CHAPTER, 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.

HAT which remaineth 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 already removed. Yea, the principal of those which at present are most insisted on. That which for the most part we have now to do with, 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 hath been from the common doctrine of justification before God, on the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, doth daily proceed towards a direct assertion of justification by works. Nor indeed hath 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 defence 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. There are only two things which are generally pleaded by all sorts of persons, that I shall take notice of. The first and fountain of all other is, that the doctrine of justification by the imputation of the righteousness, of Christ doth render our personal righteousness needless, and overthrows all necessity of an holy life. The other is, that the Apostle James in his Epistle, doth 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.

The first of these objections so far as it hath 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 righte ousness 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 connexion 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 righteouspess 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 uucomely.

I shall be brief in the answer that here shall be returned unto this objection, for indeed it is sufliciently answered or obviated in what hath 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 hath 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 hath 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 (dispensat, of the Holy Spirit, book 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 an 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 bath 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 produce an outward profession, the latter only 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 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.

2. It doth not appear as yet in general, that an attempt to introduce a doctrine contrary unto it hath had any great success in the reformation of the lives of men. Nor bath 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 bath formerly had better effects, when it hath 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 ii. 18. "Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew 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 doth not evidence itself by works, is of no use nor consideration herein. Secondly, the same objection was from the beginning laid against the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, which sufficiently argues, that it is the same doctrine which is now assaulted with it. This himself more than once takes notice of, Rom. iii. 31. Do we then make void the law through faith? it is an objection that he aut.cipates 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. vi. 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 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, ver. 15. What then, shall we sin because we are not under the law bat under grace." And in sundry other places he obviates the same objection, where he doth not absolutely suppose it, especially, Ephes. ii. 9, 10. we have therefore no reason to be surprised with, nor to be much 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 inforcements are now given it by subtilty of arguing or rhetorical exaggerations,

4. It is granted that this doctrine is liable unto abuse by them in whom darkness and the love of sin is predominant. For hence from the very beginning of our religion, some fancied 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 and 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