Of Free Justification by Christ, Book 1 · Part 18 – Part 19
Concerning Righteousness, and its definition given by Osorius, and others.
THou hast, ingenuous Reader, the whole Model of Osorian Righteousness described in a short compend: in which, what is true and what is faulty, it remains that we should examine with like brevity according to the Rules of Evangelical Doctrine, beginning first at the very definition of righteousness, because thereupon depends the substance of the whole Controversie. For so Osorius defines Righteousness, that it is a state of Soul founded on the Law of God, and that bears a clear resemblance to the immutability of the Divine Vertue. In like manner also Andradius not much differing from him. Righteoufness, saith Andrad. lib.6. de just. p. 459 Andrad. ibid. page 461.he, is an unmoveable 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 perswades to perform the Offices of every vertue, &C. So that I need not here gather together the definitions of others of the Party, of whom I find so many to be of the same Opinion, that they think a Righteous Man should be defined from works of Righteousness, just as a wise Man from Wisdom, a Musician from Musick; and other Artificers are formally denominated from the internal Skill they have in those Arts, and wherewith they are endued, as saith Tapperus; which would not Tapper. Artic. 8. de justit. pag. 18.seem very blame-worthy to me, if they understood this of the Divine Righteousness, whereby God is Righteous, or wherewith Angels are accomplished. But as touching our Righteousness, who are Men, and Sinners, this definition hath no place here at all.
Therefore that I may answer you, An Answer whereby the definition of Osorius is confuted.Osorius, and yours to these things, first I think you are not a little deceived in examining the nature of Righteousness, not that any thing is put in the definition that I call false, or that it doth not agree to the thing defined. For he that governs all his actions with such constant reason and equity, that in no part of his life he starts aside from truth and righteousness, him I do esteem to be truly Righteous, yea to be God rather, or next to God; verily I find no mortal man such. Therefore herein is your errour, A two-fold sort of righteousness.that whereas there is a two-fold 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 only so taken up in defining the one, that you do not at all touch upon the other, about which the chiefest matter of Controversie 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 but only to perfect men? For now seeing no men are so perfect in this World, but 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 Aug. de tempore Serm. 49.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 Osor. lib. 5. pag. 114. a. b.upon Divine Prescription, free from all wickedness, and coming near in its resemblance to the Divine Nature, &C. 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 Aug. de tempore, Serm. 49.Resurrection we believe with Augustin, that we shall fulfill Righteousness, that is, we shall have compleat 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 menstruous cloth, and Augustin Isaiaeb 1. 64.calls dung, if it be compared with that which is true Righteousness.
Whereby you do evidently discern, as I suppose, what comes of this your famous Theological Theory of Righteousness; for if there is no way of entring 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 Augustin, who esteems all the Righteousness of this life as dung? What will you say to Isaiah, Isa. 64. Phil. 3.who says, it is as a menstruous 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, if Luke 17. Psel. 115. Romans 3. Iohn 1. Iames 3.the Scripture evidently testifies that every man is a Lyar: If the beloved Evangelist condemns him for a Lyar, 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 Iames testifies, in many things we offend all; if most holy Men in Prayer cry daily, forgive us our sins; if Augustine doth manifestly Aug. de perfect. justitiae.deny that any man, 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 publick consent of the most approved Fathers testifies the same; if moreover continual private confessions, if Conscience it self, which is as a thousand Witnesses, convince even thy self to be 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 thy self, and others by works? And doth not Luke 18.the example of the Pharisee in the Gospel affright you, who having been deceived by a false Opinion of his own Righteousness, and who whilst flattering himself, he thought he was not like other men, &c. He was yet so far from that which he perswaded 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 your self, if with a humble meekness restraining that insolency of Spirit, you would either frame your self 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 pre-eminence in my sins, &c. At Tertul. lib. de paenitentia.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 perswasion of their own righteousness, which they took upon them by works; They did not in any other thing more displease the Apoc. 3.Divine Iudgment; therefore Augustin said right, let no man flatter himself: Let Man take Sin, which is his own, and let him leave Righteousness to God, &c.
But what is that, let him leave Righteousness to God; but abandoning August. in Iohn, Hom. 48all Righteousness of works, to confess our selves to be that which we are, sinners, and God only to be just? Which also Saint Paul doth more evidently confirm in these words; to declare his Righteousness, that he may be just, and the justifier of him who Romans 3.Believe in Iesus. In which a twofold manner of Righteousness presents it self unto us; of which the one is Divine, and is attributed to God only; the other is only referred to men. That therefore is peculiar to God, this 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 to intend in these words: saying, for this purpose that he may be just, and the justifier of him, that is of the faith Rom. 3.of Iesus 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, Psalm 51. Rom. 3. God is justified one way, and men are justified before God another way.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: A justifier of him who is of the faith of Iesus Christ, &c. He said not, him that behaved himself well by working, but him that is of the faith of Iesus 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 justifie 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?
By all which, things being thus deduced and confirmed, it is easie to understand what should be judged of this 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 Nothing hinders us to be both Righteous and Sinners insa different account. Sinners in our selves. Righteous in Christ.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 both Sinners, and also Righteous upon a different account. You will say, how can that be? If you know not, (my good Friend,) I will tell you, and in a word, that you may understand the more expeditiously. We are Sinners in our selves, we are Righteous inChrist. 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 Isaiah 9.Prophet to be born; so he is said to be given, not to himself, but to us: So he was Righteous, so he fulfilled the Law, so he died and rose again, that his life might be to us Righteounsness, 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; O Osorius! as mine, Whole Christ is ours.and as it is all ours that by Faith are Iesus Christ's. Therefore our Salvation consists of the Redemption purchas'd by another, and not of our works. For herein shines forth the more than stupendious mercy, and unspeakable Grace of a most tender hearted God, that he even dedicated his only begotten Son wholly to our advantage, that so 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 publick good to us all, Christ bears our publick person before the Father.because he sustains the publick person of All before his Father. Wherefore if you desire to know, what is our Righteousness! Paul and Peter will shew it to you much better than it was defined by you. For our Righteousness is Christ, our righteous Lord, through whose name, as What is our Righteousness according to Paul.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?
Concerning Inherent and Imputed Righteousness.
BUT perhaps it is not enough to you, that the sins you committed are not imputed to you, but that nothing may be committed, which may be justly imputed. And for that cause you think no man should be reckoned among the Iust, but he, whose life being upon all accounts untainted, is conformable to the perfect rule of the Law, having abolished the foot-steps of all sins. And indeed Osor. de just. lib. 2. lib. 7. p. 187. lib. 9. p. 228.that should be wished for, if wishes in this case could do any good: But you will say that it is not difficult to the Infinite Power of the Almighty God, to give strength to perform it to those that ask it of him: And again there is not any thing more unsuitable to his Infinite Equity, and less Osor. de just. lib. 2. lib. 7. p. 187. lib. 9. p. 228.honour able to his Infinite Goodness, than that he should command his Servants those things, which he knows cannot be observed by them.
But in answer, First, If those things cannot be kept by us, which are commanded by God, that comes not to pass through any default of his, but through our default: who being at first created by him, God commands not any thing which cannot be observed by men, according to the opinion of Osorius it is no fault in God, if he command those things which cannot be kept by us.very good, brought this disability upon our selves, and threw our selves into that necessity of sinning. And then what if it so seemed good to his Omnipotent Wisdom, to do thus for a Declaration of his own Righteousnes, as St. Paul teaches, for this purpose that he should be Righteous? that is, that his Righteousnes might by this means become the more evident through our unrighteousness, which could not otherways have been, unless he only had, Rom. 3.been declared to be Righteous, and we upon the same account Unrighteous according to Works. Which if it had not been so, what need had there been, why There had been no need for God to Iustifie us by Faith, if we could be justified by works, de justit. lib. 4. pag. 90.he should justifie us by Faith, whom he had seen to be righteous and perfect by Works?
Yea, you say there is very great need of faith, and you add a reason: Because all the means of destroying and restraining Lust consists in the Grace of God alone, which must be obtained by Faith: and there is no other way shewed to extinguish and destroy it. Therefore Pag. 105. Preparation for Righteonsness.Faith, as you say, prepares the Mind for Righteousness, and makes it fit, that the great author of all good things should bring into it the seed of righteousness.
What? And does Faith nothing but prepare us for Righteousness? But now, what way does it prepare? Because, say you, the Grace of God is obtained by Faith and the merit of Christ. But proceed; what follows after? For it is God only, by whose Almighty Power and Bounty we break the force of Lust, and restrain all its importunity, and maintain the perfect Offices of Vertue, &c. Who ever denied, that it is God only that can do those things? But what say you. O good friend? Is our whole Salvation and Righteousness in the sight of God, contained in that only, in driving out of the Mind those little Heats of all evil Lusts, whereof you speak, in abolishing the roots of all vices, and in maintaining duely and constantly the office of perfect Vertue.