XIX. Objections against the doctrine of justification by the imputation
of the righteousness of Christ--Personal holiness and obedience not
obstructed, but furthered by it

Objections against the doctrine of justification by the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ--Nature of these objections--Difficulty in
discerning aright the sense of some men in this argument--Justification
by works, the end of all declension from the righteousness of Christ--
Objections against this doctrine derived from a supposition thereof
alone--First principal objection: Imputed righteousness overthrows the
necessity of a holy life--This objection, as managed by them of the
church of Rome, an open calumny--How insisted on by some among ourselves-
-Socinus' fierceness in this charge--His foul dishonesty therein--False
charges on men's opinions making way for the rash condemnation of their
persons--Iniquity of such censures--The objection rightly stated--
Sufficiently answered in the previous discourses about the nature of
faith, and force of the moral law--The nature and necessity of
evangelical holiness elsewhere pleaded--Particular answers unto this
objection--All who profess this doctrine do not exemplify it in their
lives--The most holy truths have been abused--None by whom this doctrine
is now denied exceeds them in holiness by whom it is formerly professed,
and the power of it attested--The contrary doctrine not successful in the
reformation of the lives of men--The best way to determine this
difference--The one objection managed against the doctrine of the apostle
in his own days--Efficacious prejudices against this doctrine in the
minds of men--The whole doctrine of the apostle liable to be abused--
Answer of the apostle unto this objection--He never once attempts to
answer it by declaring the necessity of personal righteousness, or good
works, unto justification before God--He confines the cogency of
evangelical motives unto obedience only unto believers--Grounds of
evangelical holiness asserted by him, in compliance with his doctrine of
justification:--1 Divine ordination--Exceptions unto this ground removed-
-2. Answer of the apostle vindicated--The obligation of the law unto
obedience--Nature of it, and consistency with grace--This answer of the
apostle vindicated--Heads of other principles that might be pleaded to
the same purpose
 

That which remains to put an issue to this discourse is the consideration
of some things that in general are laid in objection against the truth
pleaded for. Many things of that nature we have occasionally met withal,
and already removed; yea, the principal of those which at present are
most insisted on. The testimonies of Scripture urged by those of the
Roman church for justification by works, have all of them so fully and
frequently been answered by Protestant divines, that it is altogether
needless to insist again upon them, unless they had received some new
enforcement; which of late they have not done. That which, for the most
part, we have now to do withal are rather sophistical cavils, from
supposed absurd consequences, than real theological arguments. And some
of those who would walk with most wariness between the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ and justification by our own works, either are in
such a slippery place that they seem sometimes to be on the one side,
sometimes on the other; or else to express themselves with so much
caution, as it is very difficult to apprehend their minds. I shall not,
therefore, for the future dare to say that this or that is any man's
opinion, though it appear unto me so to be, as clear and evident as words
can express it; but that this or that opinion, let it be maintained by
whom it will, I approve or disapprove, this I shall dare to say. And I
will say, also, that the declination that has been from the common
doctrine of justification before God on the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, does daily proceed towards a direct assertion of
justification by works; nor, indeed, has it where to rest until it comes
unto that bottom. And this is more clearly seen in the objections which
they make against the truth than in what they plead in defense of their
own opinions: for herein they speak as yet warily, and with a pretence of
accuracy in avoiding extremes; but in the other, or their objections,
they make use of none but what are easily resolved into a supposition of
justification by works in the grossest sense of it. To insist on all
particulars were endless; and, as was said, most of those of any
importance have already occasionally been spoken unto. There are,
therefore, only two things which are generally pleaded by all sorts of
persons, Papists, Socinians, and others with whom here we have to do,
that I shall take notice of the first and fountain of all others is, that
the doctrine of justification by the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ does render our personal righteousness needless, and overthrows
all necessity of a holy life. The other is, that the apostle James, in
his epistle, does plainly ascribe our justification unto works; and what
he affirms there is inconsistent with that sense of those many other
testimonies of Scripture which we plead for.

   For the first of these, although those who oppose the truth we contend
for do proceed on various different and contradictory principles among
themselves, as to what they exalt in opposition unto it, yet do they all
agree in a vehement urging of it. For those of the church of Rome who
renewed this charge, invented of old by others, it must be acknowledged
by all sober men, that, as managed by them, is an open calumny: for the
wisest of them, and those whom it is hard to conceive but that they knew
the contrary, as Bellarmine, Vasquez, Suarez, do openly aver that
Protestant writers deny all inherent righteousness (Bellarmine excepts
Buyer and Chemnitius); that they maintain that men may be saved, although
they live in all manner of sin; that there is no more required of them
but that they believe that their sins are forgiven; and that whilst they
do so, at though they give themselves up unto the most sensual vices and
abominations, they may be assured of their salvation.

   "Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum!"
   So will men, out of a perverse zeal to promote their own interest in
the religion they profess, wilfully give up themselves unto the worst of
evils, such as false accusation and open calumny; and of no other nature
are these assertions, which none of the writings or preachings of those
who are so charged did ever give the least countenance unto. Whether the
forging and promulgation of such impudent falsehoods be an expedient to
obtain justification by works in the sight of God, they who continue in
them had best consider. For my part, I say again, as I suppose I have
said already, that it is one to me what religion men are of who can
justify themselves in courses and proceedings. And for those among
ourselves who are pleased to make use of this objection, they either know
what the doctrine is which they would oppose, or they do not. If they do
not, the wise man tells them that "he who answereth a matter before he
hear it, it is folly and shame unto him." If they do understand it, it is
evident that they use not sincerity but artifices and false pretences,
for advantage, in their handling of sacred things; which is scandalous to
religion. Socinus fiercely manages this charge against the doctrine of
the Reformed churches, De Servat. par.4, cap.l; and he made it the
foundation whereon, and the reason why, he opposed the doctrine of the
imputation of the satisfaction of Christ, if any such satisfaction should
be allowed; which yet he peremptorily denies. And he has written a
treatise unto the same purpose, defended by Schlichtingius against
Meisnerus. And he takes the same honest course herein that others did
before him; for he charges it on the divines of the Protestant churches,
that they taught that God justifies the ungodly,--not only those that are
so, and whilst they are so, but although they continue so; that they
required no inherent righteousness or holiness in any, nor could do so on
their principles, seeing the imputed righteousness of Christ is
sufficient for them, although they live in sin, are not washed nor
cleansed, nor do give up themselves unto the ways of duty and obedience
unto God, whereby he may be pleased, and so bring in libertinism and
antinomianism into the church. And he thinks it a sufficient confutation
of this doctrine, to allege against it that "neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers," etc., "shall inherit the kingdom of God." And
these are some of those ways which have rendered the management of
controversies in religion scandalous and abominable, such as no wise or
good man will meddle withal, unless compelled for the necessary service
of the church; for these things are openly false, and made use of with a
shameful dishonesty, to promote a corrupt design and end. When I find men
at this kind of work, I have very little concernment in what they say
afterwards, be it true or false. Their rule and measure is what serves
their own end, or what may promote the design and interest wherein they
are engaged, be it right or wrong. And as for this man, there is not any
article in religion (the principal whereof are rejected by him) on whose
account he does with more confidence adjudge us unto eternal ruin, than
he does on this of the satisfaction of Christ, and the imputation of it
unto them that do believe. So much darkness is there remaining on the
minds of the most of men,--so many inveterate prejudices on various
occasions are they pestered withal, especially if not under the conduct
of the same enlightening Spirit,--that some will confidently condemn
others unto eternal flames for those thing
whereon they place, on infallible grounds, their hopes of eternal
blessedness, and know that they love God and live unto him on their
account. But this wretched advantage of condemning all them to hell who
dissent from them is greedily laid hold of by all sorts of persons, for
they thereby secretly secure their own whole party in the persuasion of
eternal salvation, be they otherwise what they will; for if the want of
that faith which they profess will certainly damn men whatever else they
be, and how good soever their lives be, many will easily suffer
themselves to be deceived with a foolish sophism, that then that faith
which they profess will assuredly save them, be their lives what they
please, considering how it falls in with their inclinations. And hereby
they may happen also to frighten poor, simple people into a compliance
with them, whilst they peremptorily denounce damnation against them
unless they do so. And none, for the most part, are more fierce in the
denunciation of the condemnatory sentence against others for not
believing as they do, than those who so live as that, if there be any
truth in the Scripture, it is not possible they should be saved
themselves. For my part, I believe that, as to Christians in outward
profession, all unregenerate unbelievers who obey not the gospel shall be
damned, be they of what religion they will, and none else; for all that
are born again, do truly believe and obey the gospel, shall be saved, be
they of what religion they will as unto the differences that are at this
day among Christians. That way wherein these things are most effectually
promoted is, in the first place, to be embraced by every one that takes
care of his own salvation. If they are in any way or church obstructed,
that church or way is, so far as it does obstruct them, to be forsaken;
and if there be any way of profession, or any visible church state,
wherein any thing or things absolutely destructive of or inconsistent
with these things are made necessary unto the professors of it, in that
way, and by virtue of it, no salvation is to be obtained. In other
things, every man is to walk according unto the light of his own mind;
for whatever is not of faith is sin. But I return from this digression,
occasioned by the fierceness of him with whom we have to do.

   For the objection itself that has fallen under so perverse a ma-
nagement, so far as it has any pretence of sobriety in it, is this and no
other: "If God justify the ungodly merely by his grace, through faith in
Christ Jesus, so as that works of obedience are not antecedently
necessary unto justification before God, nor are any part of that
righteousness whereon any are so justified, then are they no way
necessary, but men may be justified and saved without them." For it is
said that there is no connection between faith unto justification, as by
us asserted, and the necessity of holiness, righteousness, or obedience,
but that we are by grace set at liberty to live as we list; yea, in all
manner of sin, and yet be secured of salvation: for if we are made
righteous with the righteousness of another, we have no need of any
righteousness of our own. And it were well if many of those who make use
of this plea would endeavour, by some other way, also to evidence their
esteem of these things; for to dispute for the necessity of holiness, and
live in the neglect of it, is uncomely.

   I shall be brief in the answer that here shall be returned unto this
objection; for, indeed, it is sufficiently answered or obviated in what
has been before discoursed concerning the nature of that faith whereby we
are justified, and the continuation of the moral law in its force, as a
rule of obedience unto all believers. An unprejudiced consideration of
what has been proposed on these heads will evidently manifest the
iniquity of this charge, and how not the least countenance is given unto
it by the doctrine pleaded for. Besides, I must acquaint the reader that,
some while since, I have published an entire discourse concerning the
nature and necessity of gospel holiness, with the grounds and reasons
thereof, in compliance with the doctrine of justification that has now
been declared. Nor do I see it necessary to add any thing thereunto, nor
do I doubt but that the perusal of it will abundantly detect the vanity
of this charge. Dispensation of the Holy Spirit, chap.5. Some few things
may be spoken on the present occasion:--

   1. It is not pleaded that all who do profess, or have in former ages
professed, this doctrine, have exemplified it in a holy and fruitful
conversation. Many, it is to be feared, have been found amongst them who
have lived and died in sin. Neither do I know but that some have abused
this doctrine to countenance themselves in their sins and neglect of
duty. The best of holy things or truths cannot be secured from abuse, so
long as the sophistry of the old serpent has an influence on the lusts
and depraved minds of men. So was it with them of old who turned the
grace of God into lasciviousness; or, from the doctrine of it,
countenanced themselves in their ungodly deeds. Even from the beginning,
the whole doctrine of the gospel, with the grace of God declared therein,
was so abused. Neither were all that made profession of it immediately
rendered holy and righteous thereby. Many from the first so walked as to
make it evident that their belly was their god, and their end
destruction. It is one thing to have only the conviction of truth in our
minds; another to have the power of it in our hearts. The former will
only produce an outward profession; the latter effect an inward
renovation of our souls. However, I must add three things unto this
concession:--

   (1.) I am not satisfied that any of those who at present oppose this
doctrine do, in holiness or righteousness, in the exercise of faith,
love, zeal, self-denial, and all other Christian graces, surpass those
who, in the last ages, both in this and other nations, firmly adhered
unto it, and who constantly testified unto that effectual influence which
it had into their walking before God. Nor do I know that any can be named
amongst us, in the former ages, who were eminent in holiness (and many
such there were), who did not cordially assent unto that imputation of
the righteousness of Christ which we plead for. I doubt not in the least
but that many who greatly differ from others in the explication of this
doctrine, may be and are eminently holy, at least sincerely so; which is
as much as the best can pretend unto. But it is not comely to find some
others who give very little evidence of their "diligent following after
that holiness without which no man shall see God," vehemently declaiming
against that doctrine as destructive of holiness, which was so fruitful
in it in former days.

   (2.) It does not appear as yet, in general, that an attempt to in-
troduce a doctrine contrary unto it has had any great success in the
reformation of the lives of men. Nor has personal righteousness or
holiness as yet much thrived under the conduct of it, as to what may be
observed. It will be time enough to seek countenance unto it, by
declaiming against that which has formerly had better effects, when it
has a little more commended itself by its fruits.

   (3.) It were not amiss if this part of the controversy might, amongst
us all, be issued in the advice of the apostle James, chap.2:18, "Show me
thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works."
Let us all labour that fruits may thus far determine of doctrines, as
unto their use unto the interest of righteousness and holiness; for that
faith which does not evidence itself by works, that has not this
"endeixin", this index which James calls for, whereby it may be found out
and examined, is of no use nor consideration herein.

   2. The same objection was from the beginning laid against the doctrine
of the apostle Paul, the same charge was managed against it; which
sufficiently argues that it is the same doctrine which is now assaulted
with it. This himself more than once takes notice of, Rom.3:31, "Do we
make void the law through faith?" It is an objection that he anticipates
against his doctrine of the free justification of sinners, through faith
in the blood of Christ. And the substance of the charge included in these
words is, that he destroyed the law, took off all obligation unto
obedience, and brought in Antinomianism. So again, chap.6:1, "What shall
we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" Some
thought this the natural and genuine consequence of what he had largely
discoursed concerning justification, which he had now fully closed; and
some think so still: "If what he taught concerning the grace of God in
our justification be true, it will not only follow that there will be no
need of any relinquishment of sin on our part, but also a continuance in
it must needs tend unto the exaltation of that grace which he had so
extolled." The same objection he repeats again, verse 15, "What then?
Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?" And in
sundry other places does he obviate the same objection, where he does not
absolutely suppose it, especially Eph.2:9,10. We have, therefore, no
reason to be surprised with, nor much to be moved at, this objection and
charge; for it is no other but what was insinuated or managed against the
doctrine of the apostle himself, whatever enforcements are now given it
by subtlety of arguing or rhetorical exaggerations. However, evident it
is, that there are naturally in the minds of men efficacious prejudices
against this part of the mystery of the gospel, which began betides to
manifest themselves, and ceased not until they had corrupted the whole
doctrine of the church herein: and it were no hard matter to discover the
principal of them, were that our present business; however, it has in
part been done before.

   3. It is granted that this doctrine, both singly by itself, or in con-
junction with whatever else concerns the grace of God by Christ Jesus, is
liable unto abuse by them in whom darkness and the love of sin are
predominant; for hence, from the very beginning of our religion, some
fancied unto themselves that a bare assent unto the gospel was that faith
whereby they should be saved, and that they might be so however they
continued to live in sin and a neglect of all duties of obedience. This
is evident from the epistles of John, James, and Jude, in an especial
manner. Against this pernicious evil we can give no relief, whilst men
will love darkness more than light, because their deeds are evil. And it
would be a fond imagination in any, to think that their modellings of
this doctrine after this manner will prevent future abuse. If they will,
it is by rendering it no part of the gospel; for that which is so was
ever liable to be abused by such persons as we speak of.

   These general observations being premised, which are sufficient of
themselves to discard this objection from any place in the minds of sober
men, I shall only add the consideration of what answers the apostle Paul
returns unto it, with a brief application of them unto our purpose.

   The objection made unto the apostle was, that he made void the law,
that he rendered good works needless; and that, on the supposition of his
doctrine, men might live in sin unto the advancement of grace. And as
unto his sense hereof we may observe,--

   1. That he never returns that answer unto it, no not once, which some
think is the only answer whereby it may be satisfied and removed,--
namely, the necessity of our own personal righteousness and obedience or
works, in order unto our justification before God. For that by "faith
without works," he understands faith and works, is an unreasonable
supposition. If any do yet pretend that he has given any such answer, let
them produce it; as yet it has not been made to appear. And is it not
strange, that if this indeed were his doctrine, and the contrary a
mistake of it,--namely, that our personal righteousness, holiness, and
works, had an influence into our justification, and were in any sort our
righteousness before God therein,--that he who, in an eminent manner,
everywhere presses the necessity of them, shows their true nature and
use, both in general and in particular duties of all sorts, above any of
the writers of the New Testament, should not make use of this truth in
answer unto an objection wherein he was charged to render them all
needless and useless? His doctrine was urged with this objection, as
himself acknowledged; and on the account of it rejected by many,
Rom.10:3,4; Gal.2:18. He did see and know that the corrupt lusts and
depraved affections of the minds of many would supply them with subtle
arguing against it; yea, he did foresee, by the Holy Spirit, as appears
in many places of his writings, that it would be perverted and abused.
And surely it was highly incumbent on him to obviate what in him lay
these evils, and so state his doctrine upon this objection as that no
countenance might ever be given unto it. And is it not strange that he
should not on this occasion, once at least, somewhere or other, give an
intimation that although he rejected the works of the law, yet he
maintained the necessity of evangelical works, in order unto our
justification before God, as the condition of it, or that whereby we are
justified according unto the gospel? If this were indeed his doctrine,
and that which would so easily solve this difficulty and answer this
objection, as both of them are by some pretended, certainly neither his
wisdom nor his care of the church under the conduct of the infallible
Spirit, would have suffered him to omit this reply, were it consistent
with the truth which he had delivered. But he is so far from any such
plea, that when the most unavoidable occasion was administered unto it,
he not only waives any mention of it, but in its stead affirms that which
plainly evidences that he allowed not of it. See Eph.2:9,10. Having
positively excluded works from our justification,--"Not of works, lest
any man should boast,"--it being natural thereon to inquire, "To what end
do works serve? Or is there any necessity of them?" Instead of a
distinction of works legal and evangelical in order unto our
justification, he asserts the necessity of the latter on other grounds,
reasons, and motives, manifesting that they were those in particular
which he excluded; as we have seen in the consideration of the place.
Wherefore,--that we may not forsake his pattern and example in the same
cause, seeing he was wiser and holier, knew more of the mind of God, and
had more zeal for personal righteousness and holiness in the church, than
we all,--if we are pressed a thousand times with this objection, we shall
never seek to deliver ourselves from it, by answering that we allow these
things to be the condition or causes of our justification, or the matter
of our righteousness before God, seeing he would not so do.

   2. We may observe, that in his answer unto this objection, whether
expressly mentioned or tacitly obviated, he insists not anywhere upon the
common principle of moral duties, but on those motives and reasons of
holiness, obedience, good works alone, which are peculiar unto believers.
For the question was not, whether all mankind were obliged unto obedience
unto God, and the duties thereof, by the moral law? But, whether there
were an obligation from the gospel upon believers unto righteousness,
holiness, and good works, such as was suited to affect and constrain
their minds unto them? Nor will we admit of any other state of the
question but this only: whether, upon the supposition of our gratuitous
justification through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ,
there are in the gospel grounds, reasons, and motives, making necessary,
and efficaciously influencing the minds of believers unto obedience and
good works? For those who are not believers, we have nothing to do with
them in this matter, nor do plead that evangelical grounds and motives
are suited or effectual to work them unto obedience: yea, we know the
contrary, and that they are apt both to despise them and abuse them. See
1 Cor.1:23,24; 2 Cor.4:4. Such persons are under the law, and there we
leave them unto the authority of God in the moral law. But that the
apostle does confine his inquiry unto believers, is evident in every
place wherein he makes mention of it: Rom.6:2,3, "How shall we, that are
dead unto sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as
were baptized into Jesus Christ," etc.; Eph.2:10, "For we are the
workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." Wherefore,
we shall not at all contend what cogency unto duties of holiness there is
in gospel motives and reasons unto the minds of unbelievers, whatever may
be the truth in that case; but what is their power, force, and efficacy,
towards them that truly believe.

   3. The answers which the apostle returns positively unto this ob-
jection, wherein he declares the necessity, nature, ends, and use of
evangelical righteousness and good works, are large and many, com-
prehensive of a great part of the doctrine of the gospel. I shall only
mention the heads of some of them, which are the same that we plead in
the vindication of the same truth:--

   (1.) He pleads the ordination of God: "God has before ordained that we
should walk in them," Eph.2:10. God has designed, in the disposal of the
order of the causes of salvation, that those who believe in Christ should
live in, walk in, abound in good works, and all duties of obedience unto
God. To this end are precepts, directions, motives, and encouragements,
everywhere multiplied in the Scripture. Wherefore, we say that good
works,--and that as they include the gradual progressive renovation of
our natures, our growth and increase in grace, with fruitfulness in our
lives,--are necessary from the ordination of God, from his will and
command. And what need there any farther dispute about the necessity of
good works among them that know what it is to believe, or what respect
there is in the souls and consciences of believers unto the commands of
God?

   "But what force," say some, "is in this command or ordination of God,
when notwithstanding it, and if we do not apply ourselves unto obedience,
we shall be justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ,
and so may be saved without them?" I say,--First, as was before observed,
That it is believers alone concerning whom this inquiry is made; and
there is none of them but will judge this a most unreasonable and
senseless objection, as that which arises from an utter ignorance of
their state and relation unto God. To suppose that the minds of believers
are not as much and as effectually influenced with the authority and
commands of God unto duty and obedience, as if they were all given in
order unto their justification, is to consider neither what faith is, nor
what it is to be a believer, nor what is the relation that we stand in
unto God by faith in Christ Jesus, nor what are the arguments or motives
wherewith the minds of such persons are principally affected and
constrained. This is the answer which the apostle gives at large unto
this exception, Rom.6:2,3. Secondly, The whole fallacy of this exception
is,--First, In separating the things that God has made inseparable; these
are, our justification and our sanctification. To suppose that the one of
these may be without the other, is to overthrow the whole gospel.
Secondly, In compounding those things that are distinct,--namely,
justification and eternal actual salvation; the respect of works and
obedience being not the same unto them both, as has been declared.
Wherefore, this imagination, that the commands of God unto duty, however
given, and unto what ends soever, are not equally obligatory unto the
consciences of believers, as if they were all given in order unto their
justification before God, is an absurd figment, and which all of them who
are truly so defy. Yea, they have a greater power upon them than they
could have if the duties required in them were in order to their
justification, and so were antecedent thereunto; for thereby they must be
supposed to have their efficacy upon them before they truly believe. For
to say that a man may be a true believer, or truly believe, in answer
unto the commands of the gospel, and not be thereon in the same instant
of time absolutely justified, is not to dispute about any point of
religion, but plainly to deny the whole truth of the gospel. But it is
faith alone that gives power and efficacy unto gospel commands
effectually to influence the soul unto obedience. Wherefore, this
obligation is more powerfully constraining as they are given unto those
that are justified, than if they were given them in order unto their
justification.

   (2.) The apostle answers, as we do also, "Do we then make void the law
through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." For though the law
is principally established in and by the obedience and sufferings of
Christ, Rom.8:3,4; 10:3,4, yet is it not, by the doctrine of faith and
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto the justification of
life, made void as unto believers. Neither of these does exempt them from
that obligation unto universal obedience which is prescribed in the law.
They are still obliged by virtue thereof to "love the LORD their God with
all their hearts, and their neighbours as themselves". They are, indeed,
freed from the law, and all its commands unto duty as it abides in its
first considerations "Do this, and live"; the opposite whereunto is,
"Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the law
to do them." For he that is under the obligation of the law, in order
unto justification and life, falls inevitably under the curse of it upon
the supposition of any one transgression. But we are made free to give
obedience unto it on gospel motives, and for gospel ends; as the apostle
declares at large, chap.6. And the obligation of it is such unto all
believers as that the least transgression of it has the nature of sin.
But are they hereon bound over by the law unto everlasting punishment?
Or, as some phrase it, "will God damn them that transgress the law?"
without which all this is nothing. I ask, again, what they think hereof;
and upon a supposition that he will do so, what they farther think will
become of themselves? For my part, I say, No; even as the apostle says,
"There is no condemnation unto them that are in Christ Jesus." "Where,
then," they will say, "is the necessity of obedience from the obligation
of the law, if God will not damn them that transgress it?" And I say, It
were well if some men did understand what they say in these things, or
would learn, for a while at least, to hold their peace. The law equally
requires obedience in all instances of duty, if it require any at all. As
unto its obligatory power, it is capable neither of dispensation nor
relaxation, so long as the essential differences of good and evil do
remain. If, then, none can be obliged unto duty by virtue of its
commands, but that they must on every transgression fall under its curse,
either it obliges no one at all, or no one can be saved. But although we
are freed from the curse and condemning power of the law by Him who has
made an end of sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness; yet, whilst
we are "viatores," in order unto the accomplishment of God's design for
the restoration of his image in us, we are obliged to endeavour after all
that holiness and righteousness which the law requires of us.

   (3.) The apostle answers this objection, by discovering the necessary
relation that faith has unto the death of Christ, the grace of God, with
the nature of sanctification, excellency, use, and advantage of gospel
holiness, and the end of it in God's appointment. This he does at large
in the whole sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and that with
this immediate design, to show the consistency of justification by faith
alone with the necessity of personal righteousness and holiness. The due
pleading of these things would require a just and full exposition of that
chapter, wherein the apostle has comprised the chief springs and reasons
of evangelical obedience. I shall only say, that those unto whom the
reasons of it, and motives unto it, therein expressed,--which are all of
them compliant with the doctrine of justification by the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ,--are not effectual unto their own personal
obedience, and do not demonstrate an indispensable necessity of it, are
so unacquainted with the gospel, the nature of faith, the genius and
inclination of the new creature (for, let men scoff on whilst they
please, "he that is in Christ Jesus is a new creature"), the constraining
efficacy of the grace of God, and love of Christ, of the economy of God
in the disposition of the causes and means of our salvation, as I shall
never trouble myself to contend with them about these things.

   Sundry other considerations I thought to have added unto the same
purpose, and to have showed,--1. That to prove the necessity of inherent
righteousness and holiness, we make use of the arguments which are
suggested unto us in the Scripture. 2. That we make use of all of them in
the sense wherein, and unto the ends for which, they are urged therein,
in perfect compliance with what we teach concerning justification. 3.
That all the pretended arguments or motives for and unto evangelical
holiness, which are inconsistent with the imputation of the righteousness
of Christ, do indeed obstruct it and evert it; 4. That the holiness which
we make necessary unto the salvation of them that believe is of a more
excellent, sublime, and heavenly nature, in its causes, essence,
operations, and effects, than what is allowed or believed by the most of
those by whom the doctrine of justification is opposed. 5. That the
holiness and righteousness which is pleaded for by the Socinians and
those that follow them, does in nothing exceed the righteousness of the
scribes and Pharisees; nor upon their principles can any man go beyond
them. But whereas this discourse has already much exceeded my first
intention, and that, as I said before, I have already at large treated on
the doctrine of the nature and necessity of evangelical holiness, I shall
at present omit the farther handling of these things, and acquiesce in
the answers given by the apostle unto this objection.