The institution of Christian religion, vvrytten in Latine by maister Ihon Caluin, and translated into Englysh according to the authors last edition. Seen and allowed according to the order appointed in the Quenes maiesties iniunctions

The aleuenth Chapter. ¶Of the iustification of Fayth, and fyrst of the definition of the name and of the thyng.

I Thinke I haue already sufficiently declared before, howe [ 1] there remayneth for men being accursed by the lawe one only helpe to recouer saluation: agayne, what Faith is, and what benefites of God it bestoweth vpon man, and what fruites it bringeth fourth in hym. The summe of all was this, that Christ is geuen vs by the goodnesse of God, and cōceiued and possessed of vs by faith, by partakyng of whome we receiue principally twoo graces: the first, that being reconciled to God by his innocencie, we may nowe in stede of a iudge haue a merciful father in heauen: the second, that being sanctified by his Spirite, we maye geue our selues to innocencie and purenesse of lyfe. As for regeneration, whiche is the second grace, we haue alredy spoken of it as muche as semed to be suf∣ficient. The manner of iustification was therfore lesse touched, because it serued well for our purpose, first to vnderstande both how the Faythe by whiche alone we receiue frely geuen righteousnesse by the mercie of God, is not idle from good workes: and also what be the good workes of the holy ones, wherupon part of this question entreateth. Therfore they are first to be throughly discussed, and so discussed that we must re∣membre that this the chefe stay of vpholding religion, that we may be the more carefull and hedefull about it. For vnlesse thou first knowe, in what state thou art with God, and what his iudgement is of thee: as thou hast no ground to stablishe thy saluation, so hast thou also none to rayse thy reuerent feare toward God. But the necessitie of this knowe∣ledge shall better appere by knowledge it selfe.

But that we stumble not at the first entrie, (whiche we should doe if [ 2] we should entre disputation of a thing vnknowen) let vs first declare what is meant by these speches, Man to be iustified before God, To be iustified by fayth or by workes. He is sayd to be iustified afore God, y^t is pronounced by the iudgement of God bothe iust and accepted for hys owne righteousnesse sake. For as wickednesse is abhominable before God, so a sinner can not finde fauour in his eyes, in respect that he is a sinner, or so long as he is accompted suche a one. Therfore wheresoe∣uer synne is, there also appereth the wrath and vengeance of God. He is iustifid that is not accompted in place of a sinner but of a iust man, and by reason therof he standeth fast before the iudgemēt seate of God when all sinners fal. As if an innocent be brought to be arayned before the seate of a righteous iudge, when iudgemēt is geuen accordinge to his innocencie, he is sayde to be iustified before the iudge: so he is iusti∣fied before God that being exempt out of the number of sinners hathe God a wytnesse and affirmer of his ryghteousnesse. Therfore after the same manner a man shalbe said to be iustified by workes, in whose lyfe there is founde suche cleannesse and holienesse, as may deserue the te∣stimonie of righteousnesse before the throne of God: or he that with the vprightnesse of his workes is able to answere and satisfie Gods iudge∣ment. Contrariwyse he shalbe said to be iustified by faith that being ex∣cluded from the righteousnesse of workes, doth by fayth take holde of y^e righteousnesse of Christ: wherwith when he is clothed, he appereth in the sight of God, not as a sinner, but as righteous. So we simply ex∣pound iustification to be an acceptation, wherby God receiuing vs into fauour taketh vs for righteous. And we say that the same consisteth in

forgeuenesse of sinnes, and imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ.

[ 3] For confirmation hereof there are many and euident testimonies of Scripture. First it can not be denied, that this is the proper and moste vsed signification of the word. But because it is to long to gather al the places and compare them together, it shalbe enough to put the reders in mynde of them, for they may of them selues easely marke them. But I wyll bring fourth some, where this iustification that we speake of is expressely entreated of by name. First where Luke sayeth that the peo∣ple when they had heard Christ did iustifie God. And where Christ pro¦nounceth that wisdome is iustified by her children: he doth not meane there, y^t thei do geue righteousnesse, which alway remaineth perfect w^t God, although all the worlde goe about to take it awaye from hym: nor in this place also to make the doctrine of saluatiō righteous, which hath euer that of it selfe. But bothe these speches are as muche in ef∣fect, as to geue to God and his doctrine the praise that they deserue. Againe when Christ reprocheth the Pharisees, that they iustifie them selues, he doth not meane that they obteine righteousnesse by well do∣ing, but do vainegloriously seke for the same of righteousnesse, whereof in dede they be voyde. They that are skilfull of the Hebrue tongue doe better vnderstande the sense of this phrase: in whiche tongue they are not only called wicked doers, that are gylty in their conscience of anye wicked doing, but also they that come in daunger of iudgement of con∣demnation. For when Bersabe sayeth that she and Solomon shalbe wicked doers, she doth not therein acknowledge any offense, but com∣playneth that she & her son shalbe put to shame, to be numbred among the reprobate and condemned. But by the processe of the text it easelye appeareth, that the same worde in Latine also, can not otherwyse be taken but by way of relation, and not to signifie any qualitie. But as cō¦cerning the matter that we are nowe in hande with: where Paul saith that the Scriptur did forsee, that God iustifieth the Gentiles by faith, what may a man vnderstande thereby, but that God doth impute righ¦teousnesse by faith? Againe, whē he sayth that God iustifieth y^e wicked man that is of the fayth of Christ, what meanyng can be therof, but by the benefite of fayth to deliuer them from the damnation whiche their wickednesse deserued? And yet he speaketh more playnely in the con∣clusiō, when he cried out thus, Who shal accuse Gods elect? It is God y^t iustifieth, who shall condemne? It is Christe that died, yea that rose a∣gaine, and nowe maketh intercession for vs. It is as muche in effect as if he should say, Who shall accuse them whome God acquiteth? whoe shall condemne them whose patrone Christ is and defendeth them? To iustifie therfore is nothing els, than to acquite hym that was accused, from gilthynesse as allowyng his innocencie. Sithe therfore God doth iustifie vs by y^e intercessiō of Christ, he doth acquite vs, not by allowāce of our own innocencie, but by imputatiō of righteousnesse, that we may be cōpted for righteous in Christ which are not righteous in our selues. So in the .xiii. Chapter of the Actes, in Paules sermō: by him is forge∣uenes of sinnes preached vnto you, and euery one that beleueth in him is iustified from al those thynges, from whiche you could not be iustifi∣ed in the lawe of Moses. You see that after forgeuenesse of sinnes, iu∣stification is added in place of an exposition. You see playnely that it is

taken for absolution. you se that it is taken awaye from the workes of the lawe. you see that it is the mere beneficial gyft of Christe. you see that it is receiued by fayth. Finally you see that there is a satisfaction spoken of where he sayeth that we are iustified from sinnes by Christe. So when it is sayde that the Publicane came iustified out of the Tem∣ple, we can not saye that he obteyned righteousnesse by any deseruing of workes. This therefore is sayde that after pardon of his sinnes ob∣teyned, he was coumpted for ryghteous before God. He was therfore ryghteous, not by approuinge of workes, but by Gods free absolutiō. Wherefore Ambrose sayeth very well, that calleth the confession of sin∣nes a lawefull iustification.

But to leaue striuing about the worde: If we loke vpon the thyng [ 4] it selfe as it is described vnto vs, there shall remayne no more doubte. For truely Paule doth expresse iustification by the name of acceptatiō, when he saith (Ephes. i. a. v.) we are apointed vnto adoption by Christ, accordyng to the good pleasure of God, vnto the prayse of his glorious fauour, whereby he hath accompted vs acceptable or in fauour. For the same is meant by it that is sayde in an other place, that God doeth fre∣ly iustifie. In the .iiii. Chapter to the Romaines, he first calleth it an im∣putation of righteousnesse, and sticketh not to saye that it consisteth in forgeuenesse of synnes. That man (sayd he) is called of Dauid a blessed man, to whome God accompteth or imputeth righteousnesse without workes, as it is writtē: Blessed are they whose iniquities ar forgeuē. &c. Truely he there doth entreate not of one part of iustification, but of all iustification wholly. And he testifieth that Dauid in that place maketh a definition of iustification, when he pronounceth that they are blessed to whome is geuen free forgeuenesse of sinnes. Whereby appereth that this ryghteousnesse wherof hee speaketh, is in comparison simply set as contrary to giltinesse. But for this purpose, y^t is the best place wher he teacheth, that this is the summe of the message of the Gospel, y^t we should be reconciled to God: because it is his will to receiue vs into fa∣uour through Christ, in not imputing sinnes vnto vs. Let the reders di¦ligently wey all the whole processe of the text. For by & by after, where he addeth by way of exposition, that Christ whiche was without sinne was made sinne for vs, to expresse the manner of recōciliation, doubt∣lesse he meaneth nothing els by the word recōciling but iustifiyng. And that whiche he sayth in an other place, that we are made righteous by the obedience of Christ, could not stand together, vnlesse we be accomp∣ted righteous before God, in hym, and without our selues.

But where as Osiander hath brought in, I wote not what monster [ 5] of essential righteousnes, wherby, although his wil was not to destroy free righteousnes, yet he hath wrapped it within such a mys••e, as dark∣neth godly mindes, and bereueth them of the earnest feling of the grace of Christ: therfore ere I passe further to other thynges, it is worth the labour to confute this doting errour. First this speculation is but of mere and hungry curiositie. He doth in dede heape together many testi∣monies of Scripture, to proue that Christe is one with vs, and wee one with hym, whiche nedeth no profe: but because hee kepeth not this bonde of vnytie, he snareth hym selfe. But wee whyche holde that wee are made all one wyth Christe by the power of his Spirite,

may easily vndoe all his knottes. He had conceiued a certayne thynge very neare to the opinion of Manichees, to desire to conuey the sub∣stance of God into men. Herupon riseth an other inuention of his that Adam was fashioned after the Image of God, bicause euen before the fall Christe was ordeyned the paterne of the nature of man. But by∣cause I woulde bee shorte, I wyll tarry vpon the matter that I haue presently in hande. He saith that we are one wyth Chryst. We graunt. But we denie y^t the substance of Christ is mingled with oures. More∣ouer we say that this principle that Christe is righteousnesse to vs, bi∣cause he is an eternal God, the fountaine of righteousnesse and the ve∣ry selfe righteousnesse of God, is wrongfully drawen to defende hys deceites. The readers shall pardon me, if I do nowe but touche these thinges that the ordre of teaching requireth to be dyfferred into an o∣ther place. But although he excuse himself from meaning nothing els by the name of essentiall righteousnesse, but to resist thys opinion y^t we are accompted righteous for Christes sake: yet he plainly expresseth y^t he is not cōtented with y^e righteousnes y^t is purchased for vs by y^e obe∣dience & sacrifice of Christ, but faineth that we are substantially righ∣teous in God, as well by substance as by qualitie poured into vs. For this is the reason why he so earnestly affirmeth, that not only Christ, but also the father and the holy ghoste do dwel in vs. Which although I graunt to be true, yet I saie that he wrongfully wresteth it. For hee shold haue considered the manner of dwellyng, that is, that the father and the holy ghoste are in Christe, and as the fulnesse of the Godhead dwelleth in hym, so do we possesse whole God in him. Therfore al that he saith seuerally of the father and the holy ghost, tendeth to no other end but to draw the simple frō Christe. And then he thrusteth in a mix∣ture of substances, whereby God pouring himselfe into vs, doth make vs as it were a part of himself. For he reckeneth it almost a matter of nothing, y^t it is wrought by the power of y^e holy ghost, y^t we growe in∣to one with Christe, and that he is oure heade & we his membres, vn∣lesse his very substance be mingled with vs. But in the father & y^e holy ghost (as I haue said) he doth more openli bewraie what he thinketh, euen this, that we be iustified not by the onely grace of the Mediator, and that righteousnesse is not simply or perfectli offered vs in his per∣sone, but that wee are made partakers of the righteousnesse of God, when God is essentially made one with vs.

[ 6] If he did saye no more, but that Christe in iustyfying vs, ys by es∣sentiall conioynynge made oures: and that not onely he is our heade, in that hee ys manne, butte also that the substaunce of the diuine na∣ture ys powred into vs. Hee shoulde wyth lesse hurte feede hym selfe deyntyly, and paraduenture so greate a contention shoulde not haue been raysed for thys doubtynge erroure. Butte sythe thys beginning is lyke a cuttle that with casting oute of blacke and thycke bloode hy∣deth her many tayles, we muste nedes earnestly resiste vnlesse we wyll wittyngly and wyllyngely suffer that ryghteousnesse to be taken from vs, whiche onely bryngeth vs confydence to glorie of saluation. For in all this discourse, the name of ryghteousnesse, and thys worde iustify∣eng, extende to two partes: that to be iustified is not only to be reconci∣led to God w^t fre pardō, but also to be made righteous, y^t righteousnes

is not a free imputation but a holinesse and vprightnesse, whiche the substance of God remayning in vs doth breath into vs. Then he stout∣ly denieth, y^t Christ is our righteousnesse in respect y^t being a prest he did with satisfactorily purging sinnes appease his father towarde vs, but in respect that he is eternall God and lyfe. To proue that fyrst point, that God dothe iustifie not onelye by forgeuinge but also by regenara∣ting, he asketh whether God doeth leaue them whome he dothe iusti∣fie suche as they were by nature, chaunging nothyng of theyr vyces. The aunswere hereof is verye easye: that as Christe can not be torne in partes so these two things whiche we together and ioyntly receiue in hym, that is to saye righteousnesse and sanctification, are insepara∣ble. Therfore, whomesoeuer God receiueth into fauour, he dothe also therwith all geue them the spirite of adoption, by the power wherof he newly fashioneth them after his image. But if y^e brightnesse of y^e sunne can not be seuered from the heate therof, shall we therfore saye that y^e earth is warmed with the & light, enlightened with the heate? There is nothing more fit for this purpose, than this similitude. The sunne with his heate geueth life and frutefulnesse to the earth, with his bea∣mes he geueth light & brightnesse. Here is a mutuall & vnseparable cō∣ioyning: yet reason forbiddeth to conuey to the one that whiche is pe∣culiar to the other. Like absurditie is in this confusion of two sortes of graces, that Osiander thrusteth in. For because God dothe in dede re∣new them to the obseruing of righteousnesse whome he frely accōpteth for righteous, therfore Osiander confoundeth that gift of regeneratiō with this fre acceptation, & affirmeth that they be al one & the selfsame thing. But the Scripture ioyning thē both together, yet doth distinctly reckē them, y^t the manifold grace of God may y^e better appere vnto vs. For y^t saying of Paul is not superfluous, y^t Christ was geuen vs vnto righteousnesse & sanctification. And whensoeuer he resoneth to proue by the saluation purchaced for vs by the fatherly loue of God, & by the grace of Christ, that we are called to holinesse & cleannesse, he plainely declareth y^t it is one thing to be iustified & an other be made newe crea∣tures. But when Osiāder cometh to y^e Scripture, he corrupteth as ma¦ny places as he allegeth. Where Paul saith that faith is accompted for righteousnesse to him y^t worketh not, but beleueth in him that iustifieth the wicked mā, he expoūdeth it to make righteous. With like rashnesse, he depraueth al the fourth Chapter to y^e Romains, & sticketh not with like fals colour to corrupt y^t place which I euen now alleged, Who shal accuse the electes of God? it is God y^t iustifieth: where it is plaine y^t he speaketh simply of gilthinesse & acquiting, & the meaning of the Apostle hangeth vpon a comparing of contraries. Therfore Osiander is found to fond a babbler, as wel in y^t reason as in alleging the testimonies of Scripture. And no more rightly doth he speake of the name of righte∣ousnesse, in saying that fayth was accompted to Abraham for righte∣ousnesse, after that embracing Christ (whiche is the righteousnesse of God and God him self) he excelled in singular vertues, whereby appe∣reth that of two whole places he hath wrongfully made one corrupt place. For the ryghteousnesse that is there mentioned, perteineth not to the whole course of his calling: but rather the holy Ghost testifieth, y^t although y^e vertues of Abrahā were singularly excellent, & that w^t long

continuance hee at length had encreasced them: yet hee did no other waye please God, but by this, that he receiued by faythe the grace offe∣red in the promyse. Whereupon foloweth, that in iustification there is no place for workes, as Paull very well affirmeth.

[ 7] As for this y^e Osiander obiecteth, that y^e power of iustifiyng is not in faith of it selfe, but in respect that it receiueth Christe, I wyllynglye graunte it. For if fayth did iustifie of it selfe, or by inwarde force, as they call it, and as it is alwaye feble and vnperfect, could not worke iustifica∣tion but in part, so should the iustification be maymed, that should geue vs but a pece of saluation. As for vs, we imagine no suche thinge, but in proper speakyng doe saye, that God only iustifieth: and then we geue the same to Christe, because he was geuen vs vnto ryghteousnesse: and faythe we compare as it were to a vessell. For except we came em∣ptie with open mouthe of our soule to craue the grace of Christe, we can not be able to receyue Christ. Whereupon we gather that we doe not take from Christ the power of iustifying, when we teache that he is first receiued by fayth, before that his righteousnesse be receyued. But yet I doe not admit the crooked figures of this Sophister, when he sayth that faith is Christ: as if an earthen pot were a treasure, because gold is hidden in it. For the reson is not vnlike, but that faith although it be by it selfe of no worthynesse or price, may iustifie vs in bryngynge Christ, as a pot full of money maketh a man ryche. Therfore I say that fayth, whiche is onely the instrument to receyue rightuousnesse, is vn∣fitly mingled with Christe, whiche is the materiall cause and bothe au∣thor and minister of so great a benefit. Nowe is this doubt also dissol∣ued. Howe this worde Faith ought to bee understanded when we en∣treate of iustification.

[ 8] In the receiuing of Christ he goeth further: for he sayeth, that the inward worde is receiued by the ministration of the outwarde worde, thereby to drawe vs from the priesthode of Christ and the persone of y^e Mediatour to his outwarde Godhed. As for vs, we deuide not Christ, but we say that he is the same eternall worde of God, whiche reconci∣ling vs to God in his flesh, gaue vs righteousnesse: and we confesse y^t otherwyse he could not haue fulfilled the office of Mediatour, and pur∣chaced vs righteousnesse, vnlesse he had ben eternall God. But this is Osianders doctrine, where as Christ is both God and mā, that he was made righteousnesse to vs, in respect of his nature of Godhed, and not of manhode. But if this properly belong to the Godhed, thē it shal not be peculiar to Christ, but common with the father and the holy Ghost, for as muche as ther is not one righteousnesse of the one, and an other of the other. Moreouer that whiche was naturally frō eternitie, coulde not bee conueniently sayde to bee made to vs. Butte althoughe we graunte this, that God was made righteousnesse for vs: howe shal it agree that that whiche is set betwene, is made of God? Truely that properly belongeth to the persone of the Mediatour: whiche though he conteine in hym selfe the nature of Godhede, yet here he is specially signified by his proper title, by whiche he is seuerally discerned frō the father and the holy Ghost. But the folishly triumpheth in that one worde of Hieremic, where he promiseth that the Lorde Iehoua shalbe our righteousnesse, but out of that he shall gather nothinge, but that

Christ which is righteousnes, is God openly shewed in the flesh. In an other place we haue rehearsed out of Paules sermon, that God pur∣chased to himselfe the churche with his bloud, if any man gather ther∣upon, that the bloud wherewith sinnes were purged was diuine, and of the nature of Godhed, who can abyde so fowle an errour? But Osi∣ander thinketh that with this so childishe a cauillation he hath gotten all thinges, he swelleth, he leapeth for ioye, and stuffeth many leaues full with his bigge wordes: when yet there is a plaine and redy solutiō for it in saying that the worde Iehoua in dede when he is made the is∣sue of Dauid shalbe the righteousnesse of y^e godly: But Esaie teacheth in what sense, saying: My iust seruant shal with knowledge of him selfe iustifie many. Let vs note that the father speaketh: that he geueth to y^e sonne the office of iustifiyng: he addeth a cause, for that he is iust, & set∣teth the manner or meane as they call it in the doctrine wherby Christe is knowen. For it is a more cōmodious exposition to take this worde Daah knowledge passiuely. Hereupon I gather first that Christe was made righteousnesse when he did putte on the fourme of a seruaunt: secondely that hee dyd iustifie vs in respect that hee shewed hym selfe obedient to his father: and that therefore hee dothe not this for vs ac∣cording to his nature of Godhed, but according to the office of dispensa¦tion cōmitted vnto him. For although God alone is y^e fountaine of righ∣teousnesse, and we be made righteous by no other meane but by the partaking of him: yet because we are by vnhappy disagremēt estran∣ged frō his righteousnesse, we must nedes come down to this lower re∣medy, that Christ may iustifie vs with y^e force of his death & resurrectiō. If he obiect y^t this is a worke of such excellency, y^t it is aboue y^e nature [ 9] of man, & therefore can not be ascribed but to y^e nature of God, y^e first I graunt: but in the secōd I say y^t he is vnwisely deceiued. For although Christ could neither clēse our soules with his bloud, nor appease his fa∣ther with his sacrifice, nor acquite vs from gyltinesse, nor doe the office of prest, vnlesse he had ben true God, because the strength of the fleshe had ben to weake for so great a burden: yet it is certain that he perfor∣med all these thinges according to his nature of māhod. For if it be de∣maunded how we be iustified, Paul answereth, by y^e obediēce of Christ. But did he any otherwise obey than by taking vpon him the shape of a seruant? wherupon we gather that righteousnesse was geuē vs in his fleshe. Likewyse in the other wordes (whiche I maruell that Osian∣der is not ashamed to allege so often) he apoynteth the fountayne of ryghteousnesse no where els but in the fleshe of Christe. Hym that knewe no sinne he made synne for vs, that we myght be the ryghteous∣nesse of God in hym. Osiander with full mouth aduaunceth the righte∣ousnesse of God, and triumpheth as though he had proued that it is his imaginatiue ghost of essentiall righteousnesse: when y^e wordes soūd far otherwise, y^t we by righteous by y^e cleansing made by Christ. Uery yong beginners shold not haue bene ignorant that the righteousnesse of God is taken for the righteousnesse that God alloweth, as in Iohn, where the glorie of God is compared with the glorie of men, I knowe that sometime it is called the righteousnesse of God, wherof God is the author & which God geueth vs: but though I say nothing, the reders y^t haue their sound wit doe perceiue y^t nothing els is meant in this place

but that we stande vpright before the iudgement seate of God, beinge vpholden by the cleansing sacrifice of Christes death. And there is not so great importance in the word, so that Osiander do agree with vs in this point that we are iustified in Christ, in this respect y^t he was made a propiciatorie sacrifice for vs, whiche can not agree with his nature of Godhed. After whiche sort, when Christe meaneth to seale the righte∣ousnesse and saluatiō that he hath brought vs, he setteth before vs an assured pledge therof in his fleshe. He doth in dede call him selfe the ly∣uely bred, but expressing the manner here, he addeth that his fleshe is veryly meate, & his bloud is veryly drinke. Whiche manner of teaching is sene in the Sacramentes, whiche although they direct our faithe to whole Christ, and not to halfe Christ, yet they do there withall teache that the matter of righteousnesse and saluation remaineth in his flesh: Not that in that that he is only man, he either iustifieth or quickeneth of him selfe, but because it pleased God to shewe openly in the media∣tour that whiche was hidden and incomprehensible in him selfe, wher∣upon I am wont to saye, that Christ is as it were a fountaine set open for vs, out of whiche we may drawe that whiche otherwyse shold with∣out fruite lye hiddē in that close and depe spring that riseth vp vnto vs in the persone of the Mediatour. In this manner and meaning, I doe not denye that Christe as he is God and man doth iustifie vs, and that this is also the worke of the father and the holy Ghost as well as his. Finally, that the righteousnesse wherof Christ maketh vs partakers, is the eternall righteousnesse of the eternall God, so that he yelde to the sure and playne reasons that I haue alleaged.

[ 10] Nowe that he should not with his cauillations deceiue the vnskil∣full, I graunt that we want this incomparable benefit, tyll Christe be made ours. Therfore we set that conioyning of the head and the mem∣bres, the dwellyng of Christ in our heartes, and that misticall vnion, in the hiest degree: that Christ being made ours, may make vs partakers of the giftes wherwith he is endued. Therfore we do not beholde hym a far of out of our selues, that righteousnesse may be imputed vnto vs, but because we haue put on him, & are graffed into his body: finally be∣cause he hath vouchsaued to make vs one with him, therfore we glorye that we haue a felowship of righteousnesse with him. So is Osianders sclaunderous cauillation cōfuted, where he saith y^t we compt faith righ∣teousnesse, as though we spoiled Christ of his right, whē we saye y^t we come by faith empty to him, to geue roume to his grace, y^t he only maye fil vs. But Osiāder refusing this spiritual cōioyning, enforceth a grosse mingling with the faithful, & therfore he odiously calleth all thē Zuin∣glians that subscribe not to his fantastical errour, concerning essential righteousnesse: because they do not thinke y^t Christ is substācially eaten in the Lordes supper. As for me, I compt it a great glorie to bee so re∣proched of a proude mā & geuen to his own errors. Albeit he toucheth not me only, but also other wryters wel knowen to the worlde, whome he ought to haue modestly reuerenced. It moueth me nothing, whiche meddle not with mine owne priuate cause: and so muche the more sin∣cerely I handle this cause, being free from all corrupt affection. Where as therefore he so importunatelye requyreth essentiall ryghteousnesse, and thee essentiall dwellynge of Christe in vs, it tendeth to thys

ende: First that God should with a grosse mixture poure him selfe into vs, as he fayneth a fleshely eatynge of Christ in the supper: secondlye that God should breathe his ryghteousnesse into vs, wherby we maye be really righteous with him: for by his opinion, this righteousnesse is as well God hym selfe, as the goodnesse or holinesse, or purenesse of God. I wyll not spende muche labour in wyping away the testimonies that he bryngeth, whiche he wrongfully wresteth from the heauenlye lyfe to this present state. Through Christ (sayeth Peter) are geuen vs the precious and moste great promyses, that we shoulde be made par∣takers of the nature of God: As though we weare nowe suche as the Gospell promysed that we shalbe at the last comming of Christe: yea Iohn telleth vs, that we shall then see God as he is, because we shalbe lyke vnto hym. Only I thought good to geue a small taste to the rea∣ders, that I doe of purpose passe ouer these trifles: not for that it is harde to confute them, but because I wyll not be tedious in a super∣fluous worke.

But in the seconde point lurketh more poyson, where he teacheth [ 11] that we are righteous together with God. I thynke I haue alredy suf∣ficiently proued, that although this doctrine were not so pestilent, yet because it is colde and frutelesse, and of it selfe so vayne that it melteth away, it ought worthely to be vnsauorie to sounde and godly Reders. But this is an intolerable wickednesse, vnder pretense of double righ∣tuousnesse, to enfeble the earnest assuraunce of saluatiō, and to cary vs aboue the cloudes, that we shold not embrace by faith the grace of pro∣pitiation, & cal vpon God with quiet myndes. Osiander scorneth them, that teache that this worde Iustifying is a lawe terme: because, we must be ryghteous in dede. And he abhorreth nothing more thā to say, that we be iustified by free imputation. But, if God do not iustifie vs by acquiting and pardoning, what meaneth that saying of Paul, God was in Christe reconciling the worlde to hym selfe, not impu••ynge to men their synnes. For, hym that had done no synne, he made synne for vs, that we might be the rightuousnesse of God in him. First I wynne thus muche, that they be iudged righteous that be reconciled to God. The manner howe is declared, for that God iustifieth by forgeuyng: as in an other place iustification is set as contrary to accusatiō, which com∣paring of them as contraries, doth clerely shewe that it is a phrase bor¦rowed from the vse of the lawe. And there is no man beyng but mea∣nely practised in the Hebrewe tongue, if he haue a sober brayne, that is ignoraunt that this phrase came from thence, and whereunto it ten∣deth, and what it meaneth. Nowe where Paul sayeth that Dauid de∣scribed the ryghteousnesse without workes, in these wordes, Blessed are they whose synnes are forgeuen: Let Osiander aunswere me whe∣ther this be a full definition or but halfe a one. Truely Paul bryngeth not in the Prophet for a witnesse, as though he taught y^t forgeuenesse of sinnes is but a part of righteousnes, or a thing y^t ioyneth with other to the iustifiyng of man: But he includeth whole ryghtuousnesse in free forgeuenesse, pronoūcing y^e man blessed, whose sinnes are couered, to whom God hath forgeuen iniquities, & to whom he imputeteh no trās∣gressions: He doth measure & iudge suche a mans felicitie thereby, be∣cause he is not this way righteous in dede, but by imputatiō. Osiander

taketh exception and saieth, that this should be sclaunderous to God, and contrary to his nature, if he should iustifie them that in deede re∣mayne styll wicked. But we must remember, as I haue already sayde, that the grace of iustifying is not seuered from regeneration, although they be seuerall thynges. But because it is more than sufficiently kno∣wen by experience, that there abide alwayes in the righteous some rē∣nantes of sinne, it must nedes be that they be farre otherwyse iustified than they be reformed into newnesse of lyfe. For this later point of re∣formation, God so beginneth in his elect, and throughout the whole course of their life, by litle and litle, and sometime slowly procedeth in it, that thei be alway before his seate in danger of the iudgemēt of death. But he iustifieth them, not by partmeale, but so that thei may freely, as clothed with the purenesse of Christ, appere in heauen. For no portion of righteousnesse could appease our consciences, tyll they be satisfied y^e God is fully pleased with vs, because we be righteous in his sight with out exception. Whereupon foloweth, that the Doctrine of iustification is misturned, yea ouerturned from the very foundation, when doubtinge is cast into mens myndes, when the affiance of saluatiō is shaken, whē thee free and dredlesse inuocation is hindred, yea when quiet and tran∣quillitie with spirituall ioye is not sta••lyshed. Wherupon Paul gathe∣reth an argument by contraries, to proue, that the inheritance is not by the lawe. For by this meane faith should be made voide, whiche if it haue respect to workes, is ouerthrowen, because none of the moste ho∣ly shall therin finde wherupon to trust. This differēce of iustifiyng and regeneratyng (whiche two thinges Osyander confoundinge together, calleth two sortes of righteousnesse) is very wel expressed by Paul: For speaking of his reall righteousnesse in dede, or of the vprightnesse wher with he was endued (whiche Osiander nameth essentiall righteous∣nes) he lamentably crieth out: Wretche that I am: who shal deliuer me from the body of this death? But fleing to the righteousnesse whiche is grounded vpon the only mercie of God, he gloriously triumpheth ouer both life, death, reproches, hunger, sworde, and all aduersities. Whoe shall accuse the electes of God whome he iustifieth? For I am surely per¦suaded, that nothing shall seuer vs from his loue in Christ. He plainely publisheth, that he hath the righteousnesse whiche alone fully suffi∣ceth to saluation before God, so that the wretched bondage whiche he knowyng to be in him selfe, did a litle before beuayle his estate, may not mouish nor any way hinder his boldnesse to glorie. This diuersitie is sufficiently knowen, and so familiar to al the holy ones, that grone vn∣der the burden of iniquities, & yet with victorious confidence, do mount vp aboue all feares. As for this that Osiander obiecteth, that it disa∣greeth with the nature of God, it falleth vpon him selfe. For although he clotheth the holy ones with a double rightuousnesse as it were with a furred garment, yet he is compelled to confesse that without forgeue∣nesse of synnes they neuer pleased God. If that be true, then at least let him graunt, y^t thei which are not righteous in dede, are accompted righ¦teous according to the apointed proportion of imputation, as they call it. But howe far shall a sinner extend this free acceptation that is put in place of ryghteousnesse? shall he measure it by the pounde or by the ounce? Truely he shall hang doubtefull and waueryng to this side and

that side, bicause he may not take vnto him so much righteousnesse as shalbe necessarie to stablish confidence. It is happy that he that wold binde God to a law, is not iudge of this cause. But this shal stāde sted∣fast, that thou mayest be iustified in thy sayenges and ouercōme when thou art iudged. But howe great presumption is it to condemne the chefe iudge when he freely acquiteth, that this answer maye not be in force, I will haue mercie vpon whom I wil haue mercie. And yet the intercession of Moses which God did put to silence with this sayeng, tended not to this ende that he should spare none, but that he should acquite altogether, taking away their condemnation although they were gilty of offense. And we do say that they whiche were loste haue their sinnes buried and so are iustified before God: bicause, as God ha∣teth sinne, so he can loue none but them whome he iustifieth. But this is a maruellous manner of iustifieng, that they beyng couered with the righteousnesse of Christ stand not in feare of the iudgement which they haue deserued, and when they worthily condemne themselues are accompted righteous without themselues.

But the readers are to be warned, that thei take good heede to the [ 12] misterie whiche he braggeth that he wil not hide from them. For after that he hath longe and largely trauailed to proue that we do not ob∣teine fauour with God by the only imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ, bicause this should bee impossible for him to compte them for righteous that are not righteous, (I vse his owne wordes) at leng••h he concludeth that Christ was geuen vs vnto righteousnesse, not in respect of his nature of manhod but of his nature of Godhed: and that although this righteousnesse can not be found but in the person of the Mediatour, yet it is the righteousnesse not of mā but of God. He doth now bynde vp his rope made of two righteousnesses, but he plainely taketh away the office of iustifieng from Christes nature of māhode. But it is good to see how he disagreeth. It is sayd in the same place, that Christ was made vnto wisedome, which belōgeth to none but to the eternal word. Therfore Christ in that he is man is not wisedom. I answer that the only begotten sonne of God was in deede his eter∣nal wisedome, but in Paules writinges that name is geuen him in di∣uerse wise, bicause al the treasures of wisedome & knowlege are laied vp in him. That therfore which he had with his father, he disclosed vn∣to vs: & so that which Paule sayth is not referred vnto the essence of the sonne of God, but to our vse, and is rightly applied to Christes na∣ture of manhode: bicause although he shined a light in darkenesse, be∣fore that he did put on fleshe, yet it was a hidden light till the same Christ came forth in the nature of man, the shinyng sunne of righte∣ousnesse, which therefore calleth himself the light of the world. Also it is folishly obiected of him, y^t the power of iustifieng is far aboue bothe Angeles & men: for asmuch as this hangeth not vpon the worthinesse of any creature, but vpon the ordinance of God. If Angels will take vpon thē to satisfie God, they can nothyng preuaile, bicause they are not apointed therunto. But this singularly belonged to Christ being man, which was made subiect to the lawe, to redeme vs frō the curse of the law. Also he doth sclaunderously cauil, y^t they which denie that Christ is our righteousnesse accordyng to his nature of Godhed, doe

leaue but one part of Christ, & (which is worse) do make two gods, bi∣cause although thei cōfesse, y^t God dwelleth in vs, yet they saye againe that we are not righteous by the righteousnesse of God. For although we call Christ the author of life, in respect that he suffred death to de∣stroye him that had the power of death, we do not by & by take awaye that honor from whole Christ as he was openly shewed God in the flesh, but we only make a distintiō how the righteousnesse of God is cōueyed vnto vs, that we may enioy it. In which point Osiander hath to fowly erred. Neither do we denie that that which is opēly geuē vs in Christ, procedeth from the secret grace & power of God: & we striue not agaynst this, that y^e righteousnesse whiche Christ geueth vs is the righteousnesse of God that procedeth from God: but we hold this sted∣fastly, that we haue righteousnesse & life in the death & resurrection of Christ. I ouerpasse that heapyng together of places whereof he maye wel be ashamed, wherwith he hath tediously cōbred y^e readers, with∣out choise & without cōmon reason, to proue that whersoeuer is made mention of righteousnesse, there ought to be vnderstanded this essen∣tiall righteousnesse. As where Dauid calleth vpon the righteousnesse of God to help him: wheras he doth the same aboue a hundred times, Osiander sticketh not to corrupt so many sentēces. And nothing strō∣ger is the other obiectiō, that that is properly & rightly called righte∣ousnesse, whereby we be moued to do rightly, but that God only wor∣keth in vs both to will & to performe. For we do also not denie, but that God reformeth vs with his Spirit vnto holinesse of life & righteous∣nesse: but we must first see whether he do this by himself and immedi∣atly, or by the hand of his Sonne, with whom he hath lefte al the ful∣nesse of his holy Spirit, that with his abundāt store he should supplie y^e neede of his mēbres. Moreouer although righteousnesse come vnto vs out of the secret fountayne of the godhed, yet it foloweth not that Christ which sāctified himself in y^• flesh for our sakes, was righteous∣nesse vnto vs according to his nature of godhed. No lesse fond is that which he sayth, y^t Christ himself was righteous by y^e righteousnesse of God. Bicause vnlesse y^e wil of his father had moued him, he could not himself haue satisfied y^e office cōmitted vnto him. For though we haue in an other place sayd, y^t al the deseruings of Christ himself do procede frō the mere good will of God, yet that maketh nothing to that fanta∣stical thing, wherwith Osiander bewitcheth both his own and simple mens eyes. For whoe would suffer a mā to gather this cōclusion, that bicause God is the fountaine & beginning of our righteousnesse, ther∣fore we be essentially righteous, & the essence of Gods righteousnesse dwelleth in vs? In redeminge the church (sayth Esaye) God did put on his righteousnesse as a harnesse: but dyd he so to spoyle Christ of his armure which he had geuen him, to make him to be no perfect re∣demer? But the Prophet meante nothyng els but that God borowed nothing out of himselfe, nor was holpen by any ayde to red••me vs. Which thing Paule brefly expressed in other wordes, sayeng that he gaue vs saluatiō to the shewyng of his righteousnesse. But this doth not ouerthrowe that which he teacheth in an other place, that we are righteous by the obediēce of one mā. Finally whosoeuer wrappeth vp a double righteousnesse, that poore soules maye not rest in the mere

only mercie of God, he dothe in a mockerie crowne Christ w^t thornes.

But for asmuch as a great part of mē, imagineth righteousnesse to [ 13] be made of faith & workes, let vs first shew this also, that the righte∣ousnesse of fayth and workes doth so differ, that when the one is sta∣blished, the other must needes be ouerthrowen. The Apostle fayth that he estemed al thinges as dong that he might winne Christ & finde in him the righteousnesse that is of God by faith, cōpting not his righte∣ousnesse that which is by the law, but y^• whiche is by the faith of Iesu Christ. You see that here is also a cōparison of cōtraries & that here is declared y^e he which wil obteine the righteousnesse of Christ, must for sake his owne righteousnesse. Therefore in an other place he sayth, y^t this was the cause of fal to the Iewes y^• goyng about to stablish their owne righteousnesse, they were not subiect to y^• righteousnesse of God. If in stablishyng our owne righteousnesse we shake away the righte¦ousnesse of God, therefore to obteine Gods righteousnesse our owne must be vtterly abolished. And he sheweth the same thyng, when he fayth, that our glorieng is not excluded by the law, but by faith. Wher¦upon foloweth that so long as there remaineth any righteousnesse of workes, how litle soeuer it be, there still remaineth to vs some 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to glorie vpō. Now if faith exclude al glorieng, then the righteousnesse of workes can no wise be coupled with the righteousnesse of faith. To this effect he speaketh so playnely in the .iiij. chapter to the Romanes, that he leaueth no roume for cauillations or shiftes: If (sayth he) A∣braham was iustified by workes, he hath glorie. And immediatly he addeth; but he hath no glorie in the sight of God. It foloweth there∣fore that he was not iustified by workes. Then he vryngeth an other argument by contraries, when reward is rendred to workes, that is done of det and not of grace. But righteousnesse is geuen to fayth accordyng to grace: Therefore it is not of the deseruinges of workes. Wherfore farewell their dreame, that imagine a righteousnesse made of faith and workes mingled together.

The Sophisters thinke that they haue a suttle shifte, that make to [ 14] themselues sport and pastime with wrestyng of Scripture and with vayne cauillations. For they expōnd workes in that place to be those which men not yet regenerate doe only literally & by the endeuour of free will without the grace of Christ: and do saye that it belōgeth not to spiritual workes. So by their opinion a man is iustified bothe by faith and by workes, so that the workes be not his own, but the giftes of Christ and frutes of regeneration. For they saye that Paule spake so for none other cause, but to conuince the Iewes, trusting vpō their owne workes, that they dyd foolishly presume to clayme righteous∣nesse to thēselues, sithe the only Spirit of Christ doth geue it vs, and not any endeuour by our owne motion of nature. But they doe not marke y^e in the cōparison of the righteousnesse of the law & the righte∣ousnesse of the gospell, which Paule bringeth in in an other place, all workes are excluded with what title so euer they be adorned. For he teacheth that this is the righteousnesse of the law, y^t he shuld obte••••e saluation that hath performed that whiche the law cōmaundeth: and that this is the righteousnesse of fayth, yf we beleue that Christ died and is risen againe. Moreouer we shall her after shewe in place fitio••

it, that sauctification & righteousnesse are seuerall benefites of Christ, Whereupon foloweth that the very spirituall workes come not into the accompt, when the power of iustifieng is ascribed to fayth. And where Paule denieth (as I euē now alleged) that Abraham had any thing wherupō to glorie before God, bicause he was not made righte∣ous by workes: this ought not to be restrayned to the literall and out∣ward kinde of vertues, or to the endeuour of free will. But although the life of the Patriarch Abraham were spirituall and in manner An∣gelike, yet he had not sufficient deseruynges of workes to purchace him righteousnesse before God.

[ 15] The Scholemen teach a litle more gros••y, that mingle their prepa∣rations: but these do lesse infect the simple and vnskilfull with corrupt doctrine, vnder pretense of Spirit and grace hydyng the mercie of God whiche only is able to appease tremblyng consciences. But we confesse with Paul that the doers of the law are iustified before God: but bicause we are all far from the keping of the law, herupon we ga∣ther, that the workes which should most of al haue auailed to righte∣ousnesse, do nothing help vs bicause we lacke them. As for the cōmon Papistes or Scholemen, they are in this point doubly deceiued: both bicause they cal faith an assuredne••se of consciēce in loking for reward at the hand of God for deseruinges, and also bicause they expound the grace of God not to be a free imputation of righteousnesse, but the ho∣ly ghost helpyng to the endeuour of holinesse. They reade in y^e Apostle that he which cōmeth to God, muste first beleue that there is a God & then that he is a rendrer of reward to them that seke him. But they marke not, what is the manner of seking. And that they are deceyued in the name of grace, is plamely proued by their owne writings. For Lombarde expoundeth, that iustification by Christ is geuen vs two wayes. First (sayth he) the death of Christ doth iustifie vs, when by it charitie is stirred vp in our heartes, by which we are made righteous. Secondly that by the same death sinne is destroyed, whereby Satan helde vs captiue, so that nowe he hath not whereby to condemne vs. You see how he considereth the grace of God principally in iustifica∣tion, to be so far as we are directed to good workes by y^e grace of the holy ghost. He would forsoth haue folowed the opinion of Augustine: but he foloweth him a far of, & goth far out of the waye frō rightly fo∣lowing him: bicause if Augustine haue spokē any thing plainly he dar∣keneth it, if there be any thing in Augustine not very vnpure, he cor∣rupteth it. The Scholemen haue stil strayed from worse to worse, till with hedlong fall at length they be rolled downe into a Pelagian er∣rour. And the very sentence of Augustine, or at least his manner of speakyng is not altogether to be receyued. For though he singularly w••ll taketh from man all prayse of righteousnesse, and assigneth it wholly to y^e grace of God, yet he referreth grace to sanctificatiō, wher∣by we are renewed into newnesse of life by the holy ghost.

[ 16] But the Scripture, when it speaketh of the righteousnesse of faith, leadeth vs to a far other end, y^t is to say, that turnyng away from the loking vpō our owne workes, we should only loke vnto the mercie of God and perfection of Christ. For it teacheth this order of iustificatiō, that first God vouchsaueth to embrace mā beyng a sinner w^t his mere

and free goodnesse, consideryng nothing in him but miserie whereby he may be mo••ed to mercie, for asmuch as he seeth him altogether na∣ked & voide of good workes, fetchyng from himself the cause to do him good: then, that he moueth the sinner himself with feling of his good∣nesse, which desperyng vpon his owne workes casteth all the summe of his saluation vpon Gods mercie. This is the felyng of fayth, by which felyng the sinner commeth into possession of his saluatiō, when he acknowlegeth by the doctrine of the Gospel that he is reconciled to God: that obteyning forgeuenesse of sinnes by meanes of the righte∣ousnesse of Christ, ••e is iustified: and although he be regenerate by the Spirit of God, he thinketh vpon continuall righteousnesse layed vp for him not in the good workes to which he applieth himself, but in y^• only righteousnesse of Christ. When these thinges shalbe euery one particularly weyed, they shal geue a perfect declaratiō of our sentēce. Albeit thei might be better disposed in an other order than they are set forth. But it maketh litle mater, so that they hang together in such sort that we may haue the whole mater truely declared & surely proued.

Here it is good to remember the relation that we haue before sayd [ 17] to be betwene faith and the Gospell: bycause it is sayd for this cause that faith iustifieth, for that it recemeth & embraceth y^e righteousnesse offred in the gospel. And whereas it is sayd to be offred by the gospel, therby al cōsideratiō of workes is excluded. Which thing Paule decla∣reth many times els where, but most plainly in two places. For, to the Romanes, comparing the lawe and the gospell together he sayth: the righteousnesse that is by the law is thus, the man y^t doth these thinges shal liue in them. But the righteousnesse that is of faith offreth salua∣tion, if thou beleue in thy heart and confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and that the father hath raysed him vp from the dead. See you not how he maketh this the difference of the law and the Gospel, that the lawe geueth righteousnesse to workes, and the Gospel geueth tree righteousnesse without helpe of workes? It is a notable place, and that maye deliuer vs out of many harde doubtes, yf we vnderstande that the same righteousnesse that is geuen vs by the Gospell is free from all conditions of the lawe. This is the reason, why he doth more than ones with great seming of contrarietie set the promise by way of opposition against the law, as it y^e inheritance be of the law, then is it not of the promise: & all the rest in the same chapter to the same effect. Truely the lawe it selfe hath also her promises. Therefore there must needes be in the promises of y^e gospel, somthing different & diuerse frō the promises of the lawe, vnlesse we will confesse that the comparison is very sond. But what diuersitie shall this bee, vnlesse it be that they are freely geuen, and vpholden by the only mercie of God, whereas the promises of the lawe hange vpon the condition of workes. Ney∣ther let any manne here carp agaynst me, and saye, that in this place the righteousnesse is reiected whiche menne of their owne force and freewill would compell God to receiue: for asmuch as Paule with∣out exception teacheth that the law in cōmaunding profiteth nothing: bicause there is none not only of the cōmon multitude, but also of the perfectest, that fulfilleth it. Loue vndoubtedly is the chefe point of the law: when the Spirit of God frameth vs vnto it, why is it not to vs a

cause of righteousnesse, but for that euen in the holy ones it is vnper∣fect, and therefore of it self deserueth no reward.

[ 18] The second place is this. It is manifest that no man is iustified by the lawe before God: Bicause the righteous man shall liue by fayth, But the law is not of faith: but the man that doth these thynges shall liue in them. Howe coulde this argument otherwise stande together, vnlesse we agree vpon this point, that workes come not into the ac∣compt of faith, but are vtterly to be seuered from it: The lawe (sayth he) differeth from fayth. Why so? bicause workes are required to the righteousnesse thereof. Therefore it foloweth that workes are not required to the righteousnesse of faith. By this relation it appereth, that they which are iustified by faith are iustified byside the deseruing of workes, yea without the deseruyng of workes, bycause faith recey∣ueth that righteousnesse which the Gospel geueth. And the gospel dif∣fereth from the law in this point, that it bindeth not righteousnesse to workes, but setteth it in the only mercy of God. Like herunto is that whiche he affirmeth to the Romanes, that Abraham had nothyng to glorie vpon, bycause fayth was imputed to him vnto righteousnesse, & he addeth a confirmation, bycause then there is place for the righte∣ousnesse of faith, when there are no workes to whiche a rewarde is due. Where bee workes (sayth he) due rewarde is rendred vnto them: that whiche is geuen to faith is freely geuen. For the very mea∣nyng of y^e wordes that he vseth in that place serue to proue the same. Wheras he adioyneth within a litle after, that therefore we obteyne y^e inheritance by fayth as accordynge to grace, hereupon he gathereth that the inheritance is of free gift, bicause it is receyued by fayth: and how commeth that, but bicause fayth without any help of workes lea∣neth wholy vpon the mercie of God? And in the same meanyng, with∣out dout he teacheth in an other place, that the righteousnesse of God was openly shewed without the law, although it haue witnesse borne of it by the law & the Prophetes: bicause excludyng the lawe, he sayth that it is not holpen by workes, and that we obteyne it not by wor∣kyng, but come empty that we maye receyue it.

[ 19] By this time the reader perceiueth w^t what equitie the Sophisters do at this daye cauill at our Doctrine, when we saye that man is iusti∣fied by faith only. They dare not denie that man is iustified by faith, bicause it is so often foūd in Scripture: but bicause this word, Only, is neuer expressed, they can not abide to haue such an addition made. Is it so? But what will they answer to these wordes of Paule, where he affirmeth that righteousnesse is not of fayth except it be freely ge∣uen? Howe can free gift agree with workes? And with what cauil∣lations will they mocke out, that whiche he sayth in an other place, that the righteousnesse of God is manifestly shewed in the Gospell? If righteousnesse be manifestly shewed in the Gospell, surely therein is conteyned not a torne or halfe righteousnesse but full and perfect. Therefore the lawe hath no place therein. And they stande vpon not only a false but also a foolish shifte about this exclusine word, Only. Doth not he perfectly enough geue al things to only faith, that taketh al thinges from workes? What, I praye you, meane these sayenges: that righteousnesse was manifestly shewed without the law: that mā

is iustified freely and without the workes of the law? Here they haue a witty shifte to escape withall, whiche although they deuised it not themselues but borowed it of Origene & certaine of the old writers, yet is very foolish. They prate that the ceremoniall workes of the law, not the moral, are excluded. They profit so with continuall brawling, that they know not the very first rules of Logike. Do thei thinke that the Apostle doted when he alleged these places to proue his sayeng? The man that shal do these thynges shall liue in them: and, Cursed is euery one that fulfilleth not all thinges that are written in the volume of the lawe. Unlesse they be mad, they will not saye that life was promised to the kepers of Ceremonies, or curse thretened onely to the breakers of them. If these places be to bee vnderstanded of the morall lawe, it is no doubte that the morall workes also are ex∣cluded from the power of iustifieng. To the same purpose serue these argumentes that he vseth: bycause the knowledge of sinne was by the lawe, therefore righteousnesse is not by the lawe. Bycause the lawe worketh wrath, therefore it worketh not righteousnesse. By∣cause the lawe can not make conscience assured, therefore also it can not geue righteousnesse. Bycause fayth is imputed vnto righteous∣nesse, therefore righteousnesse is not a rewarde of worke, but is ge∣uen beyng not due. Bycause we are iustified by fayth, therefore glo∣ryeng is cut of. If there had ben a lawe geuen that might geue life, then righteousnesse were truely by the lawe: but God hath shut vp all vnder sinne that the promise might be geuen to the beleuers. Let them nowe fondly saye yf they dare, that these thynges are spoken of ceremonies and not of manners: but very children would hisse out so great shamelesnesse. Therefore let vs hold this for certayne, that the whole lawe is spoken of, when the power of iustifieng is taken a∣waye from the lawe.

But if any manne maruell why the Apostle vsed such an addition, [ 20] not beyng content with only namyng of workes: the reason is ready to be shewed for it. For, although workes be so hiely estemed, yet they haue that value by the allowance of God, rather than by their owne worthinesse. For whoe can booste vnto God of any righteousnesse of workes, but that which he hath allowed? Whoe dare clayme any re∣ward as due vnto thē, but such as he hath promised? They haue ther∣fore this of the bountifulnesse of God, that they are compted morthy both of the name and reward of righteousnesse: & they be of value only for this cause, when the purpose of him that doth them is by them to shew his obedience to God. Wherfore the Apostle in an other place, to proue that Abraham could not be iustified by workes, allegeth that the law was geuen, almost fower hundred and thirty yeres after the couenant made. Unlearned men would laugh at suche an argument, bicause there might be righteous workes before the publishyng of the law. But bicause he knew y^t there was no such value in workes but by y^e testimonie & vouchsauing of God, therfore he taketh it as a thing cōfessed that before y^e law thei had no power to iustifie. We vnderstād why he namely expresseth y^e worke of the law, whē he meaneth to take awaye iustification frō any workes: bycause controuersie may be mo∣ued of those and none other. Albeit sometime he excepteth all workes

without any additiō, as when he sayth, that by the testimonie of Da∣uid blessednesse is assigned to that man, to whome the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes. Therfore they can with no cauillati∣ous bryng to passe, but that we shall get this generall exclusiue, only. And they do in vayne seeke that triflyng sutteltie, that we are iusti∣fied by that only faith whiche worketh by loue, so that righteousnesse must stand vpon loue. We graunt in deede witn Paule, that no other faith iustifieth, but that whiche is effectually workyng with chatitie: but that faith taketh not her power of iustifiyng from that effectual∣nesse of charitie. Yea it doth by no other meane iustifie, but bicause it bryngeth vs into the communicatyng of the righteousnesse of Christ. Or els all that which the Apostle so earnestly presseth, should fall to nought. To him that worketh (sayth he) the reward is not teckened accordyng to grace, but accordyng to Det. But to him that worketh not, but beleueth in him that iusti••ieth the vnrighteous, his fayth is imputed vnto righteousnesse. Could he speake more euidently than in so sayeng? that there is no righteousnesse of faith but where there are no workes to whiche any reward is due: and that only then fayth is imputed vnto righteousnesse, when righteousnesse is geuen by grace that is not due.

[ 21] Now let vs examine howe true that is, whiche is sayd in the defi∣nition, that the righteousnesse of fayth is the reconciliation with God, whiche consisteth vpon the only forgeuenesse of sinnes. We muste al∣waye returne to this principle, that the wrath of God refteth vpon all men, so long as they cōtinue to be sinners. That hath Esaye excellent∣ly well set out in these wordes: The hād of the Lord is not shortened, that he is not able to saue: nor his eare dulled that he can not heare: but your iniquities haue made disagreement betwene you and your God, and your sinnes haue hidden his face from you that he heareth you not. We heare that sinne is the diuision betwene man and God, and the turnyng awaye of Gods face from the sinner. Neyther can it otherwise be. For it is disagreyng frō his righteousnesse to haue any felowship with sinne. Wherefore the Apostle teacheth that manne is enemie to God till he be restored into fauour by Christ. Whome ther∣fore the Lord receyueth into ioynyng with him, him he is sayd to in∣stifie: bycause he can neyther receyue him into fauour nor ioyne him with himselfe, but he muste of a sinner make him righteous. And we further say, that this is done by the forgeuenesse of sinnes. For if they whome the Lord hath recōciled to himself be iudged by their workes, they shalbe found still sinners in deede, whoe yet must be free & cleane from sinne. It is certayne therefore that they whom God embraceth, are no otherwise made righteous, but bicause they are cleansed by ha∣uing the spottes of there sinnes wiped awaye by forgeuenesse, tha•• such a righteousnesse maye in one worde be called the forgeuenesse of sinnes.

[ 22] Both these are most clerely to be seene by these wordes of Paule, whiche I haue already alleged: God was in Christ reconcilyng the world to himself, not imputyng their sinnes to man, and he hath lette with vs the word of reconciliation. And then he addeth the summe of his message, that him which knew no sinne he made sinne for vs, that

we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him. Here he nameth righteousnesse and reconciliation without difference, that we maye perceyue that the one is mutually conteyned vnder the other. And he teacheth the manner to atteyne this righteousnesse to be when our sinnes are not imputed vnto vs. Wherefore doubte thou not hereaf∣ter howe God doth iustifie vs, when thou hearest that he doth recon∣cile vs to himself by not imputyng sinnes. So to the Romanes he pro∣ueth by the testimonie of Dauid, that righteousnesse is imputed to mā without workes, bycause Dauid pronounceth the man blessed whose iniquities are forgeuen, whose sinnes are couered, to whom the lord hath not imputed his offenses. Without doubt by blessednesse he there meaneth righteousnesse. And sithe he affirmeth the same to stande in the forgeuenesse of sinnes, there is no cause why we shuld otherwise define it. Therefore Zacharie the father of Iohn the Baptist singeth that the knowlege of saluatiō consisteth in the forgeuenesse of sinnes. Whiche rule Paule folowyng in his Sermon whiche he made to the Antiochians concernyng the summe of saluation, as Luke reporteth it, concluded in this māner: by him forgeuenesse of sinnes is preached vnto you, and euery one that beleueth in him is iustified from all these thinges, from whiche ye could not be iustified in the lawe of Moses. The Apostle so knitteth y^e forgeuenesse of sinnes with righteousnesse, that he sheweth that they be bothe all one. Whereupon he rightfully reasoneth that the righteousnesse is freely geuen vnto vs, whiche we obteine by the louyng kindenesse of God. Neyther ought it to seme a strange vnused speache, that the faithful are righteous before God, not by workes, but by free acceptation: sithe bothe it is so oft found in the Scripture, and the old authours also do sometime so speake. For Augustine sayth thus in one place: The righteousnesse of the saintes in this worlde standeth rather in forgeuenesse of sinnes, than in per∣fection of vertues. Wherewith agree thte notable sentences of Ber∣nard: Not to sinne is the righteousnesse of God: but the righteousnesse of man, is the merciful kindenesse of God. He had before affirmed that Christ is to vs righteousnesse in absolution, and therefore that they only are righteous that haue obteyned pardon by mercie.

Hereupon also foloweth this, that by the only meane of Christes [ 23] righteousnesse, we obteine to be iustified before God. Which is asmuch in effect as yf is were sayd, that man is not righteous in himselfe, but bycause the righteousnesse of Christ is by imputation enterpartened with him, whiche thyng is worthy to be heedefully marked. For that trifling errour vanisheth away, to saye that man is therefore iustified by faith, bicause fayth taketh part of the Spirit of God by whiche he is made righteous, which is so cōtrarie to the doctrine aboue taught, that thei can neuer be made to agree together. For it is no doubt that he is voyde of his owne righteousnesse, that is taught to seke righte∣ousnesse without himselfe. This the Apostle affirmeth moste plainely when he writeth that he which knew no sinne was made for vs a pro∣pitiatorie sacrifice to cleanse awaye sinne, that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him. You see that our righteousnesse is not in vs but in Christ, and that it belongeth to vs only by this title, bicause we be partakers of Christ, bicause we possesse all his richesse with

him. And it maketh nothing to the contrarie, that in an other place he teacheth, that sinne was condēned of sinne in the flesh of Christ, that the righteousnesse of the lawe might be fulfilled in vs: where he mea∣neth no other ful••illing, but that which we obteyne by imputation. For the Lord Christ doth in such sort cōmunicate his righteousnesse with vs, that after a certayne maruelous māner, he poureth the force therof into vs, so much as perteineth to the iudgement of God. It ap∣pereth that he did no otherwise meane, by the other sentence which he had spoken a little before: As by the disobediēce of one man we weare made sinners, so by the obedience of one man we are iustified. What is it els to set our righteousnesse in the obediēce of Christ, but to affirme that hereby only we are accompted righteous, bicause the obedience of Christ is imputed vnto vs as if it were our owne? Therefore me thinkes that Ambrose hath excellently well shewed how there is an example of this righteousnesse in the blessing of Iacob. For as Iacob hauing not of himself deserued the preeminencie of the first begotten sonne, hid himself in the apparell of his brother, & beyng clothed with his brothers cote that sauored of a most swete smell, he crept into the fauour of his father, and receiued the blessing to his owne cōmoditie vnder the persone of an other: so we doe lie hidden vnder the precious purenesse of Christ our elder brother, that we may get a testimonie of righteousnesse in the sight of God. The wordes of Ambrose are these: Wheras Isaac smelt the sauour of the garmentes, paraduēture this is meant thereby, that we are not iustified by workes but by faith: bi∣cause fleshly weakenesse hindereth workes, but y^e brightnesse of faith whiche meriteth forgeuenesse of sinnes, ouershadoweth the errour of deedes. And truely so it is. For, that we may appere before the face of God vnto saluation, it is necessarie for vs, to smel swetely with his o∣dour. & to haue our faultes couered and barred with his perfection.

Notes

• Luc. vii.xxi.
• Luc. vii.xxxvii.
• Luc. xvi.xv.
• i. Reg. i.xxi.
• Gal. iii.viii. Rom. iii.xxvi.
• Rom. viii.xxxiii.
• Act. xiii.xxxviii.
• Luc. xviii, xiiii.
• In Psal. ••8 Hom, 10.
• Rom. ii••.xxiiii.
• Rom. iiii, vi.
• ii. Cor. v.xviii.
• Rom. v•• xix.
• i. Corin. ••.xxx.
• Ro. iiii.v.
• Iere. xv.
• Act. xx.xxviij.
• Esay. liij.xi.
• Rom. v.xix.
• Iohn. x.
• i. Pet. i.iiii.
• i. Ihō. iii.i.
• i. Cor. v.xii.
• Rom. iiii.vii.
• Ps. xxxii.••
• Gala. iii.xviii.
• Rom. vii.••xiiii.
• Rom. viii.xxxiii.
• Psa. ii.vi.
• Exod. xxi.xix.
• Col. ii.iij.
• Ioh. viii.xii.
• Gala. iii.xiii.
• Hebr. ij.xiiij.
• Philip. ij.xiii.
• Iho. xvii.xix.
• Esa. lix.xvij.
• Ro. iij.xxv
• Ro. v.xix.
• Philip. ••iv▪viii.
• Ro. ••.iii
• Rom. iii.xx••ii.
• Ro. iiii.ij.
• 〈…〉〈…〉
• Heb. xi.vj.
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 16. ca. ••.
• Ro. x.v.
• Gala. iij.xviij.
• Ro. vi••.ij.
• Gal. iij.xij
• Ro. iiii.ii.
• Ro. iii.xxi.
• Ro. iiii.ii.
• Ro. 1.x••ii
• Ro. iii.xxi, ••xxiiii.
• Gal. iij.x.
• Ro. iii.xx. & iii.xv.
• Gala. iii, xxi.
• Gala. iii••.xvii.
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 iiij.vi.
• Gal. v.vi.
• Rom. iiij.iiij.
• Esa. lix.vij.
• Rom. v.iii••.
• ii. Cor. iij.xix.
• ii. Cor.iii.xxi.
• Ro. iiij.vi.
• Luc. i.lxxvii.
• Act. xiii.xxxviii.
• De ciuit. dei. ca. 27,
• Serm. 23. in cant. Serm. 22,
• ii. Cor. v, xxi.
• Ro. vi••••.iij
• Ro. v.xix.
• L••b. 2. de Iac. & ui∣•••• beata.