Only the guilt and punishment of sin, not the matter itself of our actions, was laid upon Christ to bear upon the

cross.

The act or substance of sin, is not wholly abolished by the death of Christ in this flesh, but only the guilt and punishment of sin.

Or, more briefly let them take it thus: Whatsoever Christ, by dying, did bear for us, that alone he took away by his death in this life; Christ, by dying, did bear only the punishment of our sins, not the sins themselves in his body, whereof he had none: Therefore Christ, in this life, took away only the punishment, not the matter itself of sin, by his death. But afterwards, by his power, he shall also take away the whole matter of sin in the glory of the resurrection to come. *

16. Concerning the necessity of the practice, and care of good works.

Therefore, in this place something hath been said of faith; and all that manner of righteousness which the divine authority attributes to faith only, without works. From which, just conclusions being drawn, it evidently appears, if I am not mistaken, wherein all our righteousness consists. Not in works without faith, nor joined together with faith, but wholly in faith without works; that is, without the merits of works, or any condition of meriting. For if faith, which is nothing else but an internal and illuminated contemplation, and receiving of Christ the Son of God, receives a free promise of life in him; I do not well see what the good deeds of our life, though excellent, can perform in this part of justification. Yet it does not follow from hence, that the holy practice of good works "for necessary uses," that I may speak with Paul, is not upon any account necessary. Neither is it a reason forcible enough, if any man teaches that no trust should be put in works, that therefore there is no need of any care to do good. For what logic is this? Works should not be trusted in when they are performed-Therefore there is no need to endeavour to perform good and holy works. Or-We are no other ways justified but upon the account of faith which is

Christ by dying upon the cross did bear only the punishment of sin, but not our sins; afterwards by raising us up again, he will destroy both the punishment and the whole matter of sin in due time. Marginal note.

in Christ Jesus-Therefore offices of piety are not necessary in those who are justified by faith. Or, if it were said, That as faith only, not upon the account of love, but of the Mediator, promotes us to righteousness-Therefore, it profits nothing, to repent, and to weep and mourn for sins committed! Or, That it is of no concern after what manner every one leads his life-for so you seem to gather, and not you only, Osorio, but also as many as being like to you, bear an enmity to Luther. And hence such fierce outcries and falsehoods against him. As if he brought in a certain new kind of faith, that was not heard of before, and was unknown in former times: as if he were an example of wickedness, an encourager of slothfulness, a turbulent person, and disturber of religion, who trampled upon all actions worthy of praise, and exercises of eminent virtue, as things of no worth; and condemned pious tears, and judged those men abominable and wicked who wept and mourned for their iniquities; or upon any account lamented the sins they committed! Or, as if he taught a certain new way of salvation, and such a one, as neither requires works of us, nor any sorrow, neither occasions any trouble to sinners; but teaches that confidence alone is sufficient-namely, such a confidence, whereby every wicked and ungodly man may be supposed acceptable to God, though he himself do not at all endeavour to restrain his wickedness, or pretend to any desire after piety, but only so supposes in his own mind, that he is dear to God. That the favour of God is prepared for all, yea for the unclean and wicked, though sin rules and reigns with an universal dominion over them. Moreover, that Luther should think it a great wickedness to lament man's first ruin, or fall, and to fear punishment, &c.* Besides other things of the like sort, no less absurd than false, which being wrested to a wrong sense, are laid to his charge, not that they are really true, but they are purposely feigned, that by any means possible you may render him odious to the ignorant people! But these cunning attempts avail nothing; for the writings and sermons of Luther are publicly known. There are also extant the public confessions of the Saxon churches, first presented unto the emperor Charles, in the diet of Augsburg in 1530. And afterwards in 1551, showed and offered to the council of Trent, in which what they teach concerning the true way of justification, according to the word of God; what they * Osor. de Just. lib. ii. p. 30, 43.

Assertions of the adversaries respecting Righteousness. 179

judge and preach of repentance, and the holy fruits of good works, is set forth; by all which they do sufficiently defend themselves against your frivolous calumnies, and most vain accusations, so that there is no need of any other defence besides.* *

17. The opposite assertions of the adversaries, against the free imputation of righteousness, produced and examined.

Which things, seeing they are so, and sufficient defence has been made for those of our profession, let us proceed to that which remains.

We will then first declare the opposite assertions and decrees of the adversaries, what they say and judge concerning righteousness, faith, grace, repentance, and works; and next we will compare their opinions with ours; and both together with the holy gospel of God, that it may be the more evident to the reader, what should be judged of both. And here first comes forth unto us Osorio, none of the meanest champions in this cause, all whose contention against Luther aims at this, to destroy all imputation of righteousness, and to leave no other way of righteousness but that which consists in works, and observation of the law; and which might maintain, according to the decrees of Trent, that we are not only esteemed righteous, but also are really or inherently righteous in the sight of God, even unto justification. In which way of justifying he does not exclude faith and grace, but he so mingles these together, that the praise itself of righteousness is founded on works, and all else is so subservient, that faith first goes before, that it alone may prepare and make way for the obtaining of grace. And grace afterwards follows, which brings forth good works in us, and then works themselves, perfect, and complete righteousness. For after this manner doth Osorio argue. Righteousness being so described by him, that it seems to consist not at all in faith without works, but in works, which are called works of faith, not of the law. And he denies that it is possible for whosoever has not that righteousness to be received into the favour of God; relying chiefly upon this argument, "Because that divine nature, being most holy, and most

The confessions of Augsburg and Saxony which set forth the doctrines of the reformers.

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. 34-39. Andrad. de Just. lib. vi.

Osor. lib. ii. p. 31.

that this miserable depravation of our nature is far from this exactness, and there is none, as Augustine witnesses, 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.