the Righteoufnefs of Chrifl. Objections again /I this Doctrine derived from a fuppofition thereof alone. Firfl principalObjeF.ti- on ; Imputed Righteoufnefs overthrows the necef f ty of an holy Life. This Objection as managed by them of the Church of Rome, an open calumny. How inf fled on by fo'me among our Delves. Socinus f ercenef in this charge. His foul difhonef y therein. Fa f "charges on Mens opinions, making way for the raft con - demnation of their perfons. Iniquity of filch cenfures. The Oh- jettion rightly flated. Sufficiently anfwered in the previom Dif- courfes about the nature of Faith, and force of the Moral Law. The nature and necefty of Evangelical Holinef elfwhere plead- ed. Particular anfwers unto this ObjeCtion. All who pro f fr this Dottrine do not exemplifié it in their lives. The moll holy Truths have been abufed. None by whom this Dotrine is now denied, exceed them in holinefs , by whom it was formerly pre- fend , and the power of it attefied. The contrary Doctrine not fuccefsful in the Reformation of the lives of Men. The befl way to determine this difference. The fame ObjeCtionmanaged againfl the Dot rive o f the Apoflle in his own days. Efcacious pre- judices again this Doctrine in the minds of Men. The whole Doctrine of the Apofile liable to be abufed. Anfwers of the Apo- file unto this ObjeCtion. He never once attempts to anfwer it, by declaring the necefJty of Perfonal Righteoufnefs, or good Works unto juftification before God. He confines the cogency of Evan- gelical Motives unto Obedience only unto Believers. Grounds of Evangelical Holinef alerted by him in compliance with his Doctrine of yuf lifiration. -(I.) Divine Ordination. Excepti- ons unto this Ground, removed. (2.) Anfwer of the Apofile vindicated. The Obligation of the Law unto Obedience. Na- ture of it, and conffiency with Grace. This Anfwer of the Apo- file vindicated. Heads of other Principles that might be pleadecl to the fame purpofe. Pag. 539. c CHAP.