5. “But are we not _justified by faith, without the works of the law_?” Undoubtedly we are, without the works either of the ceremonial or the moral law. And would to God all men were convinced of this. It would prevent innumerable evils. Antinomianism, in particular; for generally speaking, they are the Pharisees who make the Antinomians. Running into an extreme so palpably contrary to scripture, they occasion others to run into the opposite one. These seeking to be justified by works, affright those from allowing any place for them. 6. *But the truth lies between both. We are doubtless _justified by faith_. This is the corner-stone of the whole Christian building. We are _justified without the works of the law_, as any previous condition of justification. But they are an immediate fruit of that faith, whereby we are justified. So that if good works do not follow our faith, even all inward and outward holiness, it is plain our faith is nothing worth: we are yet in our sins. Therefore, that _we are justified by faith_, even _by faith without works_, is no ground for _making void the law thro’ faith_: or for imagining that faith is a dispensation, from any kind or degree of holiness. 7. “Nay, but does not St. _Paul_ expresly say, _Unto him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness_? And does it not follow from hence, That faith is to a believer in the room, in the place of righteousness? But if faith is in the room of righteousness or holiness, what need is there of this too?” This, it must be acknowledged, comes home to the point, and is indeed the main pillar of Antinomianism. And yet it needs not a long or laboured answer. We allow, 1. That God _justifies the ungodly_, him that till that hour is totally ungodly, full of all evil, void of all good. 2. That he justifies _the ungodly that worketh not_, that till that moment worketh no good work: neither can he: for an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. 3. That he justifies him _by faith alone_, without any goodness or righteousness preceding: and, 4. *That _faith is_ then _counted to him for righteousness_, namely, for _preceding righteousness: i. e._ God, thro’ the merits of Christ, accepts him that believes, as if he had already fulfilled all righteousness. But what is all this to your point? The apostle does not say, either here or elsewhere, that this faith is counted to him for _subsequent righteousness_. He does teach, that there is no righteousness _before_ faith. But where does he teach, that there is none _after_ it? He does assert, holiness cannot _precede_ justification: but not, that it need not _follow_ it. St. _Paul_ therefore gives you no colour for _making void the law_, by teaching that faith supersedes the necessity of holiness.