The Doctrine of Justification by Faith

1. That we grant an inherent Righteousness in all that do believe, as hath been before declared. For the fruit of the Spirit is in all Goodness and Righteousness and Truth, Ephes. 5.9. Being made free from sin, we become the Servants of Righteousness, Rom. 6.20. And our Duty it is to follow after Righteousness, Godliness, Faith, Love, Meekness, 1 Tim. 2.22. And although Righteousness be mostly taken for an especial Grace, or Duty, distinct from other Graces and Duties, yet we acknowledge that it may be taken for the whole of our Obedience before God; and the word is so used in the Scripture, where our own Righteousness is opposed unto the Righteousness of God. And it is either Habitual or Actual. There is an Habitual Righteousness inherent in Believers, as they have put on the new man which after God is created in Righteousness and true Holiness, Ephes. 4.24. As they are the Workmanship of God created in Jesus Christ unto good Works, Chap. 2.8. And there is an Actual Righteousness consisting in those good Works whereunto we are so created, or the fruits of Righteousness, which are to the praise of God by Jesus Christ. And concerning this Righteousness it may be observed; (1) That men are said in the Scripture, to be just or righteous by it, but no one is said to be justified by it before God. (2) That it is not ascribed unto, or found ⟨p. 327⟩in any, but those that are actually justified in order of nature antecedent thereunto.

This being the constant Doctrine of all the reformed Churches and Divines, it is an open Calumny whereby the contrary is ascribed unto them, or any of those who believe the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ unto our Justification before God. So Bellarmine affirms that no Protestant Writers acknowledge an inherent Righteousness, but only Bucer and Chemnitius when there is no one of them, by whom either the thing it self, or the necessity of it is denied. But some excuse may be made for him, from the manner whereby they expressed themselves, wherein they always carefully distinguished between inherent Holiness, and that Righteousness whereby we are justified. But we are now told by one, that if we should affirm it an Hundred times he could scarce believe us. This is somewhat severe; for although he speaks but to one, yet the charge falls equally upon all who maintain that Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, which he denies; who being at least the generality of all Protestant Divines, they are represented either as so foolish, as not to know what they say, or so dishonest as to say one thing and believe another. But he endeavours to justify his censure by sundry Reasons; And first he says, that inherent Righteousness can on no other account be said to be ours, than that by it we are made Righteous, that is, that it is the condition of our Justification required in the new Covenant. This being denied, all inherent Righteousness is denied. But how is this proved? what if one should say, that every Believer is inherently Righteous, but yet that this inherent Righteousness was not the condition of his Justification, but rather the consequent of it, and that it is no where required in the new Covenant as the condition of our Justification, how shall the contrary be made to appear? The Scripture plainly affirms that there is such an inherent Righteousness in