part, in the first place, comes his infinite mercy, predestination, election, the grace of the promise and vocation, of which Paul speaks in more places than one. Who hath predestinated us, saith he, unto the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ-whom he hath predestinated, that they should be conformed to the image of his Son, them he hath also called; whom he hath called, them he hath also justified, &c. see Rom. viii.

In the next order follows the donation of his dear Son, his obedience, death, sufferings, merits, redemption, resurrection, forgiveness of sins, Rom. viii. As for those things which proceed from God, there is no great controversy between us. But our opinions differ concerning those things which are called causes on man's part; namely, whether there is one cause only, or more? Whether faith only, without works, or works joined together with faith? And this is the thing about which we now contend, for in these books you so dispute about the righteousness of works, that you suppose faith, only, without these additions, insufficient to perform any thing towards the purchasing salvation; so that it is your opinion, "That this faith of Christ only, if it be separated from the help of works, deserves not to be called the faith of Christ, but a headstrong rashness, an insolent confidence, an impudent boldness, an outrageous madness, an execrable wickedness." Which sort of words, how little modesty they indicate it is needless here to inquire. But how far they differ from truth, and the inviolable authority of sacred scriptures, it will be requisite to take notice; because at present this is the matter of debate between us.

And first, if you understand it concerning this common fellowship of men with one another, and offices of mutual obedience between man and man, there is no man so unreasonable as to separate faith from the operation of charity in that sense. For thus faith, hope, and charity have a necessary connection. But let the question be applied beyond the public society of human life, to those things that peculiarly belong to salvation, and have a relation to God himself, so that now the cause should be inquired for which gives us a right to the adoption of the sons of God, and which purchases us righteousness before him. Herein Paul, in disputing against you, so far takes away all righteousness from works, and leaves faith alone, that he * Osor. lib. ii. De Just.

judges him who mingles any thing besides, for the obtaining salvation, to be a destroyer of faith, an enemy of grace, and consequently an enemy of the cross of Christ. For if those, saith he, that are of the law, are heirs, faith is made void, the promise is made of none effect. And also elsewhere, If righteousness comes by the law, then Christ died in vain, Rom. iv. Gal. ii. Thus you hear Paul manifestly asserting what it is that makes us heirs of the inheritance and salvation-not the law, but faith. And that these two are so contrary in the office of justifying, that if the law be admitted, faith is wholly overturned, the death of Christ is made void, the grace of the promise fails.

Now let us compare Osorio, disputing of righteousness, with Paul. He affirms that man is justified by faith without works. Your opinion, on the contrary, pleads that righteousness so much consists of works without faith, that faith does nothing else but prepare for holy works. He, asserting a twofold righteousness of works and of faith, of grace, and of merit, so distinguishes between both, that he sets the one against the other, by mutual opposition ; as if . they were things that could by no means consist together, but the one destroys the other. And he makes that evident by the example of the Israelites, and the Gentiles; of whom those, grasping at righteousness by works, fell from true righteousness: these, because they sought after righteousness by faith, solely and simply obtained it.

You, on the contrary, being neither deterred by their fearful example, nor regarding the apostolical instruction; and making no distinction between these different kinds of righteousness, seem to comprehend all in that one righteousness of the law, as if the righteousness of faith were none at all. The words of Paul are very manifest, To him that worketh, the reward is reckoned to be, not of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth in Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is imputed unto him for righteousness, Rom. iv. What can any man say more expressly? Afterwards he adds, "freely," denying that it could be imputed freely if it were due for works. On the contrary, Osorio seems to be of such an opinion, that he acknowledges no imputation of righteousness at all. He who asserts that we are justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works; what does he but remove works utterly from the justification of faith? Your assertion, which

makes the faith of Christ, if works are shut out, to be no faith, but madness and execrable wickedness,"* brings a gospel, not from heaven, but wholly differing from that which we have received from Paul. Which seeing we are commanded by the apostle not to suffer even in an angel, without wishing him accursed, what may be answered to you in this case I commit to yourself to consider. Paul reasons thus-If of grace, then not of works, otherwise grace is not grace. If of merit, then not freely: for in that which is free there can be no merit or debt.

13. The arguments whereby righteousness is attributed to works are answered.

Now it must be inquired, by what arguments Osorio pleads for his opinion. And first he brings that out of the Psalms, The Lord, saith he, is righteous, and loveth righteousness, his countenance beholds the upright. The wicked, saith David, shall not dwell with thee; the unrighteous shall not remain before thy eyes: and thou hatest all those that work iniquity; thou shalt destroy all those that speak leasing, &c.t What is gathered from these testimonies? "That the wicked have no society with the goodness of God. For, seeing God is himself the very law of equity and rule of righteousness, according to which all our actions should be directed, therefore it is his opinion, that it is not possible that he who puts away the rule itself from him, and hates it, should be joined to the same." But what is driven at in all these florid expressions? It is this, "He then that asserts it to be possible that God should approve the wicked, and join them to himself, asserts it to be possible for God not to be God."

These things need no lengthy answer. We grant this to be very true, which you mention from the scriptures, that the rule of divine justice is perfect, and that eternal light cannot endure any thing which is wicked, or not agreeable to equity. But you have not yet proved that those should be called wicked, who, flying to Christ by faith, receive from him the pardon of their sins; who, having their sins blotted out, and all iniquity forgiven, are written by the same psalmist among the number of the blessed; whom God himself, purifying by faith, and pouring his Holy Spirit upon them, of ungodly hath made them godly, and * Osor. lib. ii. p. 46. t Osor. lib. ii. p. 39.

graciously received them into his favour, for the sake of his dear Son.

And such we were all formerly, as your oration describes; wicked sinners, and all void of the glory of God, before Christ washed us with his blood, 1 Cor. vi. But now, after we are washed from our former filthiness, sanctified and justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God, who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? Rom. viii. Those whom God justifies, who shall condemn? Then you go on and deny that it is possible, that God should be unlike himself, to favour wickedness, or make friendship with wicked men of an unclean life. And therefore you conclude we must needs be first righteous, before we are received into the favour of God. Right, but who are they whom you call by the name of just?

If you judge they are such as are defiled with no pollution, or can say with Christ, Who amongst you will prove me guilty of sin? Verily, I confess what you prove concerning the conformity of the righteous unto God, seems not unlike to truth; and that we must needs, all of us, be such, if we would, with acceptance, have to do with that most pure nature of the Divine righteousness, without a Mediator and Redeemer.

But, if you take those for righteous who are righteous by faith, not by life, that is, those whom daily forgiveness, received by faith, brings as righteous into the presence of God, in that sense this debate of yours about righteousness does us no unkindness: for by this means it comes to pass that whom faith daily absolves, you yourself cannot hold to be guilty of any crime. Therefore, if they are not unrighteous, nothing hinders them from being admitted with bold access into the presence of the Divine Majesty, through the benefit of their Redeemer.

66

But you deny that it is agreeable to the nature of God to account any man worthy of his approbation, except him whom his countenance beholds to be righteous. Therefore it is necessary that our righteousness should go before the favour of God." "* But whence that righteousness should come to us, is all the contention between us. You seem to acknowledge no righteousness but that which the perfection of life procures. We place all our

* Osor. De Just. lib. ii. p. 39, 40.

righteousness in Christ, not in ourselves; in the faith of him only, not in our own works. "What!" say you, 66 can any man obtain favour from that highest goodness as long as he hates not wickedness, as long as he puts not away iniquity from him, which hath a perpetual war with divine equity?" Who is ignorant of, or denies that? For," as you say, "how can it be that everlasting law should not hate sin and wickedness with the greatest abhorrence ?" At length he concludes, "That it is therefore necessary that whosoever thinks to be received into the friendship of God, must first hate wickedness." Verily there is no man that denies it. But though we should grant that a wise and wholesome, or sound sorrow, whereof you speak, makes the first part of our conversion, and that the true righteousness of faith doth not follow, except some trouble of a penitent mind go before; it doth not therefore come to pass that the very cause of justification should be attributed unto repentance.* * For if repentance be nothing else but a grief of mind at the remembrance of sin, it proves indeed that sin went before, but takes not away that which was committed. It declares perhaps some change of mind in him that committed it, but takes not away the punishment that is due to justice. Moreover, repentance testifies that justice is lost, but repairs not the loss thereof. As pain, coming from a wound inflicted, makes not a medicine to itself, but receives it from some other thing, in like manner repentance goes before the remission of sins, but does not cause it; just as Seryphius did not cause the recovering of the city of Tarentum, who, unless he had first lost it, Fabius had not recovered it.

How many may you see in a state, who having violated the public laws, or having been guilty of treason against their prince, being overwhelmed with grief and shame, with all their heart lament the wickedness of their crime, and they do not wickedly in thus being ashamed and repenting. But yet they do not escape the due punishment of the law. Therefore, the detestation of their sin proves them guilty, but does not free them from condemnation. But if there is so great severity of laws and judgments in human offences, which no deploring of ill life can wash away, what then should be judged of these that are committed against the highest and infinite majesty? Angels

Repentance proves a man to be a sinner, but takes not away sin; it causeth not remission, nor satisfies justice. Marg. note.