that which is partly his, and partly not his, but that which in the effect becomes his by imputation, this never ſunk into the Dr's mind.
Reſp. Sure the Doctor was a very ſhallow man, that he could think of the imputation of a thing that is ours, and of a thing not ours, and could not think of a thing partly ours, and partly not ours, but the reaſon of his not mentioning of it was becauſe he did not think any man of conſiſtent Brains, would propoſe ſuch a Juſtification. For ſaith Mr. H. there are two things in the matter, our Faith and God's Imputation —Faith, Repentance and new Obedience is one thing, and having it accepted is another. Now here lies the myſtery, its the making one thing two, our new obedience is ours, and ſanctification, but God's Imputation makes it ours for Juſtification, but its being ours, doth not God eſteem and judge it ours? how comes it now ours? if God eſteem it our righteouſneſs, how is it leſs ours than before? unleſs it be in this manner, a man hath a Cloth Coat on, this is his, another calls it a Silk Coat, this is not his becauſe he had no Silk Coat, but his Cloth Coat is made a Silk Coat by another in imputing it Silk; but he tells us, God's imputation brings nothing with it (in the effect, I ſay) that which was not ours, i. e. the Satisfaction and Merits of Chriſt. Doth the imputation of ours, at the ſame time impute the Satisfaction and Merits of Chriſt? if ſo, then it doth bring ſomething not ours, and then we are juftified by two righteouſneſſes, by ours and not ours; or will he have this a ſingle imputation, and both theſe made one, by mixture partly ours and partly Chriſts? for this anſwers his Notion beſt, partly his, and partly not his; but he excludes Chriſt's merits from imputation again and again. ergo the imputation is only of that which is ours, and his Diſtinction is a Chimaera, and if Dr. O. did not trouble his head with ſuch Whims his Conſideration is not to be blamed. But he tells us, that which is not ours comes after imputation as an effect, the Satisfaction and Merits of Chriſt; but they become not ours by imputation, therefore one leg of his diſtribution is dropt off, for he ſaith, there's an imputation of a thing ours, and a thing not ours; this thing not ours, which is Chriſt's ſatisfaction, he ſaith is not imputed, but comes in as an effect of this imputation of our own righteouſneſs; but why muſt Chriſt's Satiſfaction come in the rear? becauſe a man muſt be juſtified firſt, and then Chriſt's Satisfaction muſt come in to mend the faults of his Juſtification, as a remedying righteouſneſs, the formal part of his Juſtification muſt be pardoned and accepted, and before his Juſtification hath releaſed the man from condemnation and unacceptableneſs to God, he muſt have the effect of his Juſtification; hence this imputation of ours is the cauſe of our pardon and acceptation by Chriſt's Merits, an imputation of our immoral righteouſneſs the cauſe of a perfect▪ But how can we have pardon through the Satisfaction of Chriſt, and acceptance through his merits, without God's imputation of them to us? for if by the rules of Juſtice in the New Law Court our righteouſneſs is imputed to us, how comes it to paſs that when we come ſinners into the old law Court, we can there become righteous, free from condemnation, and accepted by Satisfaction and Merit, and yet not have it imputed to us? this is moſt extra-judicial, for a Court always imputes that ſatisfaction and merit to the perſon diſcharged, which is paid into Court for it: It were eaſie to run endleſly upon ſhewing the groſs abſurdities of this Divinity; for they will have the New Law to impute righteouſneſs which they ſay is no righteouſneſs, and the Old Laws righteouſneſs to be good and perfect, but not imputed; ſo that indeed, according to their Doctrine, the ſinner is ruin'd for want of righteouſneſs: Under the New Law is no righteouſneſs, and under the Old Law good righteouſneſs but no imputation, without which a ſinner can never be juſtified; now if they would permit theſe two laws to meet and agree the matter, ſomething might be done, then the New Law might borrow the Old Laws righteouſneſs, and the Old, the New Laws Imputation.