Chapter 19: Objections Against Justification by Imputation Answered

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 Romansan 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 inforcement, which of late they have not done. That which for the most part we have now to do withal, are rather Sophistiacal cavils from supposed absurd consequences, then 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 mans 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 bottome. And this is more clearly seen in the objections which they make against the truth, then 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 gross 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 other 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 an 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 Romanse who renewed this charge, invented of old by others, it must be acknowledged by all sober men, that as managed by them, it is an open calumny. For the wisest of them and those of 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 Bucer 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 whil they do so, although they give themselves up unto the most sensual Vices and Abominations, they may be assured of their salvation.

Tantum Relligio 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 falshoods, be an expedient to obtain justification by works in the sight of God, they who continue in them had best to consider. For my part I say again, as I suppose I have said already, that it is all one to me what religion men are of, who can justify themselves in such courses and proceedings. And for those among our selves 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 answers 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 pretenses for advantage, in their handling of Sacred things, which is scandalous to religion. Socinus fiercely manags this charge against the doctrine of the reformed churches; De servat. par. 4. cap. 1. And he made it the foundation whereon, and the reason why he opposs 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 Schlictingius against Meisnerus. And he takes the same honest course herein, that others did before him. For he chargs it on the Divines of the protestant churches, that they taught that God justifies the ungodly, not only those that are so, and whil 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 wayes of duty and obedience unto God whereby he may be pleased, and so bring in Libertinisme and Antinomianisme into the church. And he thinks it a sufficient confutation of this doctrine to alledge against it that neither Fornicators, nor Idolaters, nor Adulterers, &c. shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these are some of those ways which have rendred 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 ingaged, 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 ruine, than he does on this of the satisfaction of Christ and the imputation of it unto them that do believe. So much darkness is their remaining on the minds of the most of men: so many inveterate prejudices on various occasions are they pester'd withal, especially if not under the conduct of the same inlightning spirit, that some will confidently condemn others unto eternal flames, for those things 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 of 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 perswasion 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 Sophisme, 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, whil 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, then 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 vertue 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 it self, that has fallen under so perverse a management, so far as it has any pretense 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 it 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 (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 dyed 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 produce an outward profession, the later 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 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 declaming 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 introduce 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 declaming against that which has formerly had better effects, when it has a little more commended it self by its fruits.

3. It were not amiss, if this part of the controversie might amongst us all, be issued in the advise of the apostle James Chap. 2:18. Shew me your faith by your works, and I will shew you my faith by my works. Let us all labor 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 it self by works, that has not this this Index which James calls for, whereby it may be found out and examined, is of no use nor consideration herein. Secondly, 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, Romans 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, Ephesians 2:9, 10. we have therefore no reason to be surprized 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 inforcements are now given it by subtilty 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 betimes 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 it self, or in conjunction 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 is 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, whil 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 rendring 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 rendred 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 every where presss the necessity of them, shews 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, Romans 10:3, 4. Galatians 2:3. He did see and know that the corrupt lusts and depraved affections of the minds of many would supply them with subtile arguings 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, 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 administred unto it, he not only waves any mention of it, but in its stead affirms that which plainly evidencs that he allowed not of it. See Ephesians 2:9, 10. Having positively excluded works from our justification, not of works least 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 later 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 our selves 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.

Secondly, we may observe, that in his answer unto this objection, whether expressly mentioned or tacitly obviated, he insists not any where 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 of 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 I Cor. 1:23, 24:2 Corinthians 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 maks mention of it, Romans 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, &c. Ephesians 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.

Thirdly, The answers which the apostle returns positively unto this objection wherein he declares the necessity, nature, ends and use of Evangelical righteousness, and good works, are large, and many comprehensive 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; Ephesians 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 every where 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 further 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 our selves unto obedience, we shall be justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, and so may be saved without them. I say (1) 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 ariss 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, Romans 6:2, 3. (2) The whole fallacy of this Exception is (1) 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, (2) 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, defie. Yea they have a greater power upon them, than they could have, if the duties required in them were in order unto 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 to 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, then if they were given them in order unto their justification.

Secondly, The apostle answers, as we do also, Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea we establish the law. For although the law is principally established in and by the obedience and sufferings of Christ, Romans 8:3, 4. Chap. 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 do exempt them from that obligation unto universal obedience, which is prescribed in the law. They are still obliged by vertue 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 consideration, Do this and live, the opposite whereunto, is Cursed is every one that continus 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, Romans 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 further 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 vertue of its commands, but that they must on every Transgression fall under its curse, either it obligs 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 whil we are viatores in order unto the accomplishment of Gods design for the Restauration of his Image in us, we are obliged to endeavour after all that holiness and righteousness which the law requires of us.

Thirdly, 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 Gods appointment. This he does at large in the whole Sixth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, and that with this immediate design, to shew 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 comprized 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 indispensible 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 whil 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 Oeconomy of God in the disposition of the causes and means of our salvation, as I shall never trouble my self to contend with them about these things.

Sundry other considerations I thought to have added unto the same purpose; And to have shewed (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 further handling of these things and acquiesce in the answers given by the apostle unto this objection.

What remains to bring this discussion to a close is the consideration of some objections raised against the truth we have been defending. We have already encountered and answered many of them along the way — including the most important ones currently pressed against us. The Scripture passages cited by those of the Roman church in favor of justification by works have been answered so fully and so often by Protestant writers that there is no need to revisit them, especially since no new arguments have recently been added. What we are mainly dealing with now are sophisticated objections based on supposedly absurd consequences, not genuine theological arguments. Some who try to walk carefully between the imputation of Christ's righteousness and justification by our own works are in such a precarious position that they sometimes seem to be on one side and sometimes the other — or else they express themselves so cautiously that it is very difficult to know what they actually believe. Going forward, I will not presume to say that a particular opinion belongs to a particular person, however clearly their words seem to indicate it — but I will say plainly which opinions I approve or disapprove, whoever may hold them. I will also say this: the drift away from the common Protestant doctrine of justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness moves steadily toward a direct assertion of justification by works. It has no stable resting place until it arrives there. This is more clearly visible in the objections people raise against the truth than in the positive positions they defend. In their positive statements they speak cautiously, with a pretense of avoiding extremes. But in their objections they rely entirely on arguments that resolve into a straightforward assumption of justification by works. To address every specific objection would be endless, and as noted, most of the significant ones have already been handled. There are only two objections that all parties — Roman Catholics, Socinians, and others — consistently press, and those are the ones I will address. The first, which underlies all the others, is that the doctrine of justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness makes personal righteousness unnecessary and destroys any need for a holy life. The second is that the apostle James in his epistle plainly attributes justification to works, and what he says there is inconsistent with the meaning we have assigned to the many other Scripture passages we have argued from.

Regarding the first objection: although those who oppose the truth we are defending proceed from various contradictory principles among themselves regarding what they offer as an alternative, they all agree in pressing this objection vigorously. As for those of the Roman church who revived this charge — which others had invented long before them — every honest person must acknowledge that as they have managed it, it amounts to open slander. The most learned among them, those who can hardly have been unaware of the truth, such as Bellarmine, Vasquez, and Suarez, openly claim that Protestant writers deny all inherent righteousness (Bellarmine makes an exception for Bucer and Chemnitius); that Protestants maintain men may be saved regardless of how they live; that nothing more is required of them than believing their sins are forgiven; and that as long as they hold this belief, even if they give themselves over to the most sensual vices and depravity, they may be assured of their salvation.

"To such great evils could religion persuade men."

Out of a misguided zeal for promoting their own religious interests, men will willingly descend to the worst of evils — false accusation and open slander. That is exactly the nature of these claims, which nothing in the writings or preaching of those accused ever gave the slightest grounds for. Whether forging and spreading such brazen falsehoods is a useful strategy for obtaining justification by works before God, those who continue in this practice would do well to consider. For my own part, I will say again what I believe I have said before: it makes no difference to me what religion a man professes if he can justify himself in such conduct. As for those among our own camp who are pleased to use this objection, they either understand the doctrine they are opposing or they do not. If they do not understand it, the wise man's verdict applies: whoever answers a matter before hearing it fully brings folly and shame upon himself. If they do understand it, it is clear they are not acting in good faith but are using manipulation and false pretenses to gain advantage in their handling of sacred matters — which is a disgrace to religion. Socinus presses this charge fiercely against the doctrine of the Reformed churches (De Servatore, par. 4, cap. 1). He made it the foundation and justification for his rejection of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's satisfaction — though he also flatly denies that any such satisfaction exists. He wrote a full treatise to the same effect, which Schlictingius defended against Meisnerus. He takes the same dishonest approach others used before him. He charges the Protestant theologians with teaching that God justifies the ungodly not only while they are ungodly but even if they remain ungodly; that they require no inherent righteousness or holiness in anyone; that they cannot require it on their own principles, since the imputed righteousness of Christ is sufficient even for those who continue to live in sin, who are not cleansed, and who do not pursue obedience to God — and thus that Protestant doctrine introduces libertinism and antinomianism into the church. He thinks it a sufficient refutation of this doctrine to cite the fact that fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, and so forth will not inherit the kingdom of God. These are some of the practices that have made the management of religious controversy scandalous and repugnant — practices no wise or good person will engage in unless compelled to do so for the necessary service of the church. These claims are openly false, and they are deployed with shameless dishonesty to advance a corrupt agenda. When I find men engaged in this kind of argument, I have very little interest in anything else they say, whether true or false. Their standard is whatever serves their own purpose and promotes the position they have already committed to, right or wrong. As for Socinus himself: there is not a single article of the Christian faith — most of which he rejects — on the basis of which he more confidently condemns us to eternal ruin than this one: the satisfaction of Christ and its imputation to those who believe. Such is the darkness that remains in most men's minds. So many deep-rooted prejudices burden them from various sources — especially when they are not guided by the same enlightening Spirit — that some will confidently condemn others to eternal flames for the very things on which those others, on infallible grounds, rest their hope of eternal blessedness, and through which they know they love God and live for Him. Yet this wretched tactic of condemning all dissenters to hell is eagerly seized upon by every kind of party. By it they quietly secure their own entire camp in the assurance of eternal salvation, whatever else may be true of them. For if the absence of their particular brand of faith will certainly damn a man no matter how he lives or how good his life is, many will easily fall for the foolish reasoning that the faith they profess will assuredly save them regardless of how they live — since that conclusion fits so naturally with human inclinations. By the same means they may also frighten simple-minded people into compliance by loudly pronouncing damnation on them unless they conform. And it is generally those who denounce condemnation most fiercely against others for not believing as they do who live in such a way that, if Scripture is true at all, it is impossible they could be saved themselves. For my part, I believe this: among those who outwardly profess Christianity, all who are unregenerate and unbelieving, who do not obey the gospel, will be condemned — whatever their religion — and none others. All who are truly born again, who truly believe and obey the gospel, will be saved — whatever their religion, with respect to the differences that exist among Christians today. The way that most effectively promotes these things is the way every person concerned for their own salvation ought first to embrace. If any church or way obstructs these things, that church or way is, to that extent, to be forsaken. And if any form of profession or visible church requires as essential to its members anything absolutely destructive of or incompatible with these things, then no salvation can be obtained in that way and by virtue of it. In everything else, every person must walk according to the light of their own conscience, for whatever is not of faith is sin. But I return from this digression, prompted by the forcefulness of the man with whom we have been dealing.

The objection itself, stripped of its dishonest handling, amounts to this and nothing more: if God justifies the ungodly purely by grace through faith in Christ Jesus — so that works of obedience are not required before justification and form no part of the righteousness on the basis of which a person is justified — then works are not necessary at all, and people may be justified and saved without them. The claim is that there is no real connection between faith as we describe it and the necessity of holiness, righteousness, or obedience — that grace sets us free to live however we please, even in all manner of sin, while still being assured of salvation. For if we are made righteous with another's righteousness, we have no need of any righteousness of our own. It would do well if many who press this objection would also show by their own lives that they actually value the holiness they are arguing for — because arguing for the necessity of holiness while neglecting it personally is inconsistent.

My answer to this objection will be brief, because it has already been sufficiently answered and preempted in what was said earlier about the nature of justifying faith and the continuing force of the moral law as a rule of obedience for all believers. An unprejudiced reading of what has been presented on those topics will clearly expose the injustice of this charge and show that the doctrine we are defending gives it no support whatsoever. I should also let the reader know that some time ago I published a complete work on the nature and necessity of gospel holiness — its grounds and reasons — which is entirely consistent with the doctrine of justification set out here. I see no need to add to it, and I am confident that reading it will thoroughly expose the emptiness of this charge (The Dispensation of the Holy Spirit, book 5). A few further observations are appropriate for the present occasion.

First, I do not claim that all who have professed this doctrine, now or in earlier ages, have demonstrated it through a holy and fruitful life. It is to be feared that many among them have lived and died in sin. Nor do I doubt that some have misused this doctrine to excuse their sins and neglect of duty. No holy truth can be entirely protected from abuse as long as the devil's craftiness has influence over the lusts and corrupt minds of men. This happened among some in the early church who turned the grace of God into license, using its doctrine to sanction their ungodly behavior. From the very beginning the whole gospel of the grace of God was misused in this way. Not everyone who professed it was immediately made holy and righteous. From the start, many lived in a way that made plain their belly was their god and their end was destruction. There is a difference between having the conviction of truth in the mind and having the power of it in the heart. The former produces an outward profession; only the latter produces an inward renewal of the soul. However, to this concession I must add three things.

First, I am not aware that any of those who currently oppose this doctrine surpass — in holiness, righteousness, the exercise of faith, love, zeal, self-denial, and all other Christian graces — those in past generations, both in this country and others, who firmly held to it and who consistently testified to the powerful influence it had on their walk before God. Nor do I know of any person from earlier times who was eminent in holiness — and there were many such — who did not wholeheartedly accept the imputation of Christ's righteousness that we are defending. I have no doubt that many who differ considerably from others in explaining this doctrine may be, and are, genuinely and eminently holy — or at least sincerely so, which is the most any of us can claim. But it is hardly fitting when some who give little evidence of earnestly pursuing that holiness without which no one will see God loudly denounce as destructive of holiness the very doctrine that was so productive of it in former times.

Second, it does not appear that attempts to introduce a doctrine contrary to this one have achieved any great success in reforming people's lives. Personal righteousness and holiness have not noticeably flourished under its leadership, as far as one can observe. It will be time enough to gain credibility by attacking what formerly produced better fruit once this alternative doctrine has commended itself a little more by its own results.

Third, it would not be a bad idea if this part of the controversy could be settled among us all by the advice of the apostle James in James 2:18: "Show me your faith by your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." Let us all work to let our fruits settle the question of our doctrines, at least with regard to their practical usefulness for righteousness and holiness. For a faith that does not demonstrate itself through works — that lacks the visible mark James calls for by which it can be identified and tested — counts for nothing in this discussion. Second, this same objection was leveled against the apostle Paul's doctrine from the very beginning, and that very same charge was pressed against it — which is strong evidence that it is the same doctrine now under attack. Paul himself notes this more than once. In Romans 3:31 he asks, "Do we then nullify the Law through faith?" — anticipating an objection to his doctrine of the free justification of sinners through faith in the blood of Christ. The substance of that charge was that he was destroying the law, eliminating all obligation to obedience, and introducing antinomianism. Again in Romans 6:1 he asks, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?" Some thought this was the natural and obvious consequence of everything he had just taught about justification. If his teaching about God's grace in our justification is true, the argument went, not only would there be no need to turn from sin — continuing in sin would actually increase the grace he had so highly praised. He repeats the same objection in Romans 6:15: "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" He addresses the same objection in various other places as well, including Ephesians 2:9-10. We have no reason to be surprised by this objection and charge, nor should we be greatly unsettled by it — it is nothing other than what was raised against the apostle Paul's own doctrine, however much it is now reinforced by clever arguments and rhetorical exaggeration. It is evident, however, that there are deeply ingrained prejudices in the human mind against this aspect of the gospel mystery — prejudices that showed themselves early and did not stop until they had corrupted the entire doctrine of the church on this point. It would not be difficult to identify the main ones, were that our present task; but it has already been done in part earlier.

Third, it is granted that this doctrine — whether taken alone or together with everything else relating to God's grace in Christ Jesus — is open to abuse by those in whom spiritual darkness and the love of sin dominate. From the very beginning of the Christian faith, some imagined that bare intellectual assent to the gospel was the faith by which they would be saved, and that they could live on in sin and neglect all duties of obedience while still being saved. This is evident especially from the letters of John, James, and Jude. Against this dangerous error we can offer no guaranteed remedy as long as people choose darkness over light because their deeds are evil. And it would be foolish to imagine that reconfiguring the doctrine in one way or another will prevent such abuse in the future. If it could, it would only be by making it no longer part of the gospel — for the gospel has always been liable to abuse by exactly the kind of people we are describing.

These general observations are sufficient on their own to dismiss this objection from the minds of thoughtful people. I will add only a consideration of the answers the apostle Paul gives to it, with a brief application to our purpose.

The objection brought against the apostle was that he nullified the law, made good works unnecessary, and that on the assumption of his doctrine men could live in sin to the advancement of grace. Regarding his response to this, we may observe the following.

First, Paul never once gives the answer that some consider the only adequate response to this objection: namely, that our own personal righteousness, obedience, or works are necessary for our justification before God. To claim that when he says "faith without works" he actually means faith combined with works is an unreasonable interpretation. If anyone still wants to insist that Paul gave such an answer, let them produce the evidence — it has not been shown. Is it not remarkable that if this were actually his doctrine — if personal righteousness, holiness, and works had any influence on our justification and served in any way as our righteousness before God — that Paul, who more consistently and thoroughly than any other New Testament writer presses the necessity of holiness and shows its true nature and use in both general and specific duties, never once made use of this truth in answering an objection that charged him with making all such things needless and useless? His doctrine was attacked with this objection, as he himself acknowledged, and many rejected it on that basis (Romans 10:3-4; Galatians 2:3). He knew well that the corrupt desires and depraved minds of many would generate clever arguments against it. Indeed, as the Holy Spirit revealed to him, he foresaw that it would be distorted and abused — as is evident in many places in his writings. It was certainly incumbent on him to do everything in his power to prevent these evils and to frame his doctrine in response to this objection in a way that could never be taken to support it. Is it not strange that he never once, anywhere, gave even the slightest indication that although he rejected the works of the law, he still maintained the necessity of evangelical works for our justification before God as a condition of it, or as the means by which we are justified according to the gospel? If this were truly his doctrine — and if it would so easily resolve this difficulty and answer this objection, as some claim — then neither his wisdom nor his care for the church under the guidance of the infallible Spirit would have allowed him to omit this reply, had it been consistent with the truth he had delivered. He is so far from offering any such response that when the most unavoidable opportunity was given for it, he not only passes over it entirely but in its place affirms something that makes clear he did not accept it. See Ephesians 2:9-10: having positively excluded works from our justification — "not of works, so that no one may boast" — and with the natural follow-up question arising as to what purpose works then serve and whether they are even necessary, instead of distinguishing between legal and evangelical works in relation to justification, he asserts the necessity of the latter on entirely different grounds, reasons, and motives, making clear that it was precisely these works that he had excluded, as we saw in our examination of that passage. Therefore, so that we may not abandon his pattern and example in this same cause — since he was wiser, holier, knew more of the mind of God, and had more zeal for personal righteousness and holiness in the church than any of us — if we are pressed a thousand times with this objection, we will never answer it by conceding that such things are the condition or cause of our justification, or the matter of our righteousness before God, since he himself refused to do so.

Second, we may observe that in his answers to this objection — whether he addresses it explicitly or preempts it tacitly — Paul never relies on the general principle of moral obligation, but only on those motives and reasons for holiness, obedience, and good works that are specific to believers. The question was not whether all humanity is obligated to obedience to God by the moral law. The question was whether the gospel places on believers a particular obligation to righteousness, holiness, and good works — one suited to move and constrain their minds toward them. We accept no other framing of the question but this: whether, given our free justification through the imputation of Christ's righteousness, there are in the gospel grounds, reasons, and motives that both require and effectively move believers' minds toward obedience and good works. As for unbelievers, they are not our concern in this matter. We do not claim that gospel motives are suited or effective to move them to obedience — we know the contrary, and that they are prone to both despise and abuse them (see 1 Corinthians 1:23-24; 2 Corinthians 4:4). Such persons are under the law, and we leave them there under the authority of God in the moral law. That Paul confines his inquiry to believers is clear in every place he addresses it: "How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus..." (Romans 6:2-3); and "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works" (Ephesians 2:10). We will not, therefore, debate what power gospel motives and reasons have over unbelievers when it comes to duties of holiness — whatever the truth may be in that case. Our concern is with their power, force, and effectiveness toward those who truly believe.

Third, the positive answers the apostle gives to this objection — in which he declares the necessity, nature, ends, and use of gospel righteousness and good works — are extensive and comprehensive, covering a large portion of the whole doctrine of the gospel. I will only mention the main points, which are the same ones we press in defense of the same truth.

First, he appeals to God's appointed order: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10). God has designed in the ordering of the causes of salvation that those who believe in Christ should live in, walk in, and abound in good works and all duties of obedience to God. To this end, commands, directions, motives, and encouragements are multiplied throughout Scripture. We therefore say that good works — including the gradual progressive renewal of our nature, our growth and increase in grace, and our fruitfulness in life — are necessary because God has ordained and commanded them. What more needs to be debated about the necessity of good works among those who understand what it means to believe, or what regard believers' consciences have for the commands of God?

But what force, some ask, does God's command or ordained order carry when, regardless of whether we obey, we will be justified by the imputation of Christ's righteousness and may therefore be saved without obedience? My answer: first, as already noted, this inquiry concerns believers alone, and not one of them will regard this as anything other than a completely unreasonable and senseless objection — one that arises from a total ignorance of their standing and relationship to God. To suppose that believers' minds are not as powerfully and effectively moved by God's authority and commands toward duty and obedience as they would be if those commands were all given as conditions of justification — this is to misunderstand what faith is, what it means to be a believer, what relationship we stand in to God through faith in Christ Jesus, and what arguments and motives primarily move the minds of such persons. This is the answer the apostle gives at length to this objection in Romans 6:2-3. Second, the entire fallacy of this objection lies in two errors: first, in separating what God has joined inseparably — namely, our justification and our sanctification. To suppose that one can exist without the other is to overturn the whole gospel. Second, in confusing what are actually distinct things — namely, justification and final actual salvation. Works and obedience do not relate to both in the same way, as has already been explained. The idea that God's commands to duty — however given and for whatever ends — are any less binding on believers' consciences than they would be if they were all given as conditions for justification before God is an absurd fiction that every true believer rejects. In fact, these commands have greater power over believers than they could have if the duties required were conditions of justification and therefore had to precede it. If that were the case, they would have to exert their force before a person truly believes — for to say that someone can be a true believer and yet not be, in the very same moment, absolutely justified is not to be disputing some theological fine point but plainly denying the whole truth of the gospel. It is faith alone that gives power and effectiveness to gospel commands to move the soul genuinely toward obedience. Therefore, this obligation is more powerfully constraining when given to those who are already justified than it would be if given to produce their justification.

Second, the apostle answers as we do: "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law" (Romans 3:31). Although the law is principally established in and through the obedience and sufferings of Christ (Romans 8:3-4; 10:3-4), it is not rendered void toward believers by the doctrine of faith and the imputation of Christ's righteousness for justification. Neither of these things frees believers from their obligation to universal obedience as prescribed in the law. They are still obligated by it to love the Lord their God with all their heart and their neighbor as themselves. They are freed from the law and all its commands in their original form — "do this and live," the reverse of which is "cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law to perform them" (Galatians 3:10). For whoever stands under the law's obligation as a means to justification and life inevitably falls under its curse at the first transgression. But we are set free to give obedience to the law on gospel motives and for gospel ends, as the apostle explains at length in Romans 6. And the law's obligation to all believers is such that the smallest transgression of it has the nature of sin. But does that mean believers are therefore bound over by the law to everlasting punishment? Or, as some put it, will God damn those who transgress the law — without which all of this means nothing? I ask them what they think about this; and if they answer yes, what they further think will become of themselves. For my part I say no — in the words of the apostle: "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). Where then, they will say, is the necessity of obedience from the law's obligation, if God will not condemn those who transgress it? I would simply say it would benefit some people to understand what they are actually saying in these matters — or to be willing to remain silent for a while until they do. The law requires obedience in all its demands equally, or it requires none at all. As to its binding power, it admits neither dispensation nor relaxation so long as the essential distinctions between good and evil remain. If no one can be bound to duty by the law's commands without falling under its curse at every transgression, then either no one is obligated 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 put an end to sin and brought in everlasting righteousness, we are still, while we are pilgrims on the way toward the fulfillment of God's purpose to restore His image in us, obligated to pursue all the holiness and righteousness the law requires.

Third, the apostle answers this objection by unfolding the necessary relationship that faith has to the death of Christ, the grace of God, the nature of sanctification, and the excellence, use, advantage, and God-appointed end of gospel holiness. He does this at length throughout the entire sixth chapter of Romans, with the specific purpose of demonstrating that justification by faith alone is fully consistent with the necessity of personal righteousness and holiness. A proper treatment of these things would require a thorough exposition of that chapter, in which the apostle has gathered together the chief sources and reasons for gospel obedience. I will only say this: those who find that the reasons and motives for obedience expressed in that chapter — all of which are fully in harmony with the doctrine of justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness — are not effective in moving them personally to obedience, and who do not see in them an unquestionable necessity for it, are so out of touch with the gospel, the nature of faith, the character and inclination of the new creature (for let people mock as long as they will: whoever is in Christ Jesus is a new creature), the constraining power of God's grace and Christ's love, and the economy of God in ordering the causes and means of our salvation — that I will not trouble myself to argue with them about these things.

I had intended to add several other considerations to the same effect, including: first, that in proving the necessity of inherent righteousness and holiness we use only the arguments Scripture itself provides; second, that we use all of them in the sense and for the ends for which they are urged in Scripture, in perfect harmony with what we teach about justification; third, that all arguments and motives for gospel holiness that are inconsistent with the imputation of Christ's righteousness actually obstruct and undermine it; fourth, that the holiness we regard as necessary for the salvation of believers is of a far more excellent, sublime, and heavenly character — in its causes, essence, operations, and effects — than what is acknowledged or believed by most of those who oppose the doctrine of justification; and fifth, that the holiness and righteousness advocated by the Socinians and those who follow them does not rise above the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, nor on their own principles can anyone go beyond it. However, since this discussion has already grown much longer than I originally intended, and since I have already treated the doctrine of the nature and necessity of gospel holiness at length elsewhere, I will set aside these remaining points for now and rest content with the answers the apostle himself gives to this objection.