An end of doctrinal controversies which have lately troubled the churches

§. 51. They that say, That we must have inherent and performed Righteousness, but that no man is at all justified by it, must take justifying in some particular limited sense, (which therefore they should explain by distinction) or else they speak gross contradiction: For it is no Righteousness if it constitute not the owner righteous, so far, or in that point; nor yet if the owner may not be justified by it in Judgment, against the accusation of being in that point or so far unrighteous. If he that doth Righteousness is righteous, that Righteousness will materially justify him against the false accusation of the contrary.

§. 51. They that say, That we must have inherent and performed Righteousness, but that no man is at all justified by it, must take justifying in some particular limitted sence, (which therefore they should explain by distinction) or else they speak gross contradiction: For it is no Righteousness if it constitute not the owner righteous, so far, or in that point; nor yet if the owner may not be justified by it in Iudgment, against the accusation of being in that point or so far unrighteous. If he that doth Righteousness is righteous, that Righteousness will materially justifie him against the false accusation of the contrary.

§. 52. Yea, while they make Faith, Repentance and Holiness but Signs and Evidences of our right to Life-eternal, they thereby allow it some place in Justification: For Evidence hath its place in Judgment: And they are moral Evidences, and not physical only.

§. 53. If men understood how atheological and perilous it is to conceit, that either Faith or any thing of ours, (no though we were innocent,) is any proper efficient Cause of God's own internal acts in our Justification, and would understand that ⟨p. 252⟩