vi. 23), but a reward paid, on the principle of condignity, to these our works.

We are certainly greatly indebted to the Romanists, who, as in all other controversies, so especially in this, desire us to prove, what Scripture manifestly sets forth, what the conscience of every individual dictates within him, and to what, in fine, the confession of all saints publicly testifies.

It is not therefore, more difficult to shew that the doctrine of a free justification is true, and to exhibit the deficiencies of man's righteousness, than it is to point to the light of the sun, or the spots on a cloud.

I will enter then upon the subject, premising merely, that it is not my purpose to take up the whole subject in controversy as respects justification and works; but to select certain special parts, by the explanation and determination of which, a way will be opened for readily forming an opinion of the rest. You perceive then to what points the present discussion is limited.

A DISCUSSION

CONCERNING

INHERENT AND HABITUAL RIGHTEOUSNESS.

CHAPTER I.

THE HEADS OF THE FOLLOWING DISPUTATION DESCRIBED.

THE discussion is concerning habitual and actual righteousness, or (as we are accustomed to say) inherent righteousness and the righteousness of good works.

As to what relates to the inherent righteousness of the regenerate, I shall discuss three primary questions:

I. The first, whether a certain habitual or inherent righteousness is infused into all the justified, whence they are called and deemed just? And here we may clear away the calumnies of the Jesuits, who are repeatedly exclaiming, that the Protestants do not acknowledge any internal renovation, any habitual righteousness in the justified; but teach that they, still remaining in the filthiness of their inbred impurity, are accounted both justified and just, by a mere naked acceptance, which only covers, but does not cleanse, their inherent corruption.

II. Secondly, whether this righteousness which is infused into, and dwells in the regenerate, entirely expels original sin, leaving nothing in the regenerate which retains the true character and nature of sin ? Where we shall have to shew, not only that certain penalties or consequences (as the schoolmen say) are found in all the justified, but also real, and in their own nature damnable, remains of sin, even though, the dominion of sin being now broken, and its guilt

B

remitted, they do not condemn the person who has been reconciled to God through Christ.

III. — Thirdly and lastly, whether by this inherent righteousness (whatever it be) the faithful stand justified formally in the sight and judgment of God. Now it will be our part to shew, that as, through grace, the ungodly man is first of all justified; because his sins are remitted for Christ's sake, he is admitted from a state of enmity into the favour of God, and appointed to eternal life so he permanently stands in a justified state, not by qualities infused, or inherent righteousness, but by the gratuitous acceptance of God, for the sake of the Mediator into whom he is engrafted, and through whom he is restored to the favour of God, preserved in the same, and accepted to life eternal. These are the chief questions relating to this matter. If any other arises from or is involved in these, it shall be explained at the same time.

Now in treating of actual righteousness, or the righteousness of works, our first question will be,

First, of the necessity of good works; in which these two things are to be explained:

1. That good works are necessary to all believers and justified persons, who have the use of reason, and are of maturity to be able to work.

2.-In what sense they are termed necessary to salvation ; in what sense not so.

Our second question will be of the genuineness of good works, which we shall dispose of in these three conclusions:

1. That those which are called the good works of the regenerate possess a genuine, internal, and supernatural goodness, are grateful and acceptable to God, and ordained for reward.

2. These same works, inasmuch as they are wrought by a man not yet freed from the remains of the old Adam, have their faults and blemishes, and therefore need the merciful and paternal acceptance of God.

3. These good works conjointly considered in both waysthat is, as they spring from the grace of the Holy Spirit, and are at the same time sprinkled with the dust of the old Adam, -are not to be accounted as mortal sins, nor are they so regarded by Protestants.

Thirdly, we shall add a discussion of the perfection of good works, which will embrace two propositions directly opposed to two Papistical errors :

1.-No one of the regenerate can by his good works exceed the perfection of the Divine law, or supererogate by such transcendental works.

2.-No one of the regenerate can perfectly fulfil the Divine law.

Lastly, we shall discuss the merit of good works; and enquire,

1. Whether life eternal, or the kingdom of heaven, is due of condignity to the good works of pious men.

2. Whether the promise of God, respecting the bestowment of the reward of life eternal on the good works of the regenerate, attributes condignity to them, which they would not have without such promise.

You see (my learned Brethren) how many and of what importance are the controversies which I propose to treat of in their order. Relying, therefore, not upon my own strength, but upon the strength of truth and of the Divine assistance, I will cheerfully descend into this arena.

CHAPTER II.

THE FRAUDS AND CALUMNIES OF THE PAPISTS DETECTED AND REFUTED.

It is a custom in the Church of Rome, when they cannot refute those doctrines which we hold, falsely to attribute to us what we do not hold; that afterwards, like men contending with phantoms, they may fight strenuously with these hideous and fictitious opinions.

We all, no less than the Romanists themselves, teach that inherent righteousness, and that grace of sanctification, which is the root of the new life, is infused into the justified. Since, therefore, concerning this first question,-whether it be granted that there is an inherent righteousness,—we do

not differ from the Romanists, it will not be necessary to prove laboriously what is in no way denied. We must labour rather to repel their deceits and calumnies; which being accomplished, we will confirm the truth of our proposition by some arguments for it.

There are two grand quibbles of which the Papists perpetually make use, when they cannot disprove any opinion of ours, which they endeavour nevertheless to obscure and bring into odium with the common people.

One is, that when we deny the power of inherent righteousness to justify, they take it as though the habit of this inherent righteousness were altogether denied by us. For instance, when we teach that no man is justified before God by his inherent righteousness or infused gifts, our adversaries immediately infer that we maintain, that none of the regenerate have any righteousness inherent in them. Bellarmine himself was not ashamed of this fallacy, as pointless as it is contemptible. Calvin, says he, (lib. 2, de Justif. cap. 1) with the Lutherans, allows that there does not exist any inherent righteousness. I expected some express quotation, but not one word could he bring; but he rakes together some words out of Calvin, which shew that the justification of believers does not consist in infused or inherent qualities, but in the act of God remitting our sins, and accepting us to life eternal in Christ. But it is one thing to separate inherent righteousness from the act, virtue, or merit of justifying, which Calvin rightly does; another thing to remove it altogether from the man, person or subject justified; which Bellarmine calumniously maintains, with no less malice than absurdity, that he has done. But we shall consider this matter more copiously hereafter.

Another fallacy of the Papists consists in this, that whatever is argued by us comparatively and in a certain sense (comparatè et secundum quid) respecting this inherent righteousness, this they immediately lay hold of and pervert, as though it was affirmed simply and absolutely, (simpliciter et absolutè). As, if any one of us should say, that we have no righteousness in which we can appear, if strictly examined before the Divine tribunal; or, that we have not the righteousness which the law of God requires for the avoidance of the curse and the attainment of eternal life, immediately they cry out, that we grant no