pure, and which can endure no filthiness of iniquity, it behoves him therefore, that would enjoy the presence thereof, to conform himself unto the same image; for there is no communion between light and darkness, there is no union between the holiness of righteousness, and the wickedness of unrighteousness."* He therefore concludes that Luther, and they of Luther's party, do err, "First in this, that they dare assert that sin in those, whom that infinite purity hath united unto itself, by a most holy love, is not wholly removed, nor altogether abolished and plucked up by the roots, nor all its fibres quite extirpated. And also, that they affirm that a law is laid upon us by God, which cannot be kept. In the one of which the Divine clemency and bounty is distrusted: in the other, abominable reproach is cast upon his infinite power and Godhead."+

18. Concerning righteousness, and its definition given by Osorio, and others.

Osorio defines righteousness, that "it is a state of soul founded on the law of God," and that "it bears a clear resemblance to the immutability of the divine virtue." In like manner also Andradius not much differs from him. "Righteousness," saith he, "is an unmovable equity and government of mind, which measures all its actions and counsels by the law of God." And the same again presently; "Righteousness is a habit of mind fashioned by the divine law, to obey that divine law and will, as it persuades to perform the offices of every virtue," &c.‡

Herein is your error, that whereas there is a twofold and divers sort of righteousness set before us in Scripture, the one which is of the law, and peculiar to God; the other which is of faith, and peculiar to us; you are so taken up in defining the one, that you do not at all touch upon the other, about which the chief matter of controversy is here. And so you proceed in setting forth the perfect excellency of the Divine righteousness, and justly so indeed to be accounted of, that in the mean while you leave no righteousness to man at all. For what righteousness shall man have, if righteousness be so strictly defined, that it cannot consist but of works of perfect righteousness, nor be communicated unless to perfect men? For now, seeing no men are so perfect in this world but * Osor. lib. ii. p. 31. † Osor. lib. ii. p. 34-39. Andrad. de Just. lib. vi.

that this miserable depravation of our nature is far from this exactness, and there is none, as Augustine witnesseth, as long as he is in this life, who pretends himself to be just in the sight of God-by necessary consequence it follows, that either there is no righteousness of ours at all in this life, or it must be another than that which your definition thus circumscribes to us; for thus you define it; "That it is an excellent state of mind, conformed by the Divine law, founded upon Divine prescription, free from all wickedness, and coming near in its resemblance to the Divine nature."* And indeed in that state we were created in the beginning. But we have lost it long since, neither are we yet perfectly restored, but we shall be restored at length by the divine power and bounty of Christ, on the day that this our corruption shall put on incorruption, and this mortal body shall rise again to immortality. In which state of resurrection we believe with Augustine that we shall fulfil righteousness, that is, we shall have complete righteousness. "In comparison of that resurrection," saith he, " the whole life that we now live is but dung," &c. And where now is that excellent habit of mind, coming so near in its resemblance to the divine nature? Where is that constant equity of reason, and moderation of mind free from all sin? Or what do you think of this life, which Isaiah calls a filthy cloth, and Augustine calls dung, if it be compared with that which is true righteousness?

Whereby may be evidently discerned, as I suppose, what comes of this famous theological theory of righteousness. For, if there is no way of entering into the kingdom of life but by righteousness, and no righteousness, according to your opinion, can consist but of a perfect observance of the divine law, and dignity of works, what follows then? You must either deny that we are sinners in this life, and assert that we are righteous by works; or if, according to Scripture, you confess us to be sinners, you must despoil us of all righteousness, and shut us out of the kingdom of God. And what will you say to Augustine, who esteems all the righteousness of this life as dung? What will you say to Isaiah, who says it is as a defiled cloth? What will you say to Paul, who accounted it as loss? What will you say to Christ, who calls them that acquit themselves most righteously, not only servants, but also unprofitable servants?

* Osor. lib. v. p. 114.

If the Scripture evidently testifies that every man is a liar-if the beloved evangelist condemns him for a liar, who would seem to himself to be free from sin-if, according to the testimony of Paul, we have come short of the glory of God-if, as James testifies, in many things we offend all-if most holy men, in prayer, cry daily, Forgive us our sins-if Augustine manifestly denies that any man, even after he hath obtained the remission of sins, hath lived so righteously in this flesh, or that he doth live so righteously, that he hath no sin at all-if with one mouth the public consent of the most approved fathers testifies the same-if moreover continual private confessions-if conscience itself, which is as a thousand witnesses, convince even thyself that thou art a perpetual sinner, darest thou, who art a sinful man, confuted by thy own works, dream yet of the righteousness of works, and promise heaven to thyself, and others, by works? And does not the example of the pharisee in the gospel, Luke xviii. affright you, who, having been deceived by a false opinion of his own righteousness, and who, whilst flattering himself that he was not like other men, was yet so far from that which he persuaded himself concerning himself, that he went away worse than those whom he most despised in comparison of himself? But how much more modestly would you behave yourself, if with a humble meekness restraining that insolence of spirit, you would either frame yourself to the example of David, who durst not come forth into the presence of God, or would put on that most humble mind of Tertullian, who comparing his life with another man, "Thou art a sinner," saith he, "like me, yea, a less sinner than I, for I acknowledge a preeminence in my sins." At least you might and ought to be admonished by the sharp rebuke of the Laodiceans, who when they had highly flattered themselves with a false persuasion of their own righteousness, which they took upon them by works, did not in any other thing more displease the divine judgment. Therefore Augustine said right, "Let no man flatter himself: let man take sin, which is his own, and let him leave righteousness to God."

But what is the leaving righteousness to God, but abandoning all righteousness of works, to confess ourselves to be that which we are, sinners, and God only to be just? Which also Saint Paul more evidently confirms in these words, To declare his righteousness, that he may be just,

and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus, Rom. iii. In which, a twofold manner of righteousness presents itself unto us; of which the one is divine, and is attributed to God only; the other is only referred to men. The first therefore, is peculiar to God, the other is called "our righteousness;" but what difference is between this and that, there is no great difficulty to discern. For that which is the righteousness of God, appears evident in all his works, and the perfect exactness of his holiness. But that which is the righteousness of men, is received by faith only; not that faith in acting is wholly without works, but because in justifying, works do nothing before God, and that is it which the apostle seems to intend in these words: saying, For this purpose, that he may be just, and the justifier of him, that is of the faith of Jesus Christ, &c. For this purpose, saith he, that he may be just. How is he just? by faith? no, but by works; that thou mayest be justified in thy sayings, and mayest overcome when thou art judged. But now, What way are we justified? by works? Not at all, but by faith. Concerning which the apostle saith, A justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ.* He said not, Him that behaved himself well by working-but, Him that is of the faith of Jesus Christ. Whence, a disciple being witness, whosoever shall believe in Christ with a direct and intent faith, it follows by necessary consequence that this man is esteemed righteous, and is justified before God. For otherwise, to what purpose should God be said to justify us by faith, or what need would there be here of any mention of faith at all, if holy works, of themselves, were sufficient to make up a righteousness?

All which being thus deduced and confirmed, it is easy to understand what should be judged of your definition. For if there is no other righteousness, but that which by your definition is placed in holy works, and a perfect obedience to the law of God, it thence follows, that either we are not tainted with any sins at all, or that we must necessarily confess that we are excluded "from all possession of righteousness." Both of which are false; for though sin and righteousness, in respect of one and the same thing, through a mutual antithesis, whereby they are opposed one against another, cannot come together, yet nothing hinders, but we may be sinners, and also righteous upon a different

* Psalm li. Rom. iii. God is justified one way, and men are justified before God another way. Marginal note.

account. You will say, How can that be? If you know not, I will tell you, and, in a word, that you may understand the more expeditiously. We are sinners in ourselves, we are righteous in Christ. Hereunto belongs the mystery of Christ the Son of God, given to us by his Father, that he, with all his works and benefits, may become wholly ours, for our right and for our advantage. So he is said by the prophet to be born; so he is said to be given, not for himself, but for us. So he was righteous, so he fulfilled the law, so he died and rose again, that his life might be to us righteousness, his death might be redemption, and his resurrection might be life and glory. Moreover, whatsoever is Christ's, yea, whatsoever Christ is, is not so much his own as yours, and as mine, and as it is all ours who by faith are Jesus Christ's. Therefore our salvation consists of the redemption purchased by another, and not of our own works. For herein shines forth the more than stupendous mercy, and unspeakable grace of a most tender-hearted God, that he even dedicated his only begotten Son wholly to our advantage, so that whatsoever was performed by him was performed, not for his sake, but for ours. Neither had it respect to him who had no private need, but it redounds as a public good to us all, because he sustains the public person of all before his Father. Wherefore, if you desire to know what is our righteousness, Paul and Peter will show it to you much better than in the Romish definitions. For our righteousness is Christ, our righteous Lord, through whose name as many as believe in his name, receive remission of sins. What more, I pray you, would you require unto perfect righteousness, than that sins may never be imputed, and that the punishments due to your sins may never be inflicted on you?

19. Concerning inherent and imputed righteousness.

But perhaps it is not enough to you, that the sins you committed are not imputed to you, but you desire that nothing may be committed, which may be justly imputed. And for that cause you think no man should be reckoned among the just, but he whose life, being upon all accounts untainted, is conformable to the perfect rule of the law, having abolished the footsteps of all sins. And indeed that should be wished for, if wishes in this case could do any good.