Justification Without Works

(Romans 4:5) But to him that works not, etc.

I have already opened this text of Scripture, and gave you an account of the scope and coherence thereof at large; and then observed two points of doctrine therefrom. First, that all works done by the creature are quite excluded, in point of justification of a sinner in the sight of God.

The last day, I showed you diverse erroneous principles held by some men about the doctrine of justification. I shall trouble you with no repetition of what we have said; but proceed to what was then propounded to be further done; which is to give you the Scripture proofs and arguments to confirm the truth of the first point of doctrine; namely, that all works done by the creature are quite excluded, etc.

1. My first argument shall be taken from the very letter and express testimony of the Holy Scripture, Romans 3:27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. This text almost in so many words confirms this proposition; if all boasting is excluded, all works are excluded: but more of this hereafter. See Romans 4:2. If Abraham were justified by works, he had whereof to glory, but not before God. If he had been justified by works, he had whereof he might glory; but he had nothing to glory in before God.

Therefore he was not justified by works, verse 6. Even as David describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness without works. He brings in David to confirm this great gospel truth (Psalm 32:1). And though David does not use the very same words, as here expressed by the apostle; yet they are words of the same purport, the sense and meaning of David is the same.

I wonder at the boldness of some men, who affirm the word imputation of righteousness is nowhere to be found in the Scripture. Does not the apostle plainly and positively assert that God imputes righteousness to man, and that too without works. See Galatians 2:16. Knowing a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Christ.

Knowing; that is, being sure and certain of this, this is a doctrine (as if he should say) we are well grounded in, and confident of, that a man is not justified by the works of the law; works do not justify or declare us righteous in the light of God. So Ephesians 2:8-9. By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. Here it is again in the affirmative, it is by grace; and also laid down in the negative, not of works, and the reason subjoined.

To these proofs of Holy Scripture, I might mention that in Philippians 3:8-9. Indeed, [reconstructed: doubtless], and I account all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having my own righteousness which is of the law, [reconstructed: but that which] is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God by faith.

What was it Paul accounted but dung, and gave up for loss? Why, he tells you it was whatever he accounted once for gain, or did esteem of, and rested upon; namely, all his own righteousness, while he was a Pharisee, and all his other external and legal privileges, which in times past he gloried in; but now they were nothing to him: he saw no worth or excellency in them; but wholly threw himself on Christ, and on his righteousness for justification. I count now at this very time all the righteousness I have (he speaks in the present tense) but as dung, that is, in comparison of that righteousness, which does and must justify him in God's sight, in which he would be found now, and at death and judgment. Compare this text with that in Titus 3:5. Not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us.

Objection. But perhaps some will object, that the apostle in all these places only excludes the works of the law.

Answer. It is evident he excludes all works done by the creature, either before grace, or after grace, as well works of obedience to the gospel as to the law. Pray observe, not by works of righteousness that we have done. We that are saints, we who profess the gospel; nay, such works, which God has prepared or ordained that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2:9-10). Good works done by saints and godly persons cannot justify them in God's sight. Were not the Galatians Christians and professors of the gospel, who held without faith in Christ, no doubt, that they could not be justified? But yet were so far fallen from the true faith, as to look to be justified also by the law, or by their obedience to it; or by an inherent righteousness, which the apostle opposed. Works are indifferently mentioned, as being excluded? He that is said to be justified by faith, is said not to work but to have a righteousness imputed; therefore all works are excluded in this respect.

2. If all works were not excluded; then there would still be the same cause or reason to glory, or to boast; be they either legal or gospel works: but since all boasting is excluded, all works are excluded. It signifies nothing what works they are, if the reason of their exclusion be but considered; which is to take away all manner of boasting, and to abase the creature, and wholly to magnify God, and exalt free grace.

3. Moreover the like debt would be due to us; for to him that works, is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt. What though some of my works does not make God a debtor to me? Yet if any works in this case are not excluded, God would still become a debtor to me, which is inconsistent with the doctrine of free grace.

4. If works going before justification, are excluded from being any cause thereof; then much more those works that follow justification; for causes (as one well observes) do not use to follow after, but go before their effects, at least in order of nature.

5. If works justify, they must of necessity be good works; but works done before faith, or without faith, are not good works; for whatever is not done of faith is sin, and are dead works. Neither can the fruit be good, as our Saviour says, while the tree is bad, every evil tree brings forth evil fruit; but every man before he is justified is like an evil tree, and therefore can bring forth no good fruit, no good works; therefore all works, it is evident, before faith and justification, are utterly excluded.

6. Furthermore, the Apostle speaks of all men, whether converted or unconverted, that it is not of works, or works done by them, or either of them, that they are justified, or saved, but by grace; we are justified by grace, and not by works; all works are opposed (by the Apostle) to grace, therefore all works are excluded. From hence take this argument.

That doctrine that gives the Holy Scripture the lie, is false and to be rejected.

But the doctrine that mixes any works of righteousness done by the creature with faith or the free grace of God, in point of justification, gives the Scripture the lie; therefore that doctrine is false, and to be rejected.

2nd Argument. That all works done by the creature are utterly excluded in point of justification appears from the different nature of works and grace; it is positively said, we are justified by grace.

Now grace and works (let works be of what sort they will) are directly contrary the one to the other. See (Romans 11:6): And if it be of grace, then it is not of works, otherwise grace is no more grace; but if it be of works, then it is no more of grace, otherwise work is no more work. There is no mixing works and free grace together, but one of these does and will destroy the nature of the other; and as it holds true in election, so in justification: if justification was partly of grace, and partly by works done by the creature, or from foreseen holiness and sincere obedience done by us; then grace is no more grace, or works no more works: for whatever proceeds of grace (as our annotators observe) that comes freely, and is not of debt, but whatever comes by works, that comes by debt; but now debt and free grace, or that which is free and absolutely by grace, and that which is by desert, are quite contrary things; therefore to say men are called and justified, partly by grace, and partly by works done by the creature, this were to put such things together as cannot agree; for it is to make merit no merit, debt no debt, work no work, grace no grace; and so to affirm and deny one and the same thing. From hence take this argument:

That which is of the free grace of God, is not by any works done by the creature. But justification is of the free grace of God; therefore not by any works done by the creature. That being justified by his grace we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:5). From hence rises all the hopes we have of salvation; it is by, or according to the free grace of God, through the merits of Jesus Christ alone.

3rd Argument. My third argument, to prove all works done by the creature are excluded in justification, is this, namely, faith is the way prescribed in the Gospel in order to justification; not love, not charity, not works of mercy, but faith: now why is faith rather than any grace mentioned as the way to be justified; is it not from the nature of this grace? In respect of the object it flies to, or takes hold of, faith contrary to any other grace of the Spirit, carries the soul out of himself to Christ, like as those who were stung with the fiery serpents in the wilderness, were healed by looking up to the brazen serpent: so by fixing our eye upon Christ, looking by faith upon Christ, we come to be healed and justified. Moreover, pray wherein does the terms of the Gospel differ from the terms of the law, Do this and live; or, The man that does these things shall live in them (Galatians 3:12; Leviticus 18:5). These are the terms of the law. Thus runs the tenor of the law.

But the terms of the Gospel are quite different; Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved (Acts 16:31). This was the doctrine Paul preached to the poor trembling jailor, which agrees with what the same Apostle says (Romans 10:9): If you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. This confession, and this faith, has more in it, it is true, than some believe; it is not a verbal confession only, or a bare believing Christ was raised from the dead; it is a believing with all the heart (Acts 8:37), or to throw ourselves wholly on Christ by the faith of the operation of God (Colossians 2:12-13), in full confidence and assurance that he was raised from the dead, as our head, surety, and representative, for our justification, by the power or virtue of which faith, we also rise with him from a death in sin to walk in newness of life. From hence I argue thus:

That doctrine which confounds the terms of the law and Gospel together in point of justification, is a false and corrupt doctrine: but the doctrine that mixes sincere obedience, or works of any kind done by us, with faith in point of justification, confounds the terms of the law and Gospel together in point of justification; therefore that doctrine is false and a corrupt doctrine.

Objection: Perhaps our opposers will object, that the terms of the law consist in perfect obedience, and that the terms of the Gospel consist in faith and sincere obedience; and therefore they do not confound the law and Gospel together, etc.

Answer 1: The difference between the law and the Gospel (as all our true Protestant divines teach) does not at all consist in this; that is, that the one requires perfect obedience, and the other only sincere obedience; but in this, that the one requires doing, Do this and live; but the other, no doing but believing for life and salvation: their terms differ not only in degree, but in their whole nature.

2. The Apostle, 'tis evident, opposes the believing required in the Gospel to all manner of doing or working for life, as the condition proper to the Law: The Law is not of Faith, but the man that does them shall live in them. Faith in Jesus Christ the Mediator is not commanded by the Law by which the soul shall live; the Law says nothing of this; this is not of the Law. And the Gospel speaks nothing of doing or working for life, neither of perfect or [illegible] obedience, but the direct contrary: He that works not, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith — not his obedience to the Gospel, but his faith — is counted for righteousness.

If therefore we seek justification by any manner of doing or works, though upon never so easy and mild a condition of obedience, we do thereby bring ourselves under the terms of the Law; which is a complete declaration of the only terms whereby God will judge all, and condemn all who are not brought to see the insufficiency that is in it, through the flesh (Romans 8:3), [reconstructed: to] justify the soul. And from that sight and sense they disown all their works of obedience, and accept of Christ his righteousness and perfect obedience to the Law, to justify them in the sight of God. For let our obedience be never so sincere, if it be not perfect, we are still debtors to the Law, and are accursed by it, unless we believe in Jesus Christ. So that all who seek for justification or eternal life, knowingly or ignorantly, by any works done by them, less or more, whether commanded by the Law or Gospel, confound the terms of the Law and Gospel together.

And to this, let me add one thing more, that is, it cannot be rationally doubted but that the Jews and Judaizing Christians in the Apostles' days, against whom he contended, [reconstructed: did not profess any hope to be justified by a complete or perfect obedience to the Law according to the rigor of it]; but no doubt thought if they did sincerely do what they could to love God and keep his commandments, they should be accepted and justified in his sight. For the Jewish religion taught them that professed it (as one observes) to acknowledge themselves sinners, which appears by their anniversary humiliation at the day of atonement and several other rites of the Law. Nor have we any reason to conclude but some of them yielded also sincere obedience (I speak of moral sincerity) to the Law. This being so, I see not why their sincere obedience might not justify them as far forth as any sincere obedience to the Gospel or milder Law can a Christian now. Brethren, this new doctrine is but a piece of old Judaism. These men do but stumble at the old stumbling-stone, which was the seeking to be justified by a man's own righteousness, in a sincere or upright obedience to that law or rule of life God gave them; and so thereby not submitting themselves to the righteousness of God, which is by faith in Jesus Christ, without the Law or any obedience of ours.

Moreover, pray consider that Paul, who told the Galatians they were fallen from grace, did not disown Jesus Christ; they were still professors of the Gospel, though they thought obedience to the Law a necessary condition in order to justification also. Nor was the observation of the moral Law a damning sin: no, no, the Gospel obliges to it; but it was their seeking justification thereby, and not by faith only, or in that respect mixing works with faith.

4. All works done by the creature are excluded in point of justification of a sinner in the sight of God, because we are justified by a perfect righteousness: if no man is in himself perfectly righteous, then no man can be justified by any works done by him. But the Apostle proves that the justice of God requires a perfect or sinless righteousness in point of justification; and also proves that all have sinned, nor is there one that does good and sins not: no person has a perfect righteousness of his own. Alas, sirs, the Law of God is but as a transcript or written impression of that holiness and purity that is in his own nature, and serves to show us what a righteousness we must be found in, if we are ever justified in his sight. Nor can it be once supposed by any man, unless blinded, that God will ever loosen or relax the sanction of his holy Law, or abate a jot or tittle of that righteousness his holy nature and Law requires in point of our being justified in his sight — it must be all fulfilled by us in our own persons, or by our surety for us, and imputed to us.

The Law did not only proceed from God, doubtless, as an act of his sovereign will and prerogative, but as an act proceeding from his infinite justice and holiness. Can any be so left, as once to conclude God sent his Son to destroy the Law, or to diminish or take away the least part or tittle of that obedience he therein enjoins, which so well agrees with the perfections of his own pure nature? 'Tis strange to me any should conceive God should give way to relax or abrogate the Law of perfect obedience; in fact, send his Son to do it (and in its room bring in a law for imperfect obedience to justify us) as if he repented he ever gave it.

For by this means, says a learned author, God should lose much honor in making this second covenant and granting such easy terms; for there is no comparison between perfect obedience required by the Law and due to God as our Creator, and that imperfect obedience which is accepted by the Gospel, neither in quantity, quality, nor duration. Here it is possible a man may be converted at the last hour and saved, though he have lived in rebellion against God many years; what little honor or service has God from such a man? Indeed, from the best men, who confess their righteousness to be as filthy rags, in comparison of a sinless nature and perfect life, in respect of all duties, time, and place, without mixture of any sinful imperfections — what should be the reason of this alteration? If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law (Galatians 3:21).

Could not man keep the law of works then? It seems the first law was too strict. This reflects upon the wisdom and justice of God: it must be granted that perfect man could observe a perfect law, had God pleased to give him grace and assistance sufficient to his state and necessity; and so there was no need the law should be altered, and the obedience, the condition of it, changed from perfect to imperfect: for if perfect man could not keep the law of perfect obedience, with sufficient grace. How should sinful man perform the law of sincere obedience, having no more than sufficient grace to assist him? Did not God foreknow that man would break the law of works, and so was necessitated to make a new and more easy law? Or, did not God both foreknow and permit the fall of man? Or, could he not have hindered it? Why then should he give way to the abrogating the command of perfect obedience, to bring in that of imperfect? Surely (as Augustine says) God is so just that he can allow no evil, and so good that he can permit no evil, except it be with design to bring greater good out of it. If God permitted the first covenant to be broken, that thereby he might abase man and magnify his own grace, and his Son, in bestowing heaven freely on him, and in bringing him there by the continued power of pardoning and sanctifying grace; hereby indeed God does [illegible] advance his own glory, by the change of the covenants.

But that the condition of perfect obedience, being broken by man's sin; the law therefore should be disannulled, and a new way of treating with man set up, wherein still man should be something, and his works bring about his own salvation, and God be contented with few and very imperfect acts of obedience; this certainly is a prejudice to his honor; nor does this make it up, that is, that our obedience is accepted for Christ's sake; for Christ only made way for removing the old covenant, (say you) and the granting a new; but he did not obey in our stead; nor does add any worth to our obedience; unless you will say that we are justified by our own sincere obedience, the righteousness of Christ making up the defects of it; and so our own righteousness will be a coordinate cause of our justification with the righteousness of Christ; we say.

When the Apostle says, by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, he does not mean only the law, as in the hands of Moses; but also as it is anew given forth by Jesus Christ; for we are still under obedience to the moral law, the substance of which is to love God and our neighbor as ourselves: by the law is meant that rule of life God has given, whether as written in the heart, or given by Moses, or as given anew by Christ as rule of life to us; lusts is a breach of Christ's law, or as the law given by Christ, as well as it was given by Moses, no man, because a sinner, can be justified by his own works, righteousness, or obedience; but all men are sinners, whether professors or profane (Romans 3:23). (As I said before) he that is justified, must be just or without sin, or have such a righteousness imputed to him, God will in no wise clear the guilty (Exodus 34:7). God is just as well as gracious (Romans 3:26); he cannot suffer any wrong to be done to his holy law. Consider the purity of his nature and rectitude of his will: his justice must be satisfied, his law fulfilled by us, or by our surety for us, and will not abate a tittle of that righteousness it does require; yet such is also his goodness, that what we could not do in keeping perfectly the law, he sent his Son in our nature, as our surety and representative, to do it for us (Romans 8:3). That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, that is in our head, who by faith is ours; and thus by faith we do not make void the law, but establish it. Is the law rendered useless, or of none effect by faith? Are we justified without regard had to the just commands thereby required, or without a compensation made for the breach thereof? Is it made void? No, God forbid, (says the Apostle) we establish the law, in as much as by faith we get or attain to a perfect righteousness; even such a righteousness as the law requires, by being interested in the complete and perfect righteousness, and obedience of Christ to the moral law, in whom every type and shadow of the ceremonial law, and in whom each promise, and prophecy is fulfilled also: to close this, take this argument, if we are justified by a complete and perfect righteousness; then an imperfect though a sincere righteousness, does not justify us, but we are justified by a complete and perfect righteousness. Ergo,

Remember, sinners, you are guilty, and must be justified in a way of righteousness, as well as pardoned in a way of sovereign mercy, that God might be just, and the justifier of them that believe in Jesus (Romans 3:26). We can only be justified, says learned Leigh, by that righteousness which is universal and complete. Leigh's Body of Divinity, p. 529. Our obedience, though sincere, is not universal nor complete; therefore our sincere obedience or righteousness justifies us not in God's sight.

5. All works done by the creature are excluded in point of justification of the sinner before God, appears, because gospel justification is a great mystery, and the preaching of it counted foolishness to the wise men of this world: to preach Christ and his righteousness, as that which justifies us they cannot understand; natural light and reason comprehends it not. What, must we be justified by the obedience and righteousness of another? This to the learned Greeks was a strange doctrine.

But to say a man is justified by sincere obedience, that is, by believing the truth of God's Word, and living a godly life, suits well with man's natural wisdom and reason: but the doctrine of faith, though it be not against human reason, yet it is above it, and wholly depends upon divine or supernatural revelation, through this man is preached to you remission of sins, and by him all that believe are justified from all things, by which they could not be justified by the law of Moses (Acts 13:38-39). For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Romans 5:19). How dare any say our works or sincere obedience is our righteousness, since the Apostle positively asserts, we are made righteous by the obedience of Jesus Christ? If it be by his obedience, it is not by our own: for as Adam's sin was imputed to his seed to condemnation, so is the obedience or righteousness of Christ imputed to all those who believe in him to justification.

Now the worst of men that have any sense of religion, are prone to conclude the only way to obtain God's favor, and to be justified in his sight, is to make the practice of holiness and upright walking a condition; or rather, the only way thereunto, and that happiness is to be by that means obtained. Hence it is, when they meet with any awakening convictions or terror of conscience, they presently begin to think they must amend their lives, and perform religious duties: indeed, this way the heathens were brought to their best devotion (as a learned writer observes) mankind being made and born under a covenant of works, are naturally led to work for life, or to do something to procure God's acceptance, and escape his displeasure. The very light of natural reason informs us, that it is just with God to require us to perform duties of sincere obedience, or duties of natural or instituted religion; and if we fall in doing what our consciences tells us we ought to do, we presently through self-love and blind hope, persuade ourselves God being gracious will pardon us wherein we come short, through Christ, who died for sinners.

And thus we may perceive that the persuasion of salvation and justification by the condition of sincere obedience, has its origin from our corrupt, natural reason, and is part of the wisdom of the world; but it is none of the wisdom of God in a mystery, indeed that hidden wisdom God has ordained before the world began to our glory: it is not of the things of the Spirit of God, nor of the mystery of faith, which the natural man cannot receive, but are foolishness to him: this is not the foolishness of preaching whereby God is pleased to save them that believe (1 Corinthians 2:6-7, 9, 14).

Certainly the justification of a sinner in the sight of God by faith only, or to believe on him that justifies the ungodly, is one of the chief mysteries of the gospel; but if our justification was by our own obedience, or by conforming our lives to the rules of the gospel, justification and salvation would cease from being any more a mystery: but to be justified by the righteousness of another, though sinners in ourselves, and have done nothing to procure such favor and acceptance at God's hand, can't enter into the heart of natural and self-deceived mortals. Sirs, our justification is a great mystery, as it is an act of God's sovereign grace and wisdom: herein his justice and mercy equally shine forth, and the one does not eclipse the glory of the other; sin is punished, and the sinner acquitted.

6th Argument: If when we have done all we can do, we are unprofitable servants; then by our best works of obedience and services under the gospel, we cannot be justified: but contrariwise all works in that respect, as done by us, are excluded (Luke 17:10).

He is no unprofitable servant, whose works or sincere obedience commends him to God in point of justification: no man is able to come up fully to discharge his duty; if therefore sincere obedience [reconstructed: instead] of perfect, God now requires of us in the case of justification, and we are able fully to discharge the law of sincere obedience, which our new doctors must say, or they say nothing; then it follows that all such persons are not unprofitable servants; for they have done all that God requires of them. Nor indeed can I see (as a divine observes) if sincere obedience be the condition of justification and life, how the imperfections of the godly should be any sins against the gospel, where there is no law, there is no transgression; for this new law, that is, the gospel, requires no more than sincere and upright obedience, (say they) though the law did; and the gospel also promises life in like manner to sincere obedience, as the law did to perfect and complete obedience; they may be imperfections (says he) in nature, but not proper sins. Praeter, non contra Legem, as the Papists say. If they say, that more than sincere obedience is required of us, but not as a condition of life, I ask by what law? The covenant of works required nothing but as the condition of life, no more does the gospel, if it be a law of life. After such a manner, our Saviour, doubtless by his expressions shows us, that all we do avails us nothing in point of desert, though never so sincerely performed; and therefore far from justifying us in God's sight, but that all we have is of God's free grace.

7th Argument: Because we are said to be justified by the righteousness of God: hence it follows that all our own works of obedience are excluded (Romans 3:21-22). It is called the righteousness of God in opposition to the righteousness of the creature; not the essential righteousness of God, but the righteousness of Christ the Mediator, who is God as well as man; and that righteousness God in his infinite wisdom has found out to discharge us guilty and condemned sinners, and to justify us in his sight. Hence Saint Paul renounced all his own righteousness, that he might be found in the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ (Philippians 3:8-10).

Obj. But say some Paul speaks only of that righteousness which he had while a Pharisee, or of the righteousness of the law. He intends not (says Mr. Williams, p. 204-205) gospel-sincerity, but those Jewish things, or what they boasted of. And again he says, it was not gospel-holiness which he counted dung or loss.

'Tis strange this man should adventure to give such a sense of this text, when at the same time he would fain have his reader believe he owns the imputed righteousness of Christ for our justification, p. 202. 'Tis evident he does deny that the righteousness of Christ alone is imputed to us for justification, as being the only matter that justifies us from all things, and that without any works done by us, either in respect of answering the rules of law or gospel, though never so sincerely performed. All indeed that I can find he means, is this, that is, that Christ's merits are the cause of the gospel rule and promise, and his righteousness imputed is the cause for which we are justified and saved, when we have got new hearts, and answer the rule of the gospel in holiness and sincere obedience. And thus though imperfect obedience to the law was dogs' meat; yet imperfect obedience to the rule of the gospel or promise thereof, if sincere, is the children's bread; in fact, that which they ought to seek justification by, and to desire to be found in. (If this man's doctrine may be received,) it should appear by him that Christ's righteousness imputed, and our gospel-obedience mixed together, justifies us: But the chief part is our conformity to the rule of sincere obedience, and Christ's righteousness, cannot do by faith alone without this of ours.

2. But soul know, and be not deceived, this text has always been urged by sound Protestant writers, as one of the pillars of the doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Christ applied by faith alone. Saint Paul does not only disclaim his righteousness he had before conversion, or his obedience to the law in point of justification; but he speaks in the present tense, What things were gain to me, those have I counted loss for Christ: But that which he adds, is more, I do count all things loss. He speaks, as our divines note, of all, both past, long since, and also now present, whether righteousness of his own, in obedience to the law, or works done by him under the gospel, all he counted as dung in comparison of the knowledge of Christ and his righteousness, or the righteousness of God which is by faith.

3. 'Tis to be noted how Mister Williams and Bellarmine do jump together, and agree in their exposition of this text: The latter says, That by righteousness which is of the law, are meant works of obedience done through the knowledge of the law by the only strength of natural abilities before his conversion. To which Chemnitius and other Protestant writers answer, That Paul rejected not only his works before his conversion, which he signifies, speaking of the time past, v. 7. but also the works of his present condition; indeed, doubtless, and I do count all things but loss.

Mister Williams says, They were the Jewish privileges, and that conceited Christless righteousness which he once valued: But says he, a gospel-holiness is not here intended; and that still by speaking in the present tense, Paul means what was past, says he. Pray observe they both exclude the righteousness of the law, done by natural or legal abilities; and they both agree to include an inherent righteousness, performed by gracious assistance under the gospel. This man is I hope no Papist, though he strives, 'tis plain, to maintain one of the grossest parts of Popery, and that part God raised up holy Luther principally to detect. Christians look about you, for you are greatly concerned.

4. Consider that the apostle positively disclaims all righteousness of obedience done by the creature in justification before God, and did rely on the righteousness of God: For if he sets our righteousness, or the righteousness of the creature in direct opposition to the righteousness of God, which is by faith; then that which is the righteousness of God applied by faith, is not the righteousness of the creature, though never so sincerely performed, but the former is true: Therefore,

5. 'Tis such a righteousness Paul here intended, that he desired to be found in both at death and judgment; but dared he, think you, desire to be found in any righteousness of his own at that hour, or in that great and dreadful day? As to this, take what Reverend Downham, and others say, When a man shall be summoned to appear before the judgment-seat of God, shall seriously consider with himself what he shall oppose to the accusations of Satan, to the convictions of the law, to the testimony of his own conscience, confessing himself to be a most wretched sinner, to the judgment of God, and most righteous judge, if he look back on his own conduct, as having nothing to trust to but his own righteousness, he shall find sufficient [reconstructed: matter of despair]. He may say with Anselm, Terret me vita mea, etc. My life does terrify me. Alas! what man is fully able to say he is perfect, or that he sincerely has done all his duty, in respect of that milder law of obedience which they talk of?

Sirs, there is no way in order to peace of conscience for us, but to do as Paul did, that is, renounce all our own inherent righteousness and obedience, and fly to the doctrine of justification by the grace of God, through the complete righteousness of Jesus Christ received by faith only.

For while a man (says he) retains this opinion, that he can be justified by his own works, or inherent righteousness, he can never be soundly persuaded that his righteousness is sufficient for that purpose; but has just cause not only to doubt, but also to despair: And this is the cause of that Popish opinion, That no man without special revelation can be assured of the remission of his sins in this life, Downham [reconstructed: on Justification], p. 202. Brethren, some of the Papists themselves have on a deathbed been forced to seek relief, by renouncing all their own works and obedience under distress of conscience, and to fly to the righteousness of Christ, only they kept it close to themselves, lest that gap being opened, their trade should fall to the ground, as appears by the answer of Stephen Gardyner to the Bishop of Chichester, Foxe's Acts and Monuments, Vol. 2, p. 46. Take two or three arguments further here, namely,

1. If that righteousness which is the righteousness of God, which is by faith, in opposition to the righteousness of the creature does justify us; then all works done by the creature are excluded in point of justification in God's sight: But the former is true; Therefore, all works done by the creature are excluded, etc.

2. If Paul, nor no other child of God dared, or dare to be found in any righteousness of their own at death or judgment; then works done by us, or sincere obedience justifies us not; but the former is true; therefore no works of ours, nor sincere obedience does justify us in God's sight.

3 Arg. That doctrine that holds a Christian down under slavish fear, by grounding his justification on his own works of holiness and sincere obedience, is not of God; but the doctrine of justification by our own works of holiness or sincere obedience, holds a Christian down under slavish fear, by grounding his justification on his works of holiness and sincere obedience; therefore that doctrine is not of God. Christians, take heed what books you read, if you would have a sound and steadfast ground of hope, peace and comfort; in fact, not only have the joy of God's salvation, but salvation itself; for if you build on your own righteousness or obedience, and not on the righteousness of God, which is received by faith only, you will fall into hell, by stumbling at the same stumbling-stone the Jews did (Romans 9:32; Romans 10:2).

8 Arg. All works done by the creature are excluded in point of justification of a sinner in the sight of God, because we are justified by that righteousness by which the justice of God is satisfied, and his wrath appeased. That righteousness that delivers us alone from condemnation, and the curse of the law, does justify us and none else; and is not that the righteousness of Christ? Is not he that is acquitted from condemnation and death, put into a state of justification and life?

What is it that these new doctors talk of? How is Christ's righteousness made our legal righteousness, and yet not our evangelical righteousness? If the righteousness of Christ be imputed to us, as that which when applied by faith, delivers us from condemnation, wrath and death, certainly we need no other righteousness to justify us in God's sight to eternal life.

Obj. But unbelief is against the Gospel, what defense against this?

Answ. The person that we speak of, has faith, he believes in Christ, therefore the Gospel charges him not, and the law cannot: here is a pardon, if you receive it, you are acquitted: here is a plaster, if you apply it, you are healed. The man receives the pardon, applies the plaster; he is by the grace of God helped to believe, he is therefore delivered from death, and put into a state of justification, and shall not come into condemnation (Romans 8:1).

2. No man is acquitted from the charge of any sin, either against the law or Gospel, till he believes; but when he believes, when he applies the merits and righteousness of Christ, he is justified from all things, from all sins of whatever nature they are. Must we by our sincere obedience make God a compensation for the sins we have committed against the Gospel, and free tenders of his grace, or for slighting the Word of Reconciliation? etc. Has not Christ satisfied God's justice for all our sins; and when we believe, are we not thereby justified from all sins committed against the Gospel, as well as against the law? Have we any plea at God's bar, but that of the merits of Christ, and his righteousness only, let our sin or guilt be what it will?

Quest. But how does it appear a man does believe in Christ indeed.

Answ. Why his faith, if true, will make him a new creature, 'twill purify his heart, it will lead him into sincere and universal obedience; but 'tis Christ's righteousness still nevertheless that justifies him in God's sight, though his obedience and inherent righteousness may justify his faith, or evidence the truth of grace to his own conscience and to men also. But,

Obj. God does require an evangelical righteousness in all that do believe this righteousness Christ is not, nor is it the righteousness of Christ; he may be said to be our legal righteousness, but our evangelical righteousness he is not. And so far as we are righteous with any righteousness, so far we are justified by it; for according to this evangelical righteousness we must be tried, if we have it we shall be acquitted, and if we have it not we shall be condemned; there is therefore a justification according to it.

To this, take reverend Doctor Owen's answer, According to some authors, or maintainers of this opinion, I see not, says he, but that the Lord Christ is as much our evangelical righteousness as he is our legal: for our legal righteousness, he is not in their judgment by a proper imputation of his righteousness to us, but by the communication of the fruits of what he did and suffered for us: and so he is our evangelical righteousness also; for our sanctification is an effect or fruit of what he did and suffered for us (Ephesians 5:25-26; Titus 2:10).

2. None have this evangelical righteousness, but those who are in order of nature at least justified before they actually have it; for it is that which is required of all that do believe, and are justified; and we need not much inquire how a man is justified after he is justified.

3. God has not appointed this personal righteousness, in order to our justification before him in this life, though he has appointed it to evidence our justification before others, etc.

4. If we are in any sense justified hereby in the sight of God, we have of what to boast before him: though we may not absolutely in respect of merit; yet we may so comparatively, and in respect of others, who cannot make the same plea for their justification: but all boasting is excluded: and it will not relieve, to say, that this personal righteousness is of the free grace and gift of God to some, and not to others; for we must plead it as our duty, and not as God's grace. See his further answer, Doctor Owen of Justification, p. 221, 222. To close this, take this argument:

If by that righteousness of Christ which is out of us, though imputed to us, the justice of God is fully satisfied, we are justified; then all works done by us, or inherent in us, are excluded in our justification before God: but by that righteousness of Christ which is out of us, though imputed to us, the justice of God is satisfied; therefore all works done by us, or inherent in us, are excluded in our justification before God.

Finally, says Bellarmine, Nothing more frequently does the Scripture testify than that the passion and death of Christ was a full and perfect satisfaction for sins. Further he says, God does indeed not accept, as a true satisfaction for sin, any justice but that which is infinite, because sin is an infinite offence, etc. De Just. l. 2. Now the sufferings of Christ and his righteousness only, is of an infinite value, ours is not; therefore Christ's righteousness only, and not ours, is a true satisfaction for sin. Our adversaries sometimes are forced to speak the truth.

Argument: All works done by the creature are excluded, etc., because it is by the obedience of one man that many are made righteous, that is Jesus Christ; he is made of God to us righteousness, etc. (Romans 5:18-19; 1 Corinthians 1:30). But our inherent righteousness is of many; that is, every man's own sincere obedience that obtains it.

10th Argument: All works done by the creature are excluded in point of justification. I prove this thus: if any one man was justified without works or sincere obedience, or through faith only, then all works of obedience, etc., are excluded. But the thief on the cross was justified without works of obedience; and so are all infants that die in infancy that are saved. The matter of justification is one and the same; the balm that cures our malady is all one in infants and in adult persons; it is Christ's death, Christ's blood, the merits of Jesus Christ; or it is his active and passive obedience, which is our only righteousness to discharge us from sin and condemnation. Though the mode or manner of the application thereof may be different to the adult — it is by faith only — to infants in a more secret and hidden manner, not known to us.

In fact, Abraham, David, and Paul were not justified by inherent righteousness, but by faith without works of obedience. And as Abraham was justified, so are all his spiritual and true seed; to them, and every one of them, is faith imputed to justification or righteousness, even by faith alone without works, as Paul proves (Romans 4:3-5).

11th Argument is because Christ is tendered or offered to sinners as sinners — not as righteous persons, but as ungodly ones, without any previous qualifications required of them to fit themselves to receive Christ. They are all as poor, lost, undone, weary, and heavy-laden sinners required to believe in Christ, or venture their souls upon him, though they have no money, no righteousness. If they have any, they must cast it away in point of dependence, trust, or justification. These are they Christ came to call; these are they he invites to come to him; these are they he came to seek and to save, who see nothing of good in themselves, but on the contrary are sensible of their filthy hearts and abominable lives. And yet though it be thus, if they come to Christ, believe truly in Christ, they shall at that very instant be justified, which faith or divine grace will soon make them holy and sanctify them; for holy habits are at that very instant infused into them, though sanctification is a gradual work. This being so, it follows that all works done by the creature are excluded in point of justification of a sinner before God. What did Paul say to the ungodly jailer when he cried out, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' 'Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, and your house' (Acts 16:31). The Apostle did not put him upon doing to be saved, but upon believing. But oh, how contrary is this to the doctrine some men preach nowadays; they tell sinners what they must do, what good fruits they must bring forth, and this before the tree is good, or they have closed with Christ, or have real union with him. Or rather, they bid the people take heed they do not too soon believe on Christ or venture on Christ. Sirs, you cannot too soon believe in Christ — I mean truly believe; I don't say you should get a presumptuous faith, but true faith. But is it not strange that a minister should be heard lately to say a man must get a new heart before he can be justified? I thought a man could not have a new heart before he had true faith. Is not a new heart one of the absolute promises of the New Covenant (Ezekiel 36:26)? Can anything short of almighty power make the heart new, or form the image of God in the soul? Or can a man that has a new heart be under condemnation, for are not all in that condition who are not actually justified? Or can a dead man quicken himself, or dead works please God? Or the fruit be good before the tree is good? Are not all that are new creatures in Christ Jesus, and have union with him (2 Corinthians 5:17)?

12th Argument, with which I shall conclude the proof of the doctrine (though I might mention many more to prove all works done by the creature, or obedience of his, are in this case excluded, etc.). It is because if a man should so walk as to know nothing of himself — that is, be so righteous, or so sincere in his obedience, as not to have his conscience accuse or reproach him — yet he cannot thereby be justified. See what Paul says: 'Though I know nothing of myself, yet am I not thereby justified' (1 Corinthians 4:4). Though he had kept a conscience void of offense toward God and toward men, yet in the point of justification he renounces all his own obedience and righteousness that was inherent in him. Did holy Job dare to depend upon his sincerity, or venture in that to stand at God's tribunal? Though he could plead uprightness against the false charge of his three friends, and with much confidence persevere in it, justifying his sincerity with his faith and hope in God against their accusations, he showed his faith by his works, and stands on his justification of himself against hypocrisy. But at length he is called into the immediate presence of God to plead his own cause — not now as it was stated between himself and his friends before, whether he were sincere or not. The question was now reduced to this: that is, on what grounds he might or could be justified in the sight of God. And God, to [reconstructed: prepare] him in this case and to show him what to plead at his bar, graciously [reconstructed: manifested] himself to him. And quickly now he comes to see all his former [reconstructed: pleas], as Doctor Owen notes, of faith, hope, and sincere obedience, would not avail [reconstructed: him]; but he is made to fly under the deepest self-abasement and abhorrence to sovereign grace and mercy. For then Job answered the Lord and said, 'I [reconstructed: am] vile, what shall I answer you? I will lay my hand upon my mouth. Once [reconstructed: have] I spoken, but I will not answer; indeed twice, but I will proceed no further' (Job [reconstructed: 40]:3-5). 'I have heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you. Therefore I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes.' — Doctor Owen.

How, Job, abhor yourself! — you are so holy, so sincere, such an upright man! What is all the beauty of your inherent holiness, and sincere obedience — become nothing to you? Is it as dung now? Do you dare not appear before God in it, not stand at his bar thereby to be justified? No, no, he saw that there was sin cleaving to his best duties, and that he was vile in God's sight. Sure this agrees with Mr. Daniel Williams's New Doctrine: It was not Gospel-holiness which Paul counted dung, says he. No doubt Job's righteousness was the fruits of faith as well as Paul's, and purified his heart too; who says he knew that his Redeemer lived (Job 14). But yet for all this holiness, uprightness, and sincere obedience, he abhors himself, and repents he ever had a conceit of the worth of his own righteousness.

Let a man place himself in the condition wherein Job was to stand before the bar of God's justice; and let him attend to the charge he has against him; and let him consider what will be his best plea at God's tribunal, that he may be justified. I do not believe, (says the reverend Doctor,) that any man living has more encouraging grounds to plead for an interest in his own faith and obedience in his justification before God than Job had: Alas, we must all say with David, Enter not into judgment with your servant; for in your sight shall no man living be justified. This must be our plea when we come to die, that is, My trust is in Christ, in his blood, in his death, in his righteousness: This is only pleadable now, and in the Judgment-Day; this will give ease to a convinced, terrified conscience, that knows the nature, holiness, purity, and justice of God: We must say with Anselm, My conscience has deserved damnation, and my repentance is not sufficient for satisfaction; but certain it is that the mercy abounds above all offenses. The Prophet Isaiah cries out, He was undone, notwithstanding his sincere obedience, because a man of unclean lips (Isaiah 6). When the Day of Judgment or death comes, all hands will be weak and all hearts faint: confidence in our own uprightness will then fail, because no works can then be found to answer the righteousness of God; if you should mark iniquity, who shall stand? O Lord, righteousness belongs to you, but to us confusion of face; though I know nothing of myself, yet am I not thereby justified. No, no, he was justified by the righteousness of God, by Christ's sinless obedience, and not by his own imperfect though sincere obedience; therefore all works done by the creature are excluded. It is evident the godly at the Judgment-Day will not plead their own righteousness; but contrariwise will then renounce it in this respect, as appears by that, in (Matthew 25:37) — Lord, when saw we you hungry, and fed you; thirsty, and gave you drink, etc. They will rather blush, and be ashamed to hear any mention of their works or of their obedience, than to plead it at that day: All the good works which they have done, will be swallowed up in the admiration of God's free and infinite grace: But so much as to the proof of the doctrine. I shall close with a brief word of application.