OF FREE

JUSTIFICATION BY CHRIST.

In reading your books, Jerome Osorio,* concerning righteousness, though I had not leisure accurately to trace every particular, on which you have enlarged, yet by what I have collected, I think I perceive whereat you aim. For, according to my apprehension, you are endeavouring, not to strike at some part of christian doctrine of small concern, but to cut the very throat, and extinguish the breath and spirit of the gospel, to besiege the whole state of our felicity, and the castle and chief city of christian liberty, and to pluck up from the very foundation all the munitions of peace and life. For what other thing do you in all these ten books, whereby you snatch away out of the hands, studies, minds, and consciences of men, and out of the earth, as the sun out of the world, that most glorious light of our Free Justification, purchased by the great bounty of Christ, and confirmed by the eternal covenant of God. Which being taken away, I see not what thou leavest remaining to us, but Cimmerian and Osorian darkness, in which we may grope like blind moles. Which endeavours of thine, though of themselves being vain and frivolous, there is no great cause why they should be feared in their opposition against the invincible force of divine truth; yet, because they strive to withhold from us that which is most excellent in all religion; therefore I thought it was necessary to write, not being provoked by any enmity or hatred against your person, but that I might admonish you both friendly and freely; and so much the more freely, in how much greater danger I see you are entangled, unless you

Jerome Osorio was a learned Portuguese divine, bishop of Sylves, in Algarva. He wrote several works which were much approved, and among others, one in which the Romish doctrines concerning justification were set forth and defended with much ability, entitled, De Justitia Cœlesti, lib. x. ad Reginalum Polum cardinalum. To this work Fox replies in the following treatise. Osorio also wrote another work expressly against the English reformation, which was ably answered by Haddon and Fox.

+ Defences and supports.

return, and endeavour to walk more aprightly according to the gospel of Christ. For think you, that by your deeds, performed as well as can be imagined, and by the steps of your virtues, you can lay for yourself a passage into the kingdom of God? Or think you that any man living in this slippery condition of nature, can root out all his lusts, and utterly cut off all their enticements; and so contain himself within the bounds of his duty, that he can equalize those habitations of eternal glory, with a proportionable dignity of righteousness, or dare promise them to himself upon such an account, unless the bounty of God had freely put this honour upon us? O be not of such an opinion! This is not the way to heaven. Either you must change

your mind, or lay down this hope.

Howbeit this opinion seems not to be yours only, but common to you with many, namely, the late school divines, especially those who have a greater veneration for the authority of the pope than the writings of the apostles, and who, being all infected with the same contagion of error, boldly profess the same. But yet all of them do not pro ceed in the same method. They so frame their notions, that all men may understand they are the professed enemies of divine grace, and our Free Justification in Christ, which they hiss out of the schools, and openly anathematize. Your arguings are somewhat different, though you have undertaken obstinately to maintain the same thing that they do, but you hide the same venom with more subtle artifice, so that it insinuates more easily, and lies less open to rebuke.

You write books concerning righteousness, and those not a few, nor unpolished. When I look on the argument, I see it is honourable and plausible. When I look into your manner of speech, your painted eloquence, and laudatory amplifications, wherewith you adorn the glory, loveliness, and beauty of righteousness, with a tragedian-like sublimity of style, I confess this is not unworthy of praise. For who would not deservedly praise him, whom he sees so inflamed with the praises of righteousness? But if any man look more inwardly, and consider with himself according to right reason, with what mind, for what end, for what pretence, and with what arguments you maintain those parts of righteousness so much praised, and compare them with the gospel of Christ, he will be forced to acknowledge that you are defective in many things. Though you little regard

my censure, yet if you will allow me to speak freely, I will do it according to my duty, and so, that you may perceive that there was nothing less in my design than a perverse inclination to find fault with other men's writings. And you have so handled this subject matter, that you appear to be a philosopher Platonical enough, and no bad Ciceronian orator; but not a very evangelical divine, nor skilful enough to plead the cause of christian righteousness.

First, as touching the title of the book, "Concerning Righteousness," I find nothing blameworthy, though the frailty of our nature might persuade you rather to discourse something to us of mercy. Being about to treat of righteousness, you have undertaken a very honourable subject, too weighty for you, and a work indeed very difficult and excellent. For what in the whole nature of divine and human things is more excellent than righteousness? Which seeing it comprehends within its circumference all kinds of virtues, the whole praise of piety, and not only the highest perfection of the law, but also the perfect image of God, it may be found in heaven, but on earth it cannot be found, when you have said all you can. Wherefore, I am ready the more to wonder and consider with myself what secret design you had in your mind, that you have composed books so exquisitely accurate concerning righteousness. If it was that by the trumpet of your commendation, you might make it more acceptable to us, you have therein lighted on a matter, suitable enough for setting forth the riches of your eloquence. But for what purpose or end did you that? Will you say, it was that men may the more evidently behold the beauty of righteousness, and admire it the more? But this has been formerly attempted by Plato, and many academics and peripatetics, and that with no bad success. And who is so void of all natural sense, but, though he is not himself endued with the excellency of righteousness, yet he apprehends in his mind the divine brightness thereof, and greatly admires it, and wishes for it with all his heart; if wishes in this case could do any good.

1. Inherent Righteousness, unto perfection, can no where be found in this nature.

I could wish that the integrity of nature, wherein we were of old created, had continued unto the complete exactness of all righteousness; but now in this ruined and

disabled nature, why do you seek after that which we have lost? Rather bring forth something, if you can, whereby we may make up the loss. What can it profit a man already dead, to know the danger whereby he perished? Verily there is more need of a medicine, if you have any, by which you may either comfort him, being destroyed, or restore him to the life that was lost. Yea, this is the thing, say you, which you endeavour in these books disputing of righteousness. For righteousness, as you say, is the only remedy for restoring life, and regaining health; yea, this is the very thing that I chiefly find fault with; not because you write of righteousness. I commend also your praises of righteousness, which are high and copious. Righteousness cannot be praised enough by any man. But there is another thing for which all good men should be angry with you. You present unto us a spectacle, not much differing from that which Origen relates of Celsus and Antipho; who though they wrote very contrary to truth, yet recommended those very books that were against the truth, with the title of " a true saying." After which manner you write indeed concerning righteousness, but nothing can be said more maliciously against true righteousness.

2. A twofold account of doctrine; one of the Law, and another of the Gospel.

For as there is a twofold manner of covenant, so also there is of righteousness, proposed in the scriptures. The one consists in precepts and works, under the weight whereof we all, of necessity, fall down to destruction. The other is that of the gospel, which is safe-guarded, not by works, not by observance of the law, not by any performance of duties on our side, but by the sure and only faith of Christ the Son of God. Verily, whosoever, rejecting the righteousness of Christ, whereof I speak, leads us aside unto any other manner of righteousness--he pleads not for true righteousness, but against it; and does not undertake the defence of the law of God, but is a professed enemy of the grace of Christ, and his cross, and therefore does not open, but wholly shuts up all passages to true salvation, and all gates and doors of divine grace.

But perhaps these things that have been said hitherto, are enough concerning the title of the book. By which your prudence may lead you easily to suppose, what should

The external form and

be judged of the rest of the work. workmanship is not without beauty, nor unworthy to be looked upon. But when I consider the reasons and force of arguments, when I compare the words and sayings of the scriptures quoted at a strange rate, with the true sense of scriptures, not rightly understood by you; and also when I take notice of the end and scope of the whole disputation, I am not willing at present to discover to you what I find.

But yet, as of necessity something must be said, I will speak, but only in a few words. If any other man had published these books concerning righteousness, except yourself, I should say to him openly, and to his face, that no man could ever have brought in a greater plague into the doctrine of the general salvation of christians, nor a filthier blot upon religion, nor have done a greater injury to St. Paul, the scriptures, and the prophets, than is manifest in these books. But in writing these things to you, I restrain myself for your sake. What then, should the cause of truth therefore be deserted? Wherefore, to observe my duty in both respects, I have taken this way of prosecuting this design, both less to offend you, and likewise perhaps more to benefit the cause I have undertaken to defend.

3. How easy it is to err in the doctrine of Justification. Seeing that these things and others like unto them, contain the principal heads of all christian doctrine, divines should take special care lest they err in them; which care, unless they take, there will follow most grievous ruin and perturbation of all things, the foundations being put out of their places. And yet error is no where more easily committed than in these points. Neither is it so strange; for this animal nature we call human reason, when consulted about the things of God, is most blind, and sees nothing, unless it be illuminated with the better light of divine knowledge shining in upon it. For the right understanding of divine things comes by the Spirit of God, and not by human capacity; and though the law, and the things of the law, were in some sense born with us, and cleave unto our nature, yet the mysteries of the doctrine of the gospel are not apprehended so easily, for the nature of both is very different. Moreover, you may see many, who following the guidance of nature, and her precepts more than is meet, do teach and dispute of things belonging to the gospel; just as a philosopher discourses of the principles of nature, or a