Of free justification by Christ written first in Latine by John Fox, author of the Book of martyrs, against Osorius, &c. and now translated into English, for the benefit of those who love their own souls, and would not be mistaken in so great a point.

Against the Iesuits and their Topick Argu∣ments, whereby they confirm Inherent Righ∣teousness out of Aristotle.

WHAT, say they, have you not at any time read that form of * 1.1 reasoning in Aristotle? He is righ∣teous, therefore he is endued with righteousness; Such a man is learned, therefore he hath learning? We have read it, Say they, in the Topicks of Aristotle. That is true indeed. But have ye not also at any time read in the Epistles of Paul, these forms of speaking, Christ is our Righteousness? We are made the righteousness of God by him? faith is imputed unto righteous∣ness? * 1.2 the Iust shall live by faith? What then? Shall we believe Ari∣stotle more than Paul? We believe Fishermen, Saith Ambrose, not Logicians. And should we translate our Faith, which we owe to God with faithful Abraham unto men that are Sophisters? But now, lest those Iesuits should say, that they are not answered, let us look more nearly into the force of their argu∣ment, and pierce them through with their own Dart. They deny that ever this external attribu∣tion was heard of since the World was; that a thing should receive a name extrinsically from qualities, that can be within, so that they should be accounted righteous before God, not by inherent qualities,

but the righteousness of another, to wit, Christs, which is applyed to us by Faith, &c. And in∣deed this Reason taken out of Aristotle, might perhaps be of some force, if they had omitted these words (before God.) But now seeing there is a twosold and divers righteousness, the one which is called the righteousness of the Law, the other which is called the righteous∣ness of Faith; and seeing the judgments of God and the judgments of men do differ, they do foolishly and ridiculously argue from hu∣mane things to divine, from the righteousness of the Law, to the righteousness of Faith; for men are not justified in the sight of God upon the same account that they are esteemed righ∣teous before men. Yea, oft-times it happens otherways, that those whom this World does most cry up, and judges just by their inherent qualities, God condemns the same men chiefly of unrighteousness out of those very same qua∣lities: and so on the contrary part, * 1.3 This may easily appear evident by the Example of the Pharisee and the Publican, either of which if they were to be valued according to the inherent merits of their life, what cause was there, I beseech you, why the Publican should go home more righteous than the Pharisee?

Even as with a like diversity the Scripture sometimes names them dead, whom humane Philosophy would judge to be alive, and in perfect health. Suffer ye, Saith he, the dead to bury their dead. But pray how dead? who,

unless they were alive, they could not bury their dead? What shall we then say? that the Scrip∣ture lyes, in calling them dead, which were alive? Or does that Iesuitical Rule rather lye, which judges those alive by reason of their in∣herent qualities, whom the Scripture calls dead? How shall these things, so contrary to one ano∣ther, agree together? But that it is one thing to live, to be dead, and to be righteous be∣fore God, and another thing before Men. The Books of Holy Scripture are full of such Ex∣amples, and they have been often heard of and seen by Men; and yet after all these things, those pleasant Gymnosophists deny, that this external attribution was ever heard of since the World was, that a thing should receive a name extrinsecally from qualities, whose nature is to be within. Is it so indeed that this was not heard of since the beginning of the World? what do I hear? have ye not then, good men, read these words of the Apostle in the Holy Scriptures of God? By the disobedience of one man many were made sinners; and again, by the obedience of one man many shall be made Righteous. I pray you, what is the meaning of these words, by the disobedience of one many are sinners? Again, by the obedience of one many are righteous? Does this attribution seem internal to you, or rather external? was that rebellion peculiar to Adam, or was it ours? If it was ours, how was it ours, but by external impu∣tation? What? when you hear these words of the Apostle: He made Christ to become sin

for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God through him, * 1.4 &c. Did either of us receive from qualities that can be said to be within; he, that he was made sin, or we, that we are called and made righteousness through him? Moreover, what is that, when the Publican in the Gospel is said to have gone to his house justified rather than the Pharisee? what was the cause why the one went away justified, and the other went a∣way unjustified? I think it came not so to pass by a habit of inherent righteousness, but upon this account rather, because the Publican con∣fessed his own unrighteousness, therefore of wicked he is made righteous; the other, be∣cause he seemed righteous to himself, through a false opinion of his own righteous∣ness, was manifested to be unrigh∣teous * 1.5 according to the testimony of Holy Scripture: The Righteous Man no sooner speaks than he accuses himself; and in another place, confess thy sins, that thou mayest be justi∣fied; therefore that aying of Augustine seems wor∣thy of Praise; this is the true way to perfection, if every man acknow∣ledge * 1.6 in truth, and confess in humi∣lity his own impersection. And Bernard spake no less to the purpose, who bids us consider the Pharisee praying; he was no Robber, said he, nor unjust, nor an Adulterer, nor careless of Fastings, nor un∣mindful of the poor, nor unthankful to God, what then was wanting?

This one thing was wanting, that * 1.7 he took no care to know what was wanting to him, but made the most of his own merit, and therefore re∣turned empty. On the contrary, the Publican, who emptied himself, and took care to bring an empty vessel, received the more plentiful grace.

By these things I suppose it is * 1.8 sufficiently evident, what this Righ∣teousness is, and of what sort, which makes us righteous before God, whether it is Christs or ours? If it is Christs, it is not ours? How then of works of our righteousness? If it is ours, it is not Christs: how is a man of wicked made righteous? If of wicked he is made righteous, that I may speak in the words of Augustine, what are the * 1.9 works of wicked men? Let the wicked man now boast of his works, I give to the Poor, I take nothing away from any man, &c. then thou art in this thy boast wicked, and thy works are none. These things said he, therefore it is a false Opinion, which men plead for, to wit, that a man cannot be cal∣led righteous by an external righteousness. Nei∣ther is it less Ass-like which those Balqamites do bray, who say, that it is the same thing for a man to be thus Righteous; as if a man should say, an Ass with the form of an Ass is a Mon; for by Faith we are called faithful, and by righteousness weare called righteous, &c. Be it so indeed, that no Man should rightly be called righteous, but upon

the account of Righteousness; what then, see∣ing Christ is our righteousness, is there not sufficient cause upon that account why we should be called righteous? should any man require a better righteousness than that which is Christs? And what form of expressing, though external, can hinder, but that the righteousness which is peculiar to Christ, may also be called ours, and may be common both to him and us, especially seeing he is wholly ours with his merits, ver∣tues, benefits, and all his goods? * 1.10 which qualities, though they are not properly in our selves, yet being received from him, they pass like∣wise into our possession. As the Bodies of the Stars and Planets, though dark of themselves, yet they shine and are made bright, not with their own, but anothers light, to wit, being inlightned with the light of the Sun; just so it comes to pass to us, that we are made Righteous, Kings, Priests, Sons and Heirs of God, not by any property of our nature or condition of works, but because the Son and Heir himself is said to be made Sin and a Curse for us, not for any sin inherent in him, but im∣puted to him.

Argument. But here again, and a∣gain those impure Sophisters object, * 1.11 that this was never heard from Ari∣stotle, and that it is not agreeable to reason, that he should be called

learned, that hath no learning, or righteous, that is not endued with righteousness. And perhaps that may seem true in moral vertue: Now seeing there is a twofold righteousness, as I have said, one which they call Ethick, a∣nother which is Theological, that consists in manners, this in faith; we must judge far other∣wise of this than of that. For the righteous∣ness of which Aristotle treats, as it is a moral vertue distinguished from prudence, courage, and temperance, thus it is referred to the ha∣bits of the mind and internal qualities, accord∣ing to which men are denominated of what sort they are by Philosophers.

And though we confess this to be true in some respect, it doth not at all hurt our cause nor discourage our enterprize in clearing this point.

For all this Controversie undertaken by us drives at this, that we should search for a righ∣teousness, which is no moral humane vertue, but which is a Spiritual Grace and gift of God, which is not ours, but which is proper to Christ; whence he only is called holy and just, and we are called justified in him, not upon the account of works, but faith, which God im∣putes for righteousness unto them that believe in his name. And hence it is rightly called the righteousness of faith, and there∣fore * 1.12 faith it self is righteousness; whereby we are accounted righ∣teous before God, being endued not with that external righteousness, about which those men Philosophize, but being beau∣tified

and adorned with a peculiar and most in∣ternal righteousness, which being so, who sees not that it is false and sophistical which those men take out of Aristotle; that we are justified by works, or should upon no account be called just? why so? because no man can be called just but upon the account of the righteousness, which every man possesses for his own in himself. For thus do those sharp-witted Men argue, who cannot endure the free justification of Faith. To whom, that I may make answer, let us hear this first from them: Whether faith, whereby we believe in Christ, seems to them a vertue or not? If they judge so, * 1.13 I ask whether it is a moral vertue, or a theological? And then whe∣ther it is internal, and inherent, being inwardly placed, or whether it should be called external? If faith is an internal thing, and the same is our righte∣ousness in the fight of God. Why then should not this seem an allowable form of arguing a∣gainst the Iesuites, who deny that we are other∣wise justified than by internal and inherent righteousness?

Argument.

Ma. Our Faith is Righteousness before God.

Mi. Our Faith is an internal and inherent vertue.

Concl. Therefore we are made * 1.14 righteous before God by an internal and inherent vertue.

But here again the Adversaries object, that they do not at all deny, but that Faith is an internal vertue in us, which nevertheless makes us faithful, but makes us not just. Why so? because we are said to be faithful from faith, but we are said to be righteous only from righteousness; O sweet and understanding men! as if those who are faithful in Christ Iesus, were not also just before our God, or as if these things should only be looked upon in their names, and needed not to be considered rather in their causes and effects. And what will they then say to these words of Paul, being ju∣stified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ? What if the cause being granted, the effect also must necessarily be grant∣ed, and faith is a justifying cause (as the Apo∣stle witnesseth) how can it be, that those who receive the name of faithful from faith, should not also upon the same account receive the cause of righteousnes, whence they are not only called righteous, but made so also in reality.

And these things we have said by the by, a∣gainst the objections of the Iesuits; who seeing they so strictly examine the Divine Theorems of our Religion, according to the Logical forms of arguing, it is reasonable that we also should keep them entangled, and expedite our selves out of their nets, as much as may be. Here therefore, seeing they require of us Arguments

conformed unto the modes of Aristotle, let them so receive them.

Argument.

Ma. Men from Righteousness are rightly and formally called Righteous.

Mi. The Faith of Christ is Righteousness imputed to us by God.

Concl. Therefore from Faith men are rightly and formally called righteous before God.

Again.

Ma. They that do justly should be called just before God.

Mi. They that believe in the Son of God do most justly.

Concl. Therefore they that be∣lieve * 1.15 in the Son of God, are deser∣vedly called just.

For what can any man do more justly, or more holily, than to be∣lieve in the only begotten Son of God, and to embrace him with all his faith, as the Gospel bears witness. This is the work of God, that ye should believe in him, whom he hath sent. And what Doctrine is more excellent, than to know Christ the Son of God aright, and the power of his Death, and Resurrection? Which knowledge, how much it is valued by God above all other disci∣plines and arts, it may appear by this, which is foretold unto us of Christ by the Divine Pro∣phet,

and my Righteous Servant, saith he, by his Knowledge shall justifie many. What if our Iustification is placed only in the know∣ledge of the Son of God, and the Faith of the Son is nothing else but knowledge Divinely In∣spired; what credit then should be given to those Iesuitical Sophisters, who neither admit of any external cause of justifying, nor acknow∣ledge any other but this, which they themselves place in Works.

And now what will they an∣swer to this Argument of Au∣gustin? * 1.16

Ma. Whence we are saved, thence we are just.

Mi. By Faith we are saved and reconciled to God, and become Conquerors; according to that saying of the Gospel: This is the Victory, which overcomes the World; our Faith.

Conclu. Therefore, by Faith the name of Righteousness is rightly given to us, according to the Testimony of Augustin.

But those Praters will not yet hold their Peace, neither do they endure any either Internal or Ex∣ternal Righteousness, but this only which they de∣scribe in Works, and the observance of the Law: And they endeavour to prove it by this caption. First then as touching Faith, though that is an in∣ternal Vertue, yet they plead that it doth not o∣therways justifie, but upon the account of Cha∣rity. But thus they dispute concerning the righte∣ousness of Christ: Because it is not our own,

but is peculiar to Christ. There is no cause why a Man should take upon him the Name of Righteous, from that Righteousness, * 1.17 which is anothers; to wit, accord∣ing to the Law of Aristotle. Which how frivolous it is, and contrary to the Faith of the Gospel, it will not be difficult to demonstrate by very clear words of Scrip∣ture; for, to what purpose is the Divine Love Preached in the Gospel, and in the Prophets, to have given Christ his only begotten Son unto the World: Unless he had been willing to make us partakers together with him of all his Wealth, Vertues, Merits, and whatsoever good things belong to him? Whence Paul. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him freely give us all things? What if Christ was given to us byhis Father, poured forth, exposed, and is wholly made ours, with all his goods and gifts, is there any thing in him, whether Wisdom, or Iustice, or Sanctification, or Life, or Victory, or Death, or any other thing * 1.18 besides, which we may not by a due right lay claim to as our own? If it is ours, upon what account then do those Gymnosophists Preach that it belongs not to us? Of which thing we may reason thus.

Ma. Whatsoever Christ did for us, is e∣steemed ours, just as if it had been done by our selves.

Mi. Christ fulfilled all Righteousness for us.

Conclu. Therefore all the Righteousness of Christ is ours by Faith, just as if it had been fulfilled by us.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Argum. ex Topicis Aristot. 1 Cor. 1. 2 Cor. 5. Rom. 4. 3.
• * 1.2

  Answer to the Iesuitical quibbles.
• * 1.3

  Men judge by qualities, but God judgeth o∣therwise.
• * 1.4

  2 Cor. 5.
• * 1.5

  Prov. cap. 8.
• * 1.6

  Aug. ad Boniface, lib. 3. cap. 7.
• * 1.7

  Bernard in Dominic. Serm. 3.
• * 1.8

  By what Righteous∣ness they are justified be∣fore God, by Christs, or our own.
• * 1.9

  Aug. in Psal. 31.
• * 1.10

  Christ is wholly ours, with all his good things.
• * 1.11

  As Christ was made sin, so we are made righ∣teous. But Christ was not made sin by inherent sin. Therefore we also are not made righteous by inherent rightcousness.
• * 1.12

  The Righte∣ousness of Faith.
• * 1.13

  Internal and inherent righteousness whereby we are justified according to the Gospel.
• * 1.14

  Faith is a most internal and inherent righteousness.
• * 1.15

  This is the work of God, that ye should be∣lieve in him whom he hath sent. Iohn. 6.
• * 1.16

  Augustine.
• * 1.17

  Iohn 3. So God loved the World that he gave his only be∣gotten Son, that all that believe in him, &c. Rom. 8.
• * 1.18

  1 Cor. 1. A rule of Law, that which a Man doth by ano∣ther, he seems to have done by himself.