Chapter 11. Of the Justification of Faith, and First of the Definition of the Name and of the Thing

I think I have already sufficiently declared before, how there remains for men being accursed by the law one only help to recover salvation: again, what faith is, and what benefits of God it bestows upon man, and what fruits it brings forth in him. The sum of all was this, that Christ is given to us by the goodness of God, and conceived and possessed by us by faith, by partaking of whom we receive principally two graces: the first, that being reconciled to God by his innocence, we may now instead of a judge have a merciful father in heaven: the second, that being sanctified by his Spirit, we may give ourselves to innocence and pureness of life. As for regeneration, which is the second grace, we have already spoken of it as much as seemed to be sufficient. The manner of justification was therefore less touched, because it served well for our purpose, first to understand both how the faith by which alone we receive freely given righteousness by the mercy of God, is not idle from good works: and also what are the good works of the holy ones, upon which part of this question treats. Therefore they are first to be thoroughly discussed, and so discussed that we must remember that this is the chief stay of upholding religion, that we may be the more careful and heedful about it. For unless you first know, in what state you are with God, and what his judgment is of you: as you have no ground to establish your salvation, so have you also none to raise your reverent fear toward God. But the necessity of this knowledge shall better appear by knowledge itself.

But that we stumble not at the first entry, (which we should do if we should enter into disputation of a thing unknown) let us first declare what is meant by these expressions, man to be justified before God, to be justified by faith or by works. He is said to be justified before God, that is pronounced by the judgment of God both just and accepted for his own righteousness' sake. For as wickedness is abominable before God, so a sinner cannot find favor in his eyes, in respect that he is a sinner, or so long as he is accounted such a one. Therefore wherever sin is, there also appears the wrath and vengeance of God. He is justified that is not accounted in place of a sinner but of a just man, and by reason thereof he stands fast before the judgment seat of God when all sinners fall. As if an innocent be brought to be arraigned before the seat of a righteous judge, when judgment is given according to his innocence, he is said to be justified before the judge: so he is justified before God that being exempt out of the number of sinners has God a witness and affirmer of his righteousness. Therefore after the same manner a man shall be said to be justified by works, in whose life there is found such cleanness and holiness, as may deserve the testimony of righteousness before the throne of God: or he that with the uprightness of his works is able to answer and satisfy God's judgment. Contrariwise he shall be said to be justified by faith that being excluded from the righteousness of works, does by faith take hold of the righteousness of Christ: with which when he is clothed, he appears in the sight of God, not as a sinner, but as righteous. So we simply expound justification to be an acceptance, whereby God receiving us into favor takes us for righteous. And we say that the same consists in forgiveness of sins, and imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

For confirmation hereof there are many and evident testimonies of Scripture. First it cannot be denied, that this is the proper and most used signification of the word. But because it is too long to gather all the places and compare them together, it shall be enough to put the readers in mind of them, for they may of themselves easily mark them. But I will bring forth some, where this justification that we speak of is expressly treated of by name. First where Luke says that the people when they had heard Christ did justify God. And where Christ pronounces that wisdom is justified by her children: he does not mean there, that they do give righteousness, which always remains perfect with God, although all the world goes about to take it away from him: nor in this place also to make the doctrine of salvation righteous, which has ever that of itself. But both these speeches are as much in effect, as to give to God and his doctrine the praise that they deserve. Again when Christ reproaches the Pharisees, that they justify themselves, he does not mean that they obtain righteousness by well doing, but do vaingloriously seek for the [reconstructed: fame] of righteousness, whereof indeed they are void. They that are skillful of the Hebrew tongue do better understand the sense of this phrase: in which tongue they are not only called wicked doers, that are guilty in their conscience of any wicked doing, but also they that come in danger of judgment of condemnation. For when Bathsheba says that she and Solomon shall be wicked doers, she does not therein acknowledge any offense, but complains that she and her son shall be put to shame, to be numbered among the reprobate and condemned. But by the process of the text it easily appears, that the same word in Latin also, cannot otherwise be taken but by way of relation, and not to signify any quality. But as concerning the matter that we are now in hand with: where Paul says that the Scripture did foresee, that God justifies the Gentiles by faith, what may a man understand thereby, but that God does impute righteousness by faith? Again, when he says that God justifies the wicked man that is of the faith of Christ, what meaning can be thereof, but by the benefit of faith to deliver them from the damnation which their wickedness deserved? And yet he speaks more plainly in the conclusion, when he cried out thus, Who shall accuse God's elect? It is God that justifies, who shall condemn? It is Christ that died, yes that rose again, and now makes intercession for us. It is as much in effect as if he should say, Who shall accuse them whom God acquits? Who shall condemn them whose patron Christ is and defends them? To justify therefore is nothing else, than to acquit him that was accused, from guiltiness as allowing his innocence. Since therefore God does justify us by the intercession of Christ, he does acquit us, not by allowance of our own innocence, but by imputation of righteousness, that we may be counted for righteous in Christ who are not righteous in ourselves. So in the thirteenth chapter of Acts, in Paul's sermon: by him is forgiveness of sins preached to you, and everyone that believes in him is justified from all those things, from which you could not be justified in the law of Moses. You see that after forgiveness of sins, justification is added in place of an exposition. You see plainly that it is taken for absolution. You see that it is taken away from the works of the law. You see that it is the mere beneficial gift of Christ. You see that it is received by faith. Finally you see that there is a satisfaction spoken of where he says that we are justified from sins by Christ. So when it is said that the tax collector came justified out of the Temple, we cannot say that he obtained righteousness by any deserving of works. This therefore is said that after pardon of his sins obtained, he was counted for righteous before God. He was therefore righteous, not by approving of works, but by God's free absolution. Therefore Ambrose says very well, that calls the confession of sins a lawful justification.

But to leave striving about the word: if we look upon the thing itself as it is described to us, there shall remain no more doubt. For truly Paul does express justification by the name of acceptance, when he says (Ephesians 1:5) we are appointed to adoption by Christ, according to the good pleasure of God, to the praise of his glorious favor, whereby he has accounted us acceptable or in favor. For the same is meant by it that is said in another place, that God does freely justify. In the fourth chapter of Romans, he first calls it an imputation of righteousness, and sticks not to say that it consists in forgiveness of sins. That man (said he) is called of David a blessed man, to whom God accounts or imputes righteousness without works, as it is written: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven. Etc. Truly he there does treat not of one part of justification, but of all justification wholly. And he testifies that David in that place makes a definition of justification, when he pronounces that they are blessed to whom is given free forgiveness of sins. Whereby appears that this righteousness whereof he speaks, is in comparison simply set as contrary to guiltiness. But for this purpose, it is the best place where he teaches, that this is the sum of the message of the Gospel, that we should be reconciled to God: because it is his will to receive us into favor through Christ, in not imputing sins to us. Let the readers diligently weigh all the whole process of the text. For by and by after, where he adds by way of exposition, that Christ which was without sin was made sin for us, to express the manner of reconciliation, doubtless he means nothing else by the word reconciling but justifying. And that which he says in another place, that we are made righteous by the obedience of Christ, could not stand together, unless we are accounted righteous before God, in him, and without ourselves.

But whereas Osiander has brought in, I know not what monster of essential righteousness, by which, although his will was not to destroy free righteousness, yet he has wrapped it within such a [reconstructed: mystery], as darkens godly minds, and bereaves them of the earnest feeling of the grace of Christ: therefore before I pass further to other things, it is worth the labor to refute this doting error. First this speculation is but of mere and hungry curiosity. He does indeed heap together many testimonies of Scripture, to prove that Christ is one with us, and we one with him, which needs no proof: but because he keeps not this bond of unity, he snares himself. But we who hold that we are made all one with Christ by the power of his Spirit, may easily undo all his knots. He had conceived a certain thing very near to the opinion of Manichees, to desire to convey the substance of God into men. Hereupon rises another invention of his that Adam was fashioned after the Image of God, because even before the fall Christ was ordained the pattern of the nature of man. But because I would be short, I will stay on the matter that I have presently in hand. He says that we are one with Christ. We grant. But we deny that the substance of Christ is mingled with ours. Moreover we say that this principle that Christ is righteousness to us, because he is an eternal God, the fountain of righteousness and the very self righteousness of God, is wrongfully drawn to defend his deceits. The readers shall pardon me, if I do now but touch these things that the order of teaching requires to be deferred into another place. But although he excuses himself from meaning nothing else by the name of essential righteousness, but to resist this opinion that we are accounted righteous for Christ's sake: yet he plainly expresses that he is not contented with the righteousness that is purchased for us by the obedience and sacrifice of Christ, but feigns that we are substantially righteous in God, as well by substance as by quality poured into us. For this is the reason why he so earnestly affirms, that not only Christ, but also the father and the Holy Ghost do dwell in us. Which although I grant to be true, yet I say that he wrongfully wrests it. For he should have considered the manner of dwelling, that is, that the father and the Holy Ghost are in Christ, and as the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him, so do we possess whole God in him. Therefore all that he says separately of the father and the Holy Ghost, tends to no other end but to draw the simple from Christ. And then he thrusts in a mixture of substances, whereby God pouring himself into us, does make us as it were a part of himself. For he reckons it almost a matter of nothing, that it is wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost, that we grow into one with Christ, and that he is our head and we his members, unless his very substance be mingled with us. But in the father and the Holy Ghost (as I have said) he does more openly reveal what he thinks, even this, that we be justified not by the only grace of the Mediator, and that righteousness is not simply or perfectly offered us in his person, but that we are made partakers of the righteousness of God, when God is essentially made one with us.

If he did say no more, but that Christ in justifying us, is by essential conjoining made ours: and that not only he is our head, in that he is man, but also that the substance of the divine nature is poured into us. He should with less hurt feed himself daintily, and perhaps so great a contention should not have been raised for this doubting error. But since this beginning is like a cuttlefish that with casting out of black and thick blood hides her many tails, we must needs earnestly resist unless we will wittingly and willingly suffer that righteousness to be taken from us, which only brings us confidence to glory of salvation. For in all this discourse, the name of righteousness, and this word justifying, extend to two parts: that to be justified is not only to be reconciled to God with free pardon, but also to be made righteous, that righteousness is not a free imputation but a holiness and uprightness, which the substance of God remaining in us does breathe into us. Then he stoutly denies, that Christ is our righteousness in respect that being a priest he did with satisfactorily purging sins appease his father toward us, but in respect that he is eternal God and life. To prove that first point, that God does justify not only by forgiving but also by regenerating, he asks whether God does leave them whom he does justify such as they were by nature, changing nothing of their vices. The answer hereof is very easy: that as Christ cannot be torn in parts so these two things which we together and jointly receive in him, that is to say righteousness and sanctification, are inseparable. Therefore, whoever God receives into favor, he does also therewith give them the spirit of adoption, by the power whereof he newly fashions them after his image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be severed from the heat thereof, shall we therefore say that the earth is warmed with the light, enlightened with the heat? There is nothing more fit for this purpose, than this similitude. The sun with his heat gives life and fruitfulness to the earth, with his beams he gives light and brightness. Here is a mutual and inseparable conjoining: yet reason forbids to convey to the one that which is peculiar to the other. Like absurdity is in this confusion of two sorts of graces, that Osiander thrusts in. For because God does indeed renew them to the observing of righteousness whom he freely accounts for righteous, therefore Osiander confounds that gift of regeneration with this free acceptance, and affirms that they be all one and the selfsame thing. But the Scripture joining them both together, yet does distinctly reckon them, that the manifold grace of God may the better appear to us. For that saying of Paul is not superfluous, that Christ was given to us for righteousness and sanctification. And whenever he reasons to prove by the salvation purchased for us by the fatherly love of God, and by the grace of Christ, that we are called to holiness and cleanness, he plainly declares that it is one thing to be justified and another to be made new creatures. But when Osiander comes to the Scripture, he corrupts as many places as he alleges. Where Paul says that faith is accounted for righteousness to him that works not, but believes in him that justifies the wicked man, he expounds it to mean make righteous. With like rashness, he corrupts all the fourth chapter to the Romans, and sticks not with like false color to corrupt that place which I even now alleged, Who shall accuse the elect of God? It is God that justifies: where it is plain that he speaks simply of guiltiness and acquitting, and the meaning of the apostle hangs upon a comparing of contraries. Therefore Osiander is found too fond a babbler, as well in that reason as in alleging the testimonies of Scripture. And no more rightly does he speak of the name of righteousness, in saying that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness, after that embracing Christ (which is the righteousness of God and God himself) he excelled in singular virtues, whereby appears that of two whole places he has wrongfully made one corrupt place. For the righteousness that is there mentioned, pertains not to the whole course of his calling: but rather the Holy Spirit testifies, that although the virtues of Abraham were singularly excellent, and that with long continuance he at length had increased them: yet he did no other way please God, but by this, that he received by faith the grace offered in the promise. Therefore it follows, that in justification there is no place for works, as Paul very well affirms.

As for this that Osiander objects, that the power of justifying is not in faith of itself, but in respect that it receives Christ, I willingly grant it. For if faith did justify of itself, or by inward force, as they call it, and as it is always feeble and imperfect, could not work justification but in part, so should the justification be maimed, that should give us but a piece of salvation. As for us, we imagine no such thing, but in proper speaking do say, that God only justifies: and then we give the same to Christ, because he was given to us for righteousness: and faith we compare as it were to a vessel. For except we came empty with open mouth of our soul to crave the grace of Christ, we cannot be able to receive Christ. Whereupon we gather that we do not take from Christ the power of justifying, when we teach that he is first received by faith, before that his righteousness be received. But yet I do not admit the crooked figures of this sophist, when he says that faith is Christ: as if an earthen pot were a treasure, because gold is hidden in it. For the reason is not unlike, but that faith although it be by itself of no worthiness or price, may justify us in bringing Christ, as a pot full of money makes a man rich. Therefore I say that faith, which is only the instrument to receive righteousness, is unfitly mingled with Christ, which is the material cause and both author and minister of so great a benefit. Now is this doubt also dissolved. How this word Faith ought to be understood when we treat of justification.

In the receiving of Christ he goes further: for he says, that the inward word is received by the ministration of the outward word, thereby to draw us from the priesthood of Christ and the person of the Mediator to his outward Godhead. As for us, we divide not Christ, but we say that he is the same eternal word of God, which reconciling us to God in his flesh, gave us righteousness: and we confess that otherwise he could not have fulfilled the office of Mediator, and purchased us righteousness, unless he had been eternal God. But this is Osiander's doctrine, where Christ is both God and man, that he was made righteousness to us, in respect of his nature of Godhead, and not of manhood. But if this properly belong to the Godhead, then it shall not be peculiar to Christ, but common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, for as much as there is not one righteousness of the one, and another of the other. Moreover that which was naturally from eternity, could not be conveniently said to be made to us. But although we grant this, that God was made righteousness for us: how shall it agree that that which is set between, is made of God? Truly that properly belongs to the person of the Mediator: which though he contain in himself the nature of Godhead, yet here he is specially signified by his proper title, by which he is severally discerned from the Father and the Holy Spirit. But he foolishly triumphs in that one word of Jeremiah, where he promises that the Lord Jehovah shall be our righteousness, but out of that he shall gather nothing, but that Christ which is righteousness, is God openly showed in the flesh. In another place we have rehearsed out of Paul's sermon, that God purchased to himself the church with his blood, if any man gather thereupon, that the blood wherewith sins were purged was divine, and of the nature of Godhead, who can abide so foul an error? But Osiander thinks that with this so childish a cavilation he has gotten all things, he swells, he leaps for joy, and stuffs many leaves full with his big words: when yet there is a plain and ready solution for it in saying that the word Jehovah indeed when he is made the issue of David shall be the righteousness of the godly. But Isaiah teaches in what sense, saying: My just servant shall with knowledge of himself justify many. Let us note that the Father speaks: that he gives to the Son the office of justifying: he adds a cause, for that he is just, and sets the manner or means as they call it in the doctrine whereby Christ is known. For it is a more commodious exposition to take this word Daah knowledge passively. Hereupon I gather first that Christ was made righteousness when he did put on the form of a servant: secondly that he did justify us in respect that he showed himself obedient to his Father: and that therefore he does not do this for us according to his nature of Godhead, but according to the office of dispensation committed to him. For although God alone is the fountain of righteousness, and we be made righteous by no other means but by the partaking of him: yet because we are by unhappy disagreement estranged from his righteousness, we must needs come down to this lower remedy, that Christ may justify us with the force of his death and resurrection. If he object that this is a work of such excellency, that it is above the nature of man, and therefore can not be ascribed but to the nature of God, the first I grant: but in the second I say that he is unwisely deceived. For although Christ could neither cleanse our souls with his blood, nor appease his Father with his sacrifice, nor acquit us from guiltiness, nor do the office of priest, unless he had been true God, because the strength of the flesh had been too weak for so great a burden: yet it is certain that he performed all these things according to his nature of manhood. For if it be demanded how we be justified, Paul answers, by the obedience of Christ. But did he any otherwise obey than by taking upon him the shape of a servant? Whereupon we gather that righteousness was given us in his flesh. Likewise in the other words (which I marvel that Osiander is not ashamed to allege so often) he appoints the fountain of righteousness nowhere else but in the flesh of Christ. Him that knew no sin he made sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him. Osiander with full mouth advances the righteousness of God, and triumphs as though he had proved that it is his imaginative ghost of essential righteousness: when the words sound far otherwise, that we are righteous by the cleansing made by Christ. Very young beginners should not have been ignorant that the righteousness of God is taken for the righteousness that God allows, as in John, where the glory of God is compared with the glory of men. I know that sometime it is called the righteousness of God, whereof God is the author and which God gives us: but though I say nothing, the readers that have their sound wit do perceive that nothing else is meant in this place but that we stand upright before the judgment seat of God, being upheld by the cleansing sacrifice of Christ's death. And there is not so great importance in the word, so that Osiander do agree with us in this point that we are justified in Christ, in this respect that he was made a propitiatory sacrifice for us, which can not agree with his nature of Godhead. After which sort, when Christ means to seal the righteousness and salvation that he has brought us, he sets before us an assured pledge thereof in his flesh. He does indeed call himself the lively bread, but expressing the manner here, he adds that his flesh is truly meat, and his blood is truly drink. Which manner of teaching is seen in the Sacraments, which although they direct our faith to whole Christ, and not to half Christ, yet they do withal teach that the matter of righteousness and salvation remains in his flesh: not that in that he is only man, he either justifies or quickens of himself, but because it pleased God to show openly in the mediator that which was hidden and incomprehensible in himself. Whereupon I am accustomed to say, that Christ is as it were a fountain set open for us, out of which we may draw that which otherwise should without fruit lie hidden in that close and deep spring that rises up to us in the person of the Mediator. In this manner and meaning, I do not deny that Christ as he is God and man does justify us, and that this is also the work of the Father and the Holy Spirit as well as his. Finally, that the righteousness whereof Christ makes us partakers, is the eternal righteousness of the eternal God, so that he yield to the sure and plain reasons that I have alleged.

Now that he should not with his cavillings deceive the unskilled, I grant that we lack this incomparable benefit, until Christ be made ours. Therefore we place that conjoining of the head and the members, the dwelling of Christ in our hearts, and that mystical union, in the highest degree: that Christ being made ours, may make us partakers of the gifts with which he is endowed. Therefore we do not behold him from afar outside of ourselves, that righteousness may be imputed to us, but because we have put on him, and are grafted into his body: finally because he has vouchsafed to make us one with him, therefore we glory that we have a fellowship of righteousness with him. So is Osiander's slanderous cavilling confuted, where he says that we count faith righteousness, as though we deprived Christ of his right, when we say that we come by faith empty to him, to give room to his grace, that he only may fill us. But Osiander, refusing this spiritual conjoining, enforces a gross mingling with the faithful, and therefore he odiously calls all those Zwinglians who do not subscribe to his fantastical error, concerning essential righteousness: because they do not think that Christ is substantially eaten in the Lord's supper. As for me, I count it a great glory to be so reproached by a proud man and given to his own errors. Although he touches not me only, but also other writers well known to the world, whom he ought to have modestly reverenced. It moves me nothing, who do not meddle with my own private cause: and so much the more sincerely I handle this cause, being free from all corrupt affection. Whereas therefore he so importunately requires essential righteousness, and the essential dwelling of Christ in us, it tends to this end: first, that God should with a gross mixture pour himself into us, as he feigns a fleshly eating of Christ in the supper; secondly, that God should breathe his righteousness into us, whereby we may be really righteous with him: for by his opinion, this righteousness is as well God himself, as the goodness or holiness, or purity of God. I will not spend much labor in wiping away the testimonies that he brings, which he wrongfully wrests from the heavenly life to this present state. Through Christ (says Peter) (1 Peter 1:4) are given us the precious and most great promises, that we should be made partakers of the nature of God: as though we were now such as the Gospel promised that we shall be at the last coming of Christ: indeed, John tells us (1 John 3:1), that we shall then see God as he is, because we shall be like him. I thought it good only to give the readers a small taste, that I do on purpose pass over these trifles: not because it is hard to confute them, but because I will not be tedious in a superfluous work.

But in the second point lurks more poison, where he teaches that we are righteous together with God. I think I have already sufficiently proved, that although this doctrine were not so pestilent, yet because it is cold and fruitless, and of itself so vain that it melts away, it ought worthily to be unsavory to sound and godly readers. But this is an intolerable wickedness, under pretense of double righteousness, to enfeeble the earnest assurance of salvation, and to carry us above the clouds, that we should not embrace by faith the grace of propitiation, and call upon God with quiet minds. Osiander scorns them, that teach that this word justifying is a law term: because, we must be righteous in deed. And he abhors nothing more than to say, that we be justified by free imputation. But, if God does not justify us by acquitting and pardoning, what means that saying of Paul, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to men their sins. For, him that had done no sin, he made sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him. First I gain thus much, that they be judged righteous that be reconciled to God. The manner how is declared, for that God justifies by forgiving: as in another place justification is set as contrary to accusation, which comparing of them as contraries, does clearly show that it is a phrase borrowed from the use of the law. And there is no man being but meanly practiced in the Hebrew tongue, if he have a sober brain, that is ignorant that this phrase came from there, and to what end it tends, and what it means. Now where Paul says that David described the righteousness without works, in these words, Blessed are they whose sins are forgiven: Let Osiander answer me whether this be a full definition or but half a one. Truly Paul brings not in the Prophet for a witness, as though he taught that forgiveness of sins is but a part of righteousness, or a thing that joins with other to the justifying of man: But he includes whole righteousness in free forgiveness, pronouncing the man blessed, whose sins are covered, to whom God has forgiven iniquities, and to whom he imputes no transgressions: He does measure and judge such a man's felicity thereby, because he is not this way righteous in deed, but by imputation. Osiander takes exception and says, that this should be slanderous to God, and contrary to his nature, if he should justify them that in deed remain still wicked. But we must remember, as I have already said, that the grace of justifying is not severed from regeneration, although they be several things. But because it is more than sufficiently known by experience, that there abide always in the righteous some remnants of sin, it must needs be that they be far otherwise justified than they be reformed into newness of life. For this later point of reformation, God so begins in his elect, and throughout the whole course of their life, by little and little, and sometimes slowly proceeds in it, that they be always before his seat in danger of the judgment of death. But he justifies them, not piecemeal, but so that they may freely, as clothed with the purity of Christ, appear in heaven. For no portion of righteousness could appease our consciences, till they be satisfied that God is fully pleased with us, because we be righteous in his sight without exception. Therefore it follows, that the doctrine of justification is misturned, yes overturned from the very foundation, when doubting is cast into men's minds, when the confidence of salvation is shaken, when the free and fearless invocation is hindered, yes when quiet and tranquility with spiritual joy is not [reconstructed: established]. Therefore Paul gathers an argument by contraries, to prove, that the inheritance is not by the law. For by this means faith should be made void, which if it have respect to works, is overthrown, because none of the most holy shall therein find whereupon to trust. This difference of justifying and regenerating (which two things Osiander confounding together, calls two sorts of righteousness) is very well expressed by Paul: For speaking of his real righteousness in deed, or of the uprightness with which he was endowed (which Osiander names essential righteousness) he lamentably cries out: Wretch that I am: who shall deliver me from the body of this death? But fleeing to the righteousness which is grounded upon the only mercy of God, he gloriously triumphs over both life, death, reproaches, hunger, sword, and all adversities. Who shall accuse the elect of God whom he justifies? For I am surely persuaded, that nothing shall sever us from his love in Christ. He plainly publishes, that he has the righteousness which alone fully suffices for salvation before God, so that the wretched bondage which he knowing to be in himself, did a little before bewail his estate, may not move nor any way hinder his boldness to glory. This diversity is sufficiently known, and so familiar to all the holy ones, that groan under the burden of iniquities, and yet with victorious confidence, do mount up above all fears. As for this that Osiander objects, that it disagrees with the nature of God, it falls upon himself. For although he clothes the holy ones with a double righteousness as it were with a furred garment, yet he is compelled to confess that without forgiveness of sins they never pleased God. If that be true, then at least let him grant, that they which are not righteous in deed, are accounted righteous according to the appointed proportion of imputation, as they call it. But how far shall a sinner extend this free acceptance that is put in place of righteousness? Shall he measure it by the pound or by the ounce? Truly he shall hang doubtful and wavering to this side and that side, because he may not take to him so much righteousness as shall be necessary to establish confidence. It is happy that he that would bind God to a law, is not judge of this cause. But this shall stand steadfast, that you may be justified in your sayings and overcome when you are judged. But how great presumption is it to condemn the chief judge when he freely acquits, that this answer may not be in force, I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy. And yet the intercession of Moses which God did put to silence with this saying, tended not to this end that he should spare none, but that he should acquit altogether, taking away their condemnation although they were guilty of offense. And we do say that they which were lost have their sins buried and so are justified before God: because, as God hates sin, so he can love none but them whom he justifies. But this is a marvelous manner of justifying, that they being covered with the righteousness of Christ stand not in fear of the judgment which they have deserved, and when they worthily condemn themselves are accounted righteous without themselves.

But the readers are to be warned, that they take good heed to the mystery which he brags that he will not hide from them. For after that he has long and largely labored to prove that we do not obtain favor with God by the only imputation of the righteousness of Christ, because this should be impossible for him to count them for righteous that are not righteous, (I use his own words) at length he concludes that Christ was given to us to righteousness, not in respect of his nature of manhood but of his nature of Godhead: and that although this righteousness can not be found but in the person of the Mediator, yet it is the righteousness not of man but of God. He does now bind up his rope made of two righteousnesses, but he plainly takes away the office of justifying from Christ's nature of manhood. But it is good to see how he disagrees. It is said in the same place, that Christ was made to wisdom, which belongs to none but to the eternal word. Therefore Christ in that he is man is not wisdom. I answer that the only begotten son of God was indeed his eternal wisdom, but in Paul's writings that name is given him in diverse wise, because all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are laid up in him. That therefore which he had with his father, he disclosed to us: and so that which Paul says is not referred to the essence of the son of God, but to our use, and is rightly applied to Christ's nature of manhood: because although he shined a light in darkness, before that he did put on flesh, yet it was a hidden light till the same Christ came forth in the nature of man, the shining sun of righteousness, which therefore calls himself the light of the world. Also it is foolishly objected of him, that the power of justifying is far above both angels and men: for as much as this hangs not upon the worthiness of any creature, but upon the ordinance of God. If angels will take upon them to satisfy God, they can nothing prevail, because they are not appointed to that end. But this singularly belonged to Christ being man, which was made subject to the law, to redeem us from the curse of the law. Also he does slanderously cavil, that they which deny that Christ is our righteousness according to his nature of Godhead, do leave but one part of Christ, and (which is worse) do make two gods, because although they confess, that God dwells in us, yet they say again that we are not righteous by the righteousness of God. For although we call Christ the author of life, in respect that he suffered death to destroy him that had the power of death, we do not by and by take away that honor from whole Christ as he was openly showed God in the flesh, but we only make a distinction how the righteousness of God is conveyed to us, that we may enjoy it. In which point Osiander has too foully erred. Neither do we deny that that which is openly given to us in Christ, proceeds from the secret grace and power of God: and we strive not against this, that the righteousness which Christ gives us is the righteousness of God that proceeds from God: but we hold this steadfastly, that we have righteousness and life in the death and resurrection of Christ. I pass over that heaping together of places whereof he may well be ashamed, wherewith he has tediously cumbered the readers, without choice and without common reason, to prove that wherever is made mention of righteousness, there ought to be understood this essential righteousness. As where David calls upon the righteousness of God to help him: whereas he does the same above a hundred times, Osiander sticks not to corrupt so many sentences. And nothing stronger is the other objection, that that is properly and rightly called righteousness, whereby we be moved to do rightly, but that God only works in us both to will and to perform. For we do also not deny, but that God reforms us with his Spirit to holiness of life and righteousness: but we must first see whether he does this by himself and immediately, or by the hand of his Son, with whom he has left all the fullness of his holy Spirit, that with his abundant store he should supply the need of his members. Moreover although righteousness comes to us out of the secret fountain of the Godhead, yet it follows not that Christ who sanctified himself in the flesh for our sakes, was righteousness to us according to his nature of Godhead. No less foolish is that which he says, that Christ himself was righteous by the righteousness of God. Because unless the will of his father had moved him, he could not himself have satisfied the office committed to him. For though we have in another place said, that all the deservings of Christ himself do proceed from the mere good will of God, yet that makes nothing to that fantastical thing, wherewith Osiander bewitches both his own and simple men's eyes. For who would suffer a man to gather this conclusion, that because God is the fountain and beginning of our righteousness, therefore we be essentially righteous, and the essence of God's righteousness dwells in us? In redeeming the church (says Isaiah) God did put on his righteousness as a harness: but did he so to spoil Christ of his armor which he had given him, to make him to be no perfect redeemer? But the Prophet meant nothing else but that God borrowed nothing out of himself, nor was helped by any aid to redeem us. Which thing Paul briefly expressed in other words, saying that he gave us salvation to the showing of his righteousness. But this does not overthrow that which he teaches in another place, that we are righteous by the obedience of one man. Finally whoever wraps up a double righteousness, that poor souls may not rest in the mere only mercy of God, he does in a mockery crown Christ with thorns.

But inasmuch as a great part of men imagines righteousness to be made of faith and works, let us first show this also, that the righteousness of faith and works does so differ, that when the one is established, the other must needs be overthrown. The Apostle says that he esteemed all things as dung that he might win Christ and find in him the righteousness that is of God by faith, counting not his righteousness that which is by the law, but that which is by the faith of Jesus Christ. You see that here is also a comparison of contraries, and that here is declared that he which will obtain the righteousness of Christ must forsake his own righteousness. Therefore in another place he says that this was the cause of fall to the Jews, that going about to establish their own righteousness, they were not subject to the righteousness of God. If in establishing our own righteousness we shake away the righteousness of God, therefore to obtain God's righteousness our own must be utterly abolished. And he shows the same thing, when he says that our glorying is not excluded by the law, but by faith. Whereupon it follows that so long as there remains any righteousness of works, however little it be, there still remains to us some [illegible] to glory upon. Now if faith excludes all glorying, then the righteousness of works can in no way be coupled with the righteousness of faith. To this effect he speaks so plainly in the 4th chapter to the Romans, that he leaves no room for quibbles or shifts: If (says he) Abraham was justified by works, he has glory. And immediately he adds: but he has no glory in the sight of God. It follows therefore that he was not justified by works. Then he urges another argument by contraries: when reward is rendered to works, that is done of debt and not of grace. But righteousness is given to faith according to grace: therefore it is not of the deservings of works. Therefore farewell to their dream, that imagines a righteousness made of faith and works mingled together.

The Sophists think that they have a subtle shift, making for themselves sport and pastime with wresting of Scripture and with vain quibbles. For they expound works in that place to be those which men not yet regenerate do only literally and by the endeavor of free will without the grace of Christ: and say that it does not belong to spiritual works. So by their opinion a man is justified both by faith and by works, so that the works be not his own, but the gifts of Christ and fruits of regeneration. For they say that Paul spoke so for no other cause, but to convince the Jews, trusting upon their own works, that they did foolishly presume to claim righteousness to themselves, since the only Spirit of Christ does give it to us, and not any endeavor by our own motion of nature. But they do not notice that in the comparison of the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of the gospel, which Paul brings in another place, all works are excluded with whatever title they may be adorned. For he teaches that this is the righteousness of the law, that he should [reconstructed: obtain] salvation that has performed that which the law commands: and that this is the righteousness of faith, if we believe that Christ died and is risen again. Moreover we shall hereafter show in [reconstructed: fitting place] that sanctification and righteousness are several benefits of Christ, whereupon it follows that the very spiritual works do not come into account, when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith. And where Paul denies (as I even now alleged) that Abraham had anything upon which to glory before God, because he was not made righteous by works: this ought not to be restrained to the literal and outward kind of virtues, or to the endeavor of free will. But although the life of the Patriarch Abraham were spiritual and in manner Angelic, yet he had not sufficient deservings of works to purchase him righteousness before God.

The Schoolmen teach a little more grossly, mingling their preparations: but these do less infect the simple and unskillful with corrupt doctrine, under pretense of Spirit and grace hiding the mercy of God which only is able to appease trembling consciences. But we confess with Paul that the doers of the law are justified before God: but because we are all far from the keeping of the law, hereupon we gather, that the works which should most of all have availed to righteousness do nothing help us because we lack them. As for the common Papists or Schoolmen, they are in this point doubly deceived: both because they call faith an assuredness of conscience in looking for reward at the hand of God for deservings, and also because they expound the grace of God not to be a free imputation of righteousness, but the Holy Spirit helping to the endeavor of holiness. They read in the Apostle that he which comes to God must first believe that there is a God and then that he is a rewarder of them that seek him. But they do not notice what is the manner of seeking. And that they are deceived in the name of grace is [reconstructed: plainly] proved by their own writings. For Lombard expounds that justification by Christ is given to us two ways. First (says he) the death of Christ does justify us, when by it charity is stirred up in our hearts, by which we are made righteous. Secondly that by the same death sin is destroyed, whereby Satan held us captive, so that now he has not whereby to condemn us. You see how he considers the grace of God principally in justification, to be so far as we are directed to good works by the grace of the Holy Spirit. He would forsooth have followed the opinion of Augustine: but he follows him afar off, and goes far out of the way from rightly following him: because if Augustine has spoken anything plainly he darkens it, if there be anything in Augustine not very impure, he corrupts it. The Schoolmen have still strayed from worse to worse, till with headlong fall at length they be rolled down into a Pelagian error. And the very sentence of Augustine, or at least his manner of speaking, is not altogether to be received. For though he singularly [reconstructed: well] takes from man all praise of righteousness, and assigns it wholly to the grace of God, yet he refers grace to sanctification, whereby we are renewed into newness of life by the Holy Spirit.

But the Scripture, when it speaks of the righteousness of faith, leads us to a far other end, that is to say, that turning away from the looking upon our own works, we should only look to the mercy of God and perfection of Christ. For it teaches this order of justification, that first God vouchsafes to embrace man being a sinner with his mere and free goodness, considering nothing in him but misery whereby he may be moved to mercy, for as much as he sees him altogether naked and void of good works, fetching from himself the cause to do him good: then, that he moves the sinner himself with feeling of his goodness, which despairing upon his own works casts all the sum of his salvation upon God's mercy. This is the feeling of faith, by which feeling the sinner comes into possession of his salvation, when he acknowledges by the doctrine of the Gospel that he is reconciled to God: that obtaining forgiveness of sins by means of the righteousness of Christ, he is justified: and although he be regenerated by the Spirit of God, he thinks upon continual righteousness laid up for him not in the good works to which he applies himself, but in the only righteousness of Christ. When these things shall be every one particularly weighed, they shall give a perfect declaration of our sentence. Albeit they might be better disposed in another order than they are set forth. But it makes little matter, so that they hang together in such sort that we may have the whole matter truly declared and surely proved.

Here it is good to remember the relation that we have before said to be between faith and the Gospel: because it is said for this cause that faith justifies, for that it receives and embraces the righteousness offered in the gospel. And whereas it is said to be offered by the gospel, thereby all consideration of works is excluded. Which thing Paul declares many times elsewhere, but most plainly in two places. For, to the Romans, comparing the law and the gospel together he says: the righteousness that is by the law is thus, the man that does these things shall live in them. But the righteousness that is of faith offers salvation, if you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and that the father has raised him up from the dead (Romans 10:5). See you not how he makes this the difference of the law and the Gospel, that the law gives righteousness to works, and the Gospel gives free righteousness without help of works? It is a notable place, and that may deliver us out of many hard doubts, if we understand that the same righteousness that is given us by the Gospel is free from all conditions of the law. This is the reason, why he does more than once with great seeming of contrariety set the promise by way of opposition against the law, as it were the inheritance be of the law, then is it not of the promise: and all the rest in the same chapter to the same effect (Galatians 3:18). Truly the law itself has also her promises. Therefore there must needs be in the promises of the gospel, something different and diverse from the promises of the law, unless we will confess that the comparison is very sound. But what diversity shall this be, unless it be that they are freely given, and upheld by the only mercy of God, whereas the promises of the law hang upon the condition of works. Neither let any man here carp against me, and say, that in this place the righteousness is rejected which men of their own force and free will would compel God to receive: for as much as Paul without exception teaches that the law in commanding profits nothing: because there is none not only of the common multitude, but also of the perfectest, that fulfills it. Love undoubtedly is the chief point of the law: when the Spirit of God frames us to it, why is it not to us a cause of righteousness, but for that even in the holy ones it is imperfect, and therefore of itself deserves no reward (Romans 6:2).

The second place is this. It is manifest that no man is justified by the law before God: Because the righteous man shall live by faith, But the law is not of faith: but the man that does these things shall live in them (Galatians 3:12). How could this argument otherwise stand together, unless we agree upon this point, that works come not into the account of faith, but are utterly to be severed from it: The law (says he) differs from faith. Why so? Because works are required to the righteousness thereof. Therefore it follows that works are not required to the righteousness of faith. By this relation it appears, that they which are justified by faith are justified beside the deserving of works, yes without the deserving of works, because faith receives that righteousness which the Gospel gives. And the gospel differs from the law in this point, that it binds not righteousness to works, but sets it in the only mercy of God. Like to this is that which he affirms to the Romans, that Abraham had nothing to glory upon, because faith was imputed to him to righteousness, and he adds a confirmation, because then there is place for the righteousness of faith, when there are no works to which a reward is due (Romans 4:2). Where works are (says he) due reward is rendered to them: that which is given to faith is freely given. For the very meaning of the words that he uses in that place serve to prove the same. Whereas he adjoins within a little after, that therefore we obtain the inheritance by faith as according to grace, hereupon he gathers that the inheritance is of free gift, because it is received by faith: and how comes that, but because faith without any help of works leans wholly upon the mercy of God? And in the same meaning, without doubt he teaches in another place, that the righteousness of God was openly showed without the law, although it have witness borne of it by the law and the Prophets: because excluding the law, he says that it is not helped by works, and that we obtain it not by working, but come empty that we may receive it (Romans 3:21).

By this time the reader perceives with what equity the Sophisters do at this day cavil at our doctrine, when we say that man is justified by faith only. They dare not deny that man is justified by faith, because it is so often found in Scripture: but because this word, Only, is never expressed, they cannot abide to have such an addition made. Is it so? But what will they answer to these words of Paul, where he affirms that righteousness is not of faith except it be freely given? How can free gift agree with works? And with what cavilling will they mock away that which he says in another place, that the righteousness of God is manifestly shown in the Gospel? If righteousness be manifestly shown in the Gospel, surely therein is contained not a torn or half righteousness but full and perfect. Therefore the law has no place therein. And they stand upon not only a false but also a foolish evasion about this exclusive word, Only. Does he not perfectly enough give all things to only faith, that takes all things from works? What, I pray you, mean these sayings: that righteousness was manifestly shown without the law: that man is justified freely and without the works of the law? Here they have a witty evasion to escape with, which although they devised it not themselves but borrowed it from Origen and certain of the old writers, yet is very foolish. They prattle that the ceremonial works of the law, not the moral, are excluded. They profit so with continual brawling, that they know not the very first rules of logic. Do they think that the Apostle doted when he alleged these places to prove his saying? The man that shall do these things shall live in them: and, Cursed is every one that fulfills not all things that are written in the volume of the law. Unless they be mad, they will not say that life was promised to the keepers of Ceremonies, or curse threatened only to the breakers of them. If these places be to be understood of the moral law, it is no doubt that the moral works also are excluded from the power of justifying. To the same purpose serve these arguments that he uses: because the knowledge of sin was by the law, therefore righteousness is not by the law. Because the law works wrath, therefore it works not righteousness. Because the law cannot make conscience assured, therefore also it cannot give righteousness. Because faith is imputed to righteousness, therefore righteousness is not a reward of work, but is given being not due. Because we are justified by faith, therefore glorying is cut off. If there had been a law given that might give life, then righteousness were truly by the law: but God has shut up all under sin that the promise might be given to the believers. Let them now foolishly say if they dare, that these things are spoken of ceremonies and not of morals: but very children would hiss out so great shamelessness. Therefore let us hold this for certain, that the whole law is spoken of, when the power of justifying is taken away from the law.

But if any man marvel why the Apostle used such an addition, not being content with only naming of works: the reason is ready to be shown for it. For, although works be so highly esteemed, yet they have that value by the allowance of God, rather than by their own worthiness. For who can boast to God of any righteousness of works, but that which he has allowed? Who dare claim any reward as due to them, but such as he has promised? They have therefore this of the bountifulness of God, that they are counted worthy both of the name and reward of righteousness: and they be of value only for this cause, when the purpose of him that does them is by them to show his obedience to God. Therefore the Apostle in another place, to prove that Abraham could not be justified by works, alleges that the law was given, almost four hundred and thirty years after the covenant made. Unlearned men would laugh at such an argument, because there might be righteous works before the publishing of the law. But because he knew that there was no such value in works but by the testimony and vouching of God, therefore he takes it as a thing confessed that before the law they had no power to justify. We understand why he namely expresses the work of the law, when he means to take away justification from any works: because controversy may be moved of those and none other. Albeit sometimes he excepts all works without any addition, as when he says that by the testimony of David blessedness is assigned to that man, to whom the Lord imputes righteousness without works. Therefore they can with no cavilling bring to pass, but that we shall get this general exclusive, only. And they do in vain seek that trifling subtlety, that we are justified by that only faith which works by love, so that righteousness must stand upon love. We grant indeed with Paul, that no other faith justifies, but that which is effectually working with charity: but that faith takes not her power of justifying from that effectiveness of charity. Indeed it does by no other means justify, but because it brings us into the communicating of the righteousness of Christ. Or else all that which the Apostle so earnestly presses, should fall to nothing. To him that works (says he) the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. But to him that works not, but believes in him that justifies the unrighteous, his faith is imputed to righteousness. Could he speak more evidently than in so saying? That there is no righteousness of faith but where there are no works to which any reward is due: and that only then faith is imputed to righteousness, when righteousness is given by grace that is not due.

Now let us examine how true that is, which is said in the definition, that the righteousness of faith is the reconciliation with God, which consists upon the only forgiveness of sins. We must always return to this principle, that the wrath of God rests upon all men, so long as they continue to be sinners. That Isaiah has excellently well set out in these words: The hand of the Lord is not shortened, that he is not able to save: nor his ear dulled that he cannot hear: but your iniquities have made disagreement between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you that he hears you not. We hear that sin is the division between man and God, and the turning away of God's face from the sinner. Neither can it otherwise be. For it is disagreeing from his righteousness to have any fellowship with sin. Therefore the Apostle teaches that man is enemy to God till he be restored into favor by Christ. Whom therefore the Lord receives into joining with him, him he is said to justify: because he can neither receive him into favor nor join him with himself, but he must of a sinner make him righteous. And we further say, that this is done by the forgiveness of sins. For if they whom the Lord has reconciled to himself be judged by their works, they shall be found still sinners indeed, who yet must be free and clean from sin. It is certain therefore that they whom God embraces, are no otherwise made righteous, but because they are cleansed by having the spots of their sins wiped away by forgiveness, that such a righteousness may in one word be called the forgiveness of sins.

Both these are most clearly to be seen by these words of Paul, which I have already cited: God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their sins to man, and he has left with us the word of reconciliation. And then he adds the sum of his message, that him which knew no sin he made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Here he names righteousness and reconciliation without difference, that we may perceive that the one is mutually contained under the other. And he teaches the manner to attain this righteousness to be when our sins are not imputed to us. Therefore do not doubt hereafter how God justifies us, when you hear that he reconciles us to himself by not imputing sins. So to the Romans he proves by the testimony of David, that righteousness is imputed to man without works, because David pronounces the man blessed whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered, to whom the Lord has not imputed his offenses. Without doubt by blessedness he there means righteousness. And since he affirms the same to stand in the forgiveness of sins, there is no cause why we should otherwise define it. Therefore Zacharias the father of John the Baptist sings that the knowledge of salvation consists in the forgiveness of sins. Which rule Paul following in his Sermon which he made to the Antiochians concerning the sum of salvation, as Luke reports it, concluded in this manner: by him forgiveness of sins is preached to you, and every one that believes in him is justified from all these things, from which you could not be justified in the law of Moses. The Apostle so knits the forgiveness of sins with righteousness, that he shows that they be both all one. Therefore he rightfully reasons that the righteousness is freely given to us, which we obtain by the loving kindness of God. Neither ought it to seem a strange unused speech, that the faithful are righteous before God, not by works, but by free acceptance: since both it is so often found in the Scripture, and the old authors also do sometimes so speak. For Augustine says thus in one place: The righteousness of the saints in this world stands rather in forgiveness of sins, than in perfection of virtues. With which agree the notable sentences of Bernard: Not to sin is the righteousness of God: but the righteousness of man, is the merciful kindness of God. He had before affirmed that Christ is to us righteousness in absolution, and therefore that they only are righteous that have obtained pardon by mercy.

Hereupon also follows this, that by the only means of Christ's righteousness, we obtain to be justified before God. Which is as much in effect as if it were said, that man is not righteous in himself, but because the righteousness of Christ is by imputation [reconstructed: imparted] with him, which thing is worthy to be heedfully marked. For that trifling error vanishes away, to say that man is therefore justified by faith, because faith takes part of the Spirit of God by which he is made righteous, which is so contrary to the doctrine above taught, that they can never be made to agree together. For it is no doubt that he is void of his own righteousness, that is taught to seek righteousness without himself. This the Apostle affirms most plainly when he writes that he which knew no sin was made for us a propitiatory sacrifice to cleanse away sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Corinthians 5:21). You see that our righteousness is not in us but in Christ, and that it belongs to us only by this title, because we are partakers of Christ, because we possess all his riches with him. And it makes nothing to the contrary, that in another place he teaches, that sin was condemned of sin in the flesh of Christ (Romans 8:3), that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us: where he means no other fulfilling, but that which we obtain by imputation. For the Lord Christ does in such sort communicate his righteousness with us, that after a certain marvelous manner, he pours the force thereof into us, so much as pertains to the judgment of God. It appears that he did no otherwise mean, by the other sentence which he had spoken a little before: As by the disobedience of one man we were made sinners, so by the obedience of one man we are justified (Romans 5:19). What is it else to set our righteousness in the obedience of Christ, but to affirm that hereby only we are accounted righteous, because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us as if it were our own? Therefore it seems to me that Ambrose has excellently well showed how there is an example of this righteousness in the blessing of Jacob. For as Jacob having not of himself deserved the preeminence of the firstborn son, hid himself in the apparel of his brother, and being clothed with his brother's coat that savored of a most sweet smell, he crept into the favor of his father, and received the blessing to his own commodity under the person of another: so we lie hidden under the precious purity of Christ our elder brother, that we may get a testimony of righteousness in the sight of God. The words of Ambrose are these: Whereas Isaac smelt the savor of the garments, perhaps this is meant thereby, that we are not justified by works but by faith: because fleshly weakness hinders works, but the brightness of faith which merits forgiveness of sins, overshadows the error of deeds. And truly so it is. For, that we may appear before the face of God to salvation, it is necessary for us, to smell sweetly with his odor, and to have our faults covered and barred with his perfection.

I think I have already sufficiently shown how, for people condemned by the law, there remains one single means of recovering salvation; what faith is; and what benefits of God it bestows on people and what fruits it produces in them. The sum of it all was this: Christ is given to us by God's goodness and grasped and possessed by us through faith. By sharing in Him we receive chiefly two graces: first, being reconciled to God by His innocence, we now have in heaven a merciful Father instead of a Judge; second, being sanctified by His Spirit, we devote ourselves to innocence and purity of life. As for regeneration — which is the second grace — we have already spoken of it as thoroughly as seemed necessary. Justification was therefore touched upon less, because for our previous purpose it was enough to understand two things: first, how the faith by which alone we freely receive righteousness through God's mercy is not detached from good works; and second, what the good works of the saints actually are — which part of the question we treated at length. These things must therefore now be thoroughly discussed — and discussed with the awareness that this is the chief pillar supporting all of religion, so that we may be all the more careful and attentive about it. For unless you first know what your standing is before God and what His judgment of you is — you have no foundation on which to establish your salvation, and also none from which to develop reverent fear of God. But the necessity of this knowledge will be better understood from the knowledge itself.

But so that we do not stumble at the very entrance — which we would do if we entered into debate over a term we had not defined — let us first declare what is meant by these expressions: a person being justified before God, being justified by faith, being justified by works. A person is said to be justified before God when he is pronounced by God's judgment to be both righteous and accepted on account of his own righteousness. For as wickedness is abominable before God, a sinner cannot find favor in His sight — not as long as he is regarded as a sinner. Therefore wherever sin is, the wrath and vengeance of God also appear. The person who is justified is the one not counted as a sinner but as a righteous person — and because of this he stands firm before God's judgment seat when all sinners fall. Just as when an innocent person is brought to trial before a righteous judge and the verdict is given according to his innocence — he is said to be justified before the judge. In the same way, the person justified before God is one who, being removed from the number of sinners, has God as the witness and affirmer of his righteousness. Therefore in the same sense a person is said to be justified by works when such purity and holiness are found in his life that they deserve the verdict of righteousness at God's throne, or when he can by the uprightness of his works answer and satisfy God's judgment. Conversely, the person is said to be justified by faith who, being shut out from the righteousness of works, lays hold by faith of the righteousness of Christ — clothed with which, he appears before God not as a sinner but as righteous. So we simply define justification as an acceptance by which God, receiving us into His favor, regards us as righteous. And we say that this consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

For confirmation of this there are many clear testimonies in Scripture. First, it cannot be denied that this is the proper and most common meaning of the word. But because it would take too long to gather all the relevant passages and compare them, it will be enough to point the readers to them, as they can easily identify them for themselves. But I will bring forward some passages where the justification we are speaking of is explicitly dealt with by name. First, where Luke says that the people who had heard Christ justified God — and where Christ declares that wisdom is justified by her children — He does not mean in either case that they are giving righteousness to God or His wisdom, which always remains perfect in itself, no matter how much the world may try to take it away. Both statements amount to giving God and His teaching the praise they deserve. Again, when Christ reproaches the Pharisees for justifying themselves, He does not mean they are attaining righteousness through their deeds, but that they are boastfully seeking the reputation of righteousness from which they are in fact empty. Those skilled in the Hebrew language understand this expression better — in that tongue, a person is called wicked not only when he is guilty in conscience of some wicked deed, but also when he comes under the danger of a verdict of condemnation. For when Bathsheba says that she and Solomon will be wicked doers, she is not confessing any offense but is lamenting that she and her son will be put to shame by being numbered among the condemned. But from the flow of the text itself it is easily apparent that the Latin word also, in this kind of usage, must be taken in a relational sense — not as signifying any inner quality. But regarding the subject before us: where Paul says that the Scripture foresaw that God justifies the Gentiles by faith — what can that mean except that God imputes righteousness through faith? Again, when he says that God justifies the wicked person who has faith in Christ — what can that mean but that through the benefit of faith, God delivers them from the condemnation their wickedness deserved? And he speaks even more plainly in his conclusion, when he cries out: 'Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who shall condemn? It is Christ who died — yes, who was raised — and who now intercedes for us.' This amounts to saying: Who shall accuse those whom God acquits? Who shall condemn those for whom Christ stands as advocate and defender? To justify, therefore, is nothing other than to acquit from guilt the person who was accused, by declaring his innocence. Since God therefore justifies us through Christ's intercession, He acquits us — not by approving our own innocence, but by imputing righteousness, so that we may be counted righteous in Christ, though not righteous in ourselves. Similarly in Acts chapter 13, in Paul's sermon: 'Through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by Him everyone who believes is justified from everything from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.' You see that justification is added after forgiveness of sins, as an explanation of it. You see plainly that it is taken to mean acquittal. You see that it is distinguished from the works of the law. You see that it is the sheer gracious gift of Christ. You see that it is received through faith. And finally you see that a satisfaction is spoken of when it is said that we are justified from sins through Christ. Similarly, when it is said that the tax collector went home from the temple justified, we cannot say that he obtained righteousness by any meritorious works. What is said is that after receiving pardon for his sins, he was counted righteous before God. He was therefore righteous not by approval of his works, but by God's free acquittal. Therefore Ambrose speaks very well when he calls the confession of sins a lawful justification.

But to set aside striving over the word: if we look at the thing itself as Scripture describes it, no further doubt remains. For Paul expresses justification under the name of acceptance when he says (Ephesians 1:5-6) that we were predestined for adoption through Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace, by which He made us accepted — or, favored. For this means the same as what is said elsewhere: that God justifies freely. In Romans chapter 4 he first calls it an imputation of righteousness, and does not hesitate to say it consists in the forgiveness of sins. 'The man,' he says, 'is called blessed by David to whom God counts righteousness apart from works, as it is written: Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven.' And so on. Truly he is not there treating one aspect of justification, but the whole of it. He testifies that David in that passage is giving a definition of justification when he declares those to be blessed to whom free forgiveness of sins is given. From this it is clear that the righteousness he speaks of is set in direct contrast to guilt. But the best passage for this purpose is where he teaches that this is the whole content of the Gospel's message: that we should be reconciled to God, since it is His will to receive us into favor through Christ by not imputing sins to us. Let readers weigh carefully the entire flow of the text. For right afterward, when he adds by way of explanation that Christ who was without sin was made sin for us — in order to express the manner of reconciliation — he clearly means nothing other by the word 'reconciling' than 'justifying.' And what he says elsewhere — that we are made righteous by the obedience of Christ — could not stand unless we are counted as righteous before God in Him and apart from ourselves.

But Osiander has introduced a strange doctrine of essential righteousness which, even though he did not intend to destroy the doctrine of free righteousness, has wrapped it in such mystery that it darkens the minds of godly people and robs them of any genuine sense of Christ's grace. Before moving on, it is worth the effort to refute this confused error. His speculation amounts to nothing more than idle curiosity. He does gather many Scripture passages to prove that Christ is one with us and we with Him — which requires no proof — but because he misidentifies the nature of this union, he ties himself in knots. We, who hold that we are made one with Christ by the power of His Spirit, can easily untangle all of them. He had conceived something very close to the Manichaean idea that God's substance is transferred into human beings. From this arises his further invention that Adam was fashioned after the image of God because, even before the fall, Christ was ordained as the pattern of human nature. But to be brief, I will stay with the matter at hand. He says that we are one with Christ. We agree. But we deny that Christ's substance is mingled with ours. Furthermore, we reject the argument that Christ is our righteousness because He is the eternal God, the fountain of righteousness and God's own righteousness itself — Osiander wrongly uses this claim to prop up his errors. I ask readers to forgive me for only touching on these things now, since the proper order of teaching requires them to be addressed more fully elsewhere. Although Osiander disclaims any intention other than opposing the view that we are counted righteous for Christ's sake, he plainly reveals that he is not satisfied with the righteousness purchased for us by Christ's obedience and sacrifice. Instead, he invents the idea that we are substantially righteous in God — not only by quality but by substance poured into us. This is why he insists so forcefully that not only Christ but also the Father and the Holy Spirit dwell in us. I grant that this is true, but I say he twists it badly. He should have considered the manner of this dwelling — that the Father and the Holy Spirit are in Christ, and as the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him, so we possess the whole God in Him. Therefore everything he says separately about the Father and the Holy Spirit ultimately serves no purpose except to draw simple believers away from Christ. He then forces in a mixture of substances, by which God pours Himself into us and makes us, as it were, a part of Himself. He treats it as nearly nothing that the Holy Spirit works in us so that we grow into one with Christ, that He is our head and we are His members — unless Christ's very substance is mingled with us. But in what he says about the Father and the Holy Spirit, he reveals his thinking more openly: that we are justified not by the grace of the Mediator alone, and that righteousness is not simply and completely offered to us in His person, but that we are made partakers of the righteousness of God when God is essentially united with us.

If Osiander had said nothing more than that Christ, in justifying us, is made ours through essential union — that He is not only our head as a man, but that the substance of the divine nature is poured into us — he would have been indulging an eccentric idea causing less damage, and perhaps this great controversy would not have needed to be raised over such a confused error. But since this beginning is like a cuttlefish that hides its many tentacles behind a cloud of dark ink, we must resist it earnestly — unless we are willing to have taken from us the righteousness that alone gives us confidence to glory in our salvation. Throughout all of Osiander's argument, the word 'righteousness' and the act of 'justifying' are extended in two directions: to be justified is not only to be reconciled to God through free pardon, but also to be made righteous. And righteousness is not a free imputation but a holiness and uprightness that the substance of God dwelling in us breathes into us. He then boldly denies that Christ is our righteousness in the sense that, as a priest, He appeased the Father on our behalf by atoning for sins — but only in the sense that He is the eternal God and life. To prove his first point — that God justifies not only by forgiving but also by regenerating — he asks whether God leaves those He justifies just as they were by nature, changing nothing of their vices. The answer is straightforward: just as Christ cannot be torn apart, so the two things we receive together in Him — righteousness and sanctification — are inseparable. Therefore, everyone God receives into His favor He also gives the Spirit of adoption, by whose power He reshapes them into His image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, does it follow that the earth is warmed by light and illuminated by heat? There is no better illustration for this purpose. The sun gives the earth life and fruitfulness through its heat and gives light and brightness through its rays. These two are inseparably joined together, yet reason forbids us to assign to one what belongs to the other. The same absurdity lies in the confusion of the two kinds of grace that Osiander forces together. Because God does indeed renew those whom He freely counts as righteous, Osiander confounds the gift of regeneration with this free acceptance and claims they are one and the same thing. But Scripture, while joining both together, still treats them as distinct — so that the manifold grace of God might more clearly appear to us. Paul's words are not redundant when he says that Christ was given to us as both righteousness and sanctification. And whenever Paul reasons from the salvation purchased for us by God's fatherly love and Christ's grace to prove that we are called to holiness and purity, he plainly shows that being justified and being made new creatures are two different things. When Osiander turns to Scripture, he corrupts every passage he cites. Where Paul says that faith is counted as righteousness to the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the wicked, Osiander interprets it to mean 'makes righteous.' With equal recklessness he corrupts the whole of Romans chapter 4, and does not hesitate to similarly distort the passage I cited earlier: 'Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies' — where it is plain that Paul is speaking simply of guilt and acquittal, and the apostle's argument turns on a comparison of opposites. Osiander therefore shows himself to be a foolish reasoner, both in his own arguments and in his use of Scripture. He also mishandles the righteousness of Abraham, saying that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness after he had embraced Christ — who is the righteousness of God and God Himself — and had excelled in exceptional virtues. In this way he wrongly fuses two distinct passages into one corrupt reading. The righteousness spoken of in that passage does not pertain to the whole course of Abraham's calling. Rather, the Holy Spirit testifies that although Abraham's virtues were exceptionally excellent and had grown over a long period of time, he still pleased God in no other way than by receiving through faith the grace offered in the promise. It follows, therefore, that in justification there is no place for works — as Paul clearly affirms.

As for Osiander's objection that justifying power does not reside in faith itself but only in relation to its receiving Christ — I gladly agree. For if faith justified by itself, or by its own intrinsic power as they call it, then since faith is always weak and imperfect, it could only justify in part, producing a maimed justification that offers us only a piece of salvation. We imagine no such thing. We say properly that God alone justifies; we then attribute the same to Christ, because He was given to us as righteousness; and faith we compare to a vessel. Unless we come empty, with the mouth of our soul open to receive Christ's grace, we cannot receive Christ. From this we gather that we do not rob Christ of His justifying power when we teach that He must first be received by faith before His righteousness is received. But I do not accept the twisted reasoning of this sophist when he says that faith is Christ — as if a clay pot were a treasure simply because gold is hidden inside it. The comparison is apt enough: faith, though it has no worth or value in itself, can justify us by bringing Christ, just as a pot full of money makes a person rich. Therefore I say that faith — which is only the instrument for receiving righteousness — is wrongly confused with Christ, who is the material cause and both the author and giver of so great a benefit. With this, the question of how the word 'faith' should be understood in discussions of justification is also resolved.

Osiander goes further in his account of receiving Christ, claiming that the inner Word is received through the ministry of the outer word — a move designed to draw us away from Christ's priesthood and the person of the Mediator toward His divine nature alone. We do not divide Christ. We say that He is the same eternal Word of God who, by reconciling us to God in His flesh, gave us righteousness. We confess that He could not have fulfilled the office of Mediator or purchased righteousness for us unless He had been the eternal God. But Osiander's teaching is this: because Christ is both God and man, He was made righteousness for us with respect to His divine nature, not His human nature. But if righteousness belongs properly to His divine nature, then it would not be unique to Christ but common to the Father and the Holy Spirit as well — since there is not one righteousness belonging to one and another belonging to another. Moreover, what has existed naturally from eternity cannot properly be said to have 'been made' for us. And even if we grant that God was made righteousness for us, how does it fit that what stands between us is 'made of God'? That properly belongs to the person of the Mediator — who, while containing the nature of God within Himself, is here specifically identified by His particular title that distinguishes Him from the Father and the Holy Spirit. Osiander foolishly boasts in the single word from Jeremiah, where God promises that the Lord Jehovah shall be our righteousness. But from that he can draw nothing more than that Christ, who is our righteousness, is God openly revealed in the flesh. In another place Paul's sermon states that God purchased the church with His own blood. If someone were to conclude from this that the blood by which sins were purged was divine and of the nature of the Godhead, who could tolerate such a gross error? Yet Osiander thinks he has won everything with such a childish argument. He swells with pride, leaps for joy, and fills many pages with grand words. But there is a plain and ready answer: the Word Jehovah, when He comes as the offspring of David, shall indeed be the righteousness of the godly. But Isaiah explains in what sense this is true: 'My righteous servant shall justify many by His knowledge.' Here the Father speaks, assigning to the Son the office of justifying. He adds the reason — that He is righteous — and sets out the means by which Christ is known and through which this is accomplished. It is better to take the Hebrew word da'ath, meaning 'knowledge,' as passive in this context. From this I draw two conclusions: first, that Christ was made righteousness when He took on the form of a servant; second, that He justified us by showing Himself obedient to His Father. Therefore He does this for us not according to His divine nature, but according to the role of the work entrusted to Him. For although God alone is the fountain of righteousness and we are made righteous only by partaking of Him, because we are estranged from His righteousness through sin, we must come down to this lower remedy: that Christ justifies us by the power of His death and resurrection. If Osiander objects that this work is of such excellence that it surpasses human nature and therefore must be attributed to the divine nature alone, I grant the first point but say he is badly mistaken on the second. For although Christ could not cleanse our souls with His blood, appease the Father with His sacrifice, acquit us from guilt, or perform the office of priest unless He had been true God — because human strength alone would have been too weak for so great a burden — yet it is certain that He performed all these things according to His human nature. For if we ask how we are justified, Paul answers: by the obedience of Christ. But did He obey in any other way than by taking the form of a servant? From this we gather that righteousness was given to us in His flesh. Likewise in the other passage — which I am amazed Osiander is not ashamed to cite so often — the source of righteousness is placed nowhere else but in the flesh of Christ: 'He who knew no sin He made sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' Osiander loudly trumpets 'the righteousness of God' and triumphs as though he had proved his imaginary theory of essential righteousness — when the words say something quite different: that we are righteous through the cleansing accomplished by Christ. Even the most basic students of Scripture know that 'the righteousness of God' refers to the righteousness that God approves — just as in John, where the glory of God is contrasted with the glory of men. I know that sometimes it is called the righteousness of God because God is its author and gives it to us. But any reader with sound judgment can see that in this passage nothing other is meant than that we stand upright before God's judgment seat, sustained by the atoning sacrifice of Christ's death. Nor does the precise wording carry so much weight, provided that Osiander agrees with us on this point: that we are justified in Christ because He was made a propitiatory sacrifice for us — which cannot be attributed to His divine nature. Along the same lines, when Christ intends to seal the righteousness and salvation He has brought us, He sets before us a sure pledge of it in His flesh. He calls Himself the living bread, but to explain the manner of it He adds that His flesh is truly food and His blood is truly drink. This same pattern appears in the Sacraments, which, while directing our faith to the whole Christ and not to half of Christ, also teach that the substance of righteousness and salvation resides in His flesh — not that as merely a man He either justifies or gives life of Himself, but because it pleased God to display openly in the Mediator what was hidden and incomprehensible in Himself. This is why I am accustomed to say that Christ is like a fountain opened for us, from which we may draw what would otherwise lie hidden and inaccessible in the deep spring — brought to us in the person of the Mediator. In this way and meaning, I do not deny that Christ as God and man justifies us, and that this is also the work of the Father and the Holy Spirit. And finally, the righteousness of which Christ makes us partakers is the eternal righteousness of the eternal God — so long as Osiander yields to the clear and solid arguments I have presented.

So that his arguments do not mislead those unfamiliar with these questions, I readily grant that we lack this incomparable benefit until Christ becomes ours. We therefore place in the highest importance the union of the head and the members, the dwelling of Christ in our hearts, and the mystical union — so that Christ, being made ours, may make us partakers of the gifts with which He is endowed. We do not, therefore, behold Him from a distance outside ourselves in order to have righteousness imputed to us. Rather, because we have put on Him, have been grafted into His body, and He has graciously made us one with Himself, we can rightly claim a share in His righteousness. This also puts to rest Osiander's slanderous argument — where he charges that we treat faith itself as righteousness, as if we were robbing Christ of His proper role by saying that we come to Him empty, making room for His grace so that He alone may fill us. Osiander, refusing this spiritual union, forces a crude physical mingling with believers instead. He therefore mockingly labels as Zwinglians all who will not subscribe to his fantastical theory of essential righteousness, on the grounds that they do not believe Christ is physically eaten in the Lord's Supper. As for me, I count it a great honor to be reproached by a proud man captive to his own errors. He attacks not only me but also other writers well known in the world, whom he ought to have shown modest respect. It troubles me nothing, since I am not defending a personal cause — and precisely because I am free from corrupt self-interest, I handle this matter all the more sincerely. What Osiander so insistently demands with his essential righteousness and essential dwelling of Christ in us amounts to this: first, that God should pour Himself into us through a crude mixture — as he also imagines a physical eating of Christ in the Supper; second, that God should breathe His righteousness into us so that we are truly righteous with Him. In his view, this righteousness is as much God Himself as it is God's goodness, holiness, or purity. I will not spend much effort refuting the Scripture passages he brings forward, which he wrongly applies to our present state rather than to the life to come. Through Christ, says Peter (1 Peter 1:4), we have been given precious and very great promises, so that through them we may become partakers of the divine nature — as though we were already what the Gospel promises we will be at Christ's final coming. Indeed, John tells us (1 John 3:1) that we shall then see God as He is, because we shall be like Him. I mention these things only to give readers a brief taste of why I deliberately pass over the rest. It is not that they are difficult to refute, but because I have no desire to be tedious in work that is unnecessary.

But there is more poison hidden in his second point, where he teaches that we are righteous together with God. I believe I have already sufficiently shown that, even if this doctrine were not so harmful, it is cold and fruitless, so empty in itself that it dissolves on inspection — and therefore ought rightly to be rejected by sound and godly readers. But it is an intolerable offense to use the pretense of a double righteousness to undermine the firm assurance of salvation, to carry people into the clouds so that they cannot lay hold by faith on the grace of propitiation and call on God with a quiet mind. Osiander mocks those who teach that the word 'justifying' is a legal term, insisting that we must be truly righteous in fact. And there is nothing he abhors more than to say that we are justified by free imputation. But if God does not justify us by acquitting and pardoning, what do Paul's words mean: 'God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their sins against them'? And: 'Him who knew no sin He made sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' First I gain this much: those who are reconciled to God are declared righteous. The manner is stated plainly: God justifies by forgiving. And in another place, justification is set as the opposite of accusation — and comparing these as contraries clearly shows it is a term drawn from legal usage. Anyone even moderately familiar with the Hebrew language and of sound mind knows where this phrase comes from, what purpose it serves, and what it means. Now, when Paul says that David described the righteousness apart from works in these words — 'Blessed are those whose sins are forgiven' — let Osiander tell me whether this is a full definition or only a half one. Paul does not bring in the prophet as a witness to show that forgiveness of sins is merely one part of righteousness or one factor among others in justification. Rather, he includes the whole of righteousness within free forgiveness, pronouncing blessed the one whose sins are covered, to whom God has forgiven iniquities, and against whom God counts no transgressions. He measures and defines this person's blessedness by the fact that he is righteous not in actuality but by imputation. Osiander objects that this would be slanderous to God and contrary to His nature — to justify those who remain truly wicked. But we must remember, as I have already said, that the grace of justification is never separated from regeneration, even though they are distinct things. However, since experience makes abundantly clear that remnants of sin always remain in the righteous, it is necessary that they be justified in a very different sense from the sense in which they are renewed into newness of life. This renewal God begins in His elect and continues throughout their whole lives, advancing it gradually and sometimes slowly — so that they always stand before His judgment seat in danger of the sentence of death. But He justifies them not in pieces but completely, so that, clothed with the purity of Christ, they may stand freely in heaven. No partial righteousness could satisfy our consciences until they are assured that God is fully pleased with us — because we are righteous before Him without qualification. It follows, therefore, that the doctrine of justification is twisted and overturned from its very foundation when doubt is cast into people's minds, when confidence in salvation is shaken, when free and fearless prayer is hindered, and when quiet, peace, and spiritual joy are not established. Paul therefore draws an argument from opposites to prove that the inheritance does not come by the law. For if it did, faith would be made meaningless — because faith, if it rests on works, is destroyed, since no one, however holy, will find in his works any ground for confidence. This distinction between justification and regeneration — which Osiander confuses, calling them two kinds of righteousness — is expressed very clearly by Paul. When speaking of his actual righteousness in practice, the uprightness with which he was truly endowed (what Osiander calls essential righteousness), he cries out miserably: 'Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?' But when he flees to the righteousness grounded in God's mercy alone, he triumphs gloriously over life, death, disgrace, hunger, sword, and every adversity. 'Who will bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.' 'For I am convinced that nothing will be able to separate us from His love in Christ.' He openly declares that he possesses the righteousness that fully suffices before God for salvation — so that the wretched bondage he had just lamented within himself cannot diminish or hinder his boldness to glory. This distinction is well known and familiar to all the saints who groan under the burden of sin and yet, with victorious confidence, rise above every fear. As for Osiander's objection that this conflicts with God's nature, it falls back on himself. Though he clothes the saints with a double righteousness like a fur-lined garment, he is forced to admit that without forgiveness of sins they never pleased God. If that is true, then at least let him grant that those who are not truly righteous in fact are counted as righteous through what they call imputation, in the measure appointed for it. But how far can a sinner extend this free acceptance that stands in place of righteousness? Is he to measure it out by the pound or by the ounce? He will hang uncertain and wavering back and forth, because he may not claim enough righteousness to establish confidence. It is fortunate that the one who would bind God to such a law is not the judge in this case. But this will stand firm: 'You are justified in Your words and will prevail when You are judged.' What great presumption it is to condemn the chief Judge when He freely acquits — as if this answer should carry no force: 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.' Yet the intercession of Moses, which God silenced with this very saying, aimed not at sparing no one, but at acquitting all — removing their condemnation though they were guilty of offense. We say that those who were lost have their sins buried and are thus justified before God — for as God hates sin, He can love only those whom He justifies. And this is a wonderful manner of justifying: that those covered with the righteousness of Christ do not fear the judgment they have deserved, and though they rightly condemn themselves, they are counted righteous apart from themselves.

But readers should be warned to pay close attention to the mystery Osiander boasts he will not hide from them. After laboring long and hard to prove that we do not obtain favor with God merely through the imputation of Christ's righteousness -- because, he claims, it would be impossible for God to count as righteous those who are not truly righteous (I am using his own words) -- he finally concludes that Christ was given to us for righteousness not with respect to His human nature but with respect to His divine nature. And although this righteousness can only be found in the person of the Mediator, it is the righteousness of God, not of man. He no longer ties his argument together with two kinds of righteousness but plainly takes the power of justifying away from Christ's human nature. But it is worth noting how he contradicts himself. Paul says in the same passage that Christ was made our wisdom, which belongs to the eternal Word alone. Does it follow that Christ as man is not wisdom? I answer that the only begotten Son of God was indeed His eternal wisdom, but in Paul's writings that title is applied to Him in different ways, because all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are stored up in Him. What Christ had with His Father, He revealed to us. So what Paul says does not refer to the essence of the Son of God but to our experience of Him. It is rightly applied to Christ's human nature, because although His light shone in the darkness before He took on flesh, it was a hidden light until Christ came forth in human nature as the Sun of Righteousness. He therefore calls Himself the light of the world. Osiander's objection that the power of justifying is far above both angels and humans is also foolish, because this power depends not on any creature's worth but on God's appointment. If angels tried to make satisfaction to God, they could accomplish nothing, because they were not appointed for that purpose. But this task uniquely belonged to Christ as man, who was made subject to the law to redeem us from the curse of the law. Osiander also falsely claims that those who deny Christ is our righteousness according to His divine nature leave only part of Christ and -- worse still -- make two gods. Although they confess that God dwells in us, they also say we are not made righteous by the righteousness of God. But although we call Christ the author of life because He suffered death to destroy the one who had the power of death, we do not take that honor away from the whole Christ who was openly revealed as God in the flesh. Rather, we simply explain how God's righteousness is channeled to us so we can enjoy it. This is where Osiander has gone very badly wrong. We do not deny that what is openly given to us in Christ comes from the secret grace and power of God. We do not argue against this -- that the righteousness Christ gives us is the righteousness of God that proceeds from God. But we firmly maintain that we have righteousness and life in the death and resurrection of Christ. I pass over the heap of Scripture passages he should be embarrassed about, which he has tediously used to burden readers without good judgment, all to prove that wherever righteousness is mentioned, it must mean this essential righteousness. For example, when David calls upon God's righteousness to help him -- which he does more than a hundred times -- Osiander does not hesitate to twist all those passages. His other objection is equally weak: that only what moves us to act rightly should properly be called righteousness, and that God alone works in us both to will and to do. We do not deny that God reforms us by His Spirit into holiness and righteousness of life. But we must first ask whether He does this directly by Himself, or through His Son, with whom He has stored up all the fullness of His Holy Spirit to supply the needs of His members. Furthermore, although righteousness comes to us from the secret source of the Godhead, it does not follow that Christ, who sanctified Himself in the flesh for our sake, was our righteousness according to His divine nature. Osiander's claim that Christ Himself was righteous by the righteousness of God is equally foolish. He reasons that unless the Father's will had moved Him, He could not have fulfilled the office entrusted to Him. Although we said elsewhere that all of Christ's own merits proceed from the pure goodwill of God, this does not support the fantastical idea with which Osiander deceives both himself and simple people. Who would accept the conclusion that because God is the source and beginning of our righteousness, we are therefore essentially righteous, and the essence of God's righteousness dwells in us? Isaiah says that in redeeming the church, God put on His righteousness as armor. But did He do this to strip Christ of the armor He had given Him, making Him an incomplete Redeemer? The prophet meant nothing more than that God borrowed nothing from outside Himself and needed no one's help to redeem us. Paul expressed this briefly in other words: God gave us salvation to display His righteousness. But this does not overthrow what Paul teaches elsewhere: that we are made righteous by the obedience of one man. In the end, whoever wraps up a double righteousness -- so that poor souls cannot rest in the pure mercy of God alone -- mockingly crowns Christ with thorns.

But since most people imagine that righteousness is composed of both faith and works, let us also show this: the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of works are so different that when one is established, the other must be overthrown. The apostle says he counted all things as garbage so that he might gain Christ and be found in Him, having not his own righteousness from the law but that which comes through faith in Jesus Christ -- the righteousness from God by faith. You see that here is a comparison of opposites. He declares that whoever wants to obtain the righteousness of Christ must abandon their own righteousness. In another place he says that this was the cause of the Jews' downfall: trying to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God. If establishing our own righteousness means rejecting God's righteousness, then to obtain God's righteousness our own must be completely abolished. He makes the same point when he says our boasting is excluded -- not by the law, but by faith. From this it follows that as long as any righteousness of works remains, no matter how little, there is still something to boast about. Now if faith excludes all boasting, then the righteousness of works cannot in any way be joined with the righteousness of faith. Paul speaks so plainly about this in the fourth chapter of Romans that he leaves no room for excuses or evasions. "If Abraham was justified by works," he says, "he has something to boast about." And immediately he adds: "But he has no ground for boasting before God." It follows, therefore, that he was not justified by works. Then he presses another argument based on contrasts: when a reward is given for works, it is paid as a debt, not given as grace. But righteousness is given to faith according to grace. Therefore, it does not come from the merits of works. So farewell to the fantasy that imagines a righteousness made of a mixture of faith and works.

The Sophists think they have a clever escape, amusing themselves by twisting Scripture and inventing pointless objections. They explain the "works" in that passage as those done by unregenerate people, acting merely by the letter through the effort of free will apart from Christ's grace. They say it does not apply to spiritual works. According to their view, a person is justified by both faith and works, as long as the works are not their own but the gifts of Christ and fruits of regeneration. They claim Paul spoke this way only to convince the Jews -- who were trusting in their own works -- that they were foolish to claim righteousness for themselves, since only the Spirit of Christ gives it, not any natural human effort. But they fail to notice that in Paul's comparison of the righteousness of the law with the righteousness of the Gospel, all works are excluded, no matter what title they may carry. He teaches that the righteousness of the law means the person who does what the law commands will live. But the righteousness of faith means believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and that the Father raised Him from the dead. Furthermore, we will show later that sanctification and righteousness are distinct benefits of Christ. From this it follows that even spiritual works do not factor into the equation when the power of justifying is attributed to faith. When Paul denies -- as I just mentioned -- that Abraham had anything to boast about before God because he was not made righteous by works, this should not be limited to merely external virtues or the efforts of free will. Although Abraham's life was spiritual and practically angelic, he still did not have enough merit from works to purchase righteousness before God.

The mainstream Scholastics teach a somewhat cruder version by mixing in their preparatory works. But these others are more dangerous to the simple and untrained, hiding behind the language of the Spirit and grace while obscuring the mercy of God -- which alone can bring peace to trembling consciences. We confess with Paul that the doers of the law are justified before God. But since all of us fall far short of keeping the law, we conclude that the works which should have most contributed to righteousness are of no help because we lack them. As for the common Papists or Scholastics, they are doubly wrong. First, they define faith as merely a confidence of conscience in expecting reward from God for merits. Second, they interpret God's grace not as the free imputation of righteousness but as the Holy Spirit's assistance in pursuing holiness. They read in the apostle that whoever comes to God must first believe that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him. But they fail to notice how seeking should actually look. That they are wrong about the meaning of grace is clearly proven by their own writings. Lombard explains that the justification given through Christ comes in two ways. "First," he says, "the death of Christ justifies us by stirring up love in our hearts, which makes us righteous." "Second, through that same death, sin is destroyed -- the sin through which Satan held us captive -- so that he no longer has grounds to condemn us." You see that he primarily understands God's grace in justification as the Holy Spirit directing us to good works. He intended to follow Augustine's opinion, but he follows him from a great distance and strays far from tracking him accurately. Wherever Augustine said something clearly, Lombard obscures it. Wherever Augustine said something not entirely precise, Lombard corrupts it. The Scholastics have strayed further and further, slipping from bad to worse, until they finally tumbled headlong into Pelagian error. Even Augustine's own language is not entirely satisfactory. Although he excellently strips all praise of righteousness from human beings and gives it entirely to God's grace, he refers that grace to sanctification, by which we are renewed to a new life through the Holy Spirit.

But Scripture, when it speaks of the righteousness of faith, leads us in a very different direction. It tells us to turn away from looking at our own works and look only to the mercy of God and the perfection of Christ. It teaches this order of justification: first, God in His pure and free goodness embraces the sinner, seeing nothing in them but misery that might move Him to compassion. He sees them completely naked and empty of good works, and He finds the reason to do them good entirely within Himself. Then He moves the sinner with a sense of His goodness, so that the sinner -- despairing of their own works -- casts the entire sum of their salvation on God's mercy. This is the experience of faith, through which the sinner enters into possession of salvation. Through the Gospel's teaching, they recognize that they are reconciled to God. Having received forgiveness of sins through Christ's righteousness, they are justified. And although they are regenerated by the Spirit of God, they find their continual righteousness not in the good works they pursue, but in the righteousness of Christ alone. When each of these points is carefully examined, they will give a perfect explanation of our position. They might have been better arranged in a different order. But it matters little, as long as they are connected in such a way that the whole matter is truly explained and firmly established.

Here it is worth recalling the connection we spoke of earlier between faith and the Gospel. Faith is said to justify because it receives and embraces the righteousness offered in the Gospel. And since righteousness is offered through the Gospel, all consideration of works is excluded. Paul makes this point many times elsewhere, but most clearly in two places. To the Romans, comparing the law and the Gospel, he says: the righteousness of the law is this -- that the person who does these things shall live by them. But the righteousness of faith offers salvation if you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and that the Father raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:5). Do you see how he makes this the difference between law and Gospel? The law gives righteousness to works, while the Gospel gives it freely without the help of works. This is a remarkable passage, one that can deliver us from many hard questions -- if we understand that the righteousness given to us by the Gospel is free from all the conditions of the law. This is why he so often sets the promise in sharp contrast against the law, as if they were opposites: if the inheritance comes from the law, then it does not come from the promise -- and all the rest in that same chapter to the same effect (Galatians 3:18). The law itself certainly has its own promises. Therefore, the Gospel's promises must contain something different and distinct from the law's promises, unless we want to say the comparison makes no sense. What is this difference? It is that the Gospel's promises are freely given and upheld by God's mercy alone, while the law's promises depend on the condition of works. Let no one object that what is rejected here is only the righteousness people try to force upon God by their own effort and free will. Paul teaches without any exception that the law is of no benefit when it commands, because there is no one -- not among the common people, nor among the most perfect -- who fulfills it. Love is undoubtedly the chief point of the law. When the Spirit of God shapes us to love, why is it still not a cause of righteousness for us? Because even in the saints it is imperfect, and therefore by itself deserves no reward (Romans 6:2).

The second passage is this. "It is clear that no one is justified by the law before God, because the righteous shall live by faith. But the law is not of faith; rather, the person who does these things shall live by them" (Galatians 3:12). How could this argument hold together unless we agree on this point: that works have no role in faith's righteousness, but must be completely separated from it? "The law," Paul says, "is different from faith." Why? Because works are required for the law's righteousness. Therefore, it follows that works are not required for the righteousness of faith. From this relationship it is clear that those who are justified by faith are justified apart from the merit of works -- indeed, without any merit of works. Faith receives a righteousness that the Gospel gives. And the Gospel differs from the law in this: it does not bind righteousness to works but places it entirely in God's mercy. Paul makes a similar point in Romans: Abraham had nothing to boast about, because faith was credited to him as righteousness. He adds a confirmation: there is room for the righteousness of faith only where there are no works deserving reward (Romans 4:2). "Where works exist," he says, "the reward is paid as a debt. What is given to faith is given freely." The very words he uses in that passage support this point. Shortly after, he adds that we receive the inheritance by faith according to grace. From this he concludes that the inheritance is a free gift because it is received by faith. How does this work? Only because faith, without any help from works, rests entirely on God's mercy. In the same sense, he undoubtedly teaches in another place that the righteousness of God was revealed apart from the law, though the law and the prophets bear witness to it. By excluding the law, he says that righteousness is not helped by works. We do not earn it by working; we come to it empty-handed to receive it (Romans 3:21).

By now the reader can see how unfairly the Sophists of our day attack our teaching when we say that a person is justified by faith alone. They do not dare deny that a person is justified by faith, since Scripture says it so often. But because the word "alone" is never explicitly stated, they cannot accept the addition. Is that so? Then what will they do with Paul's statements, where he says that righteousness comes through faith only if it is freely given? How can "freely given" agree with works? And what clever evasion will they use to dismiss what Paul says elsewhere: that the righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel? If righteousness is revealed in the Gospel, surely it is a complete and perfect righteousness, not a torn or half-righteousness. Therefore, the law has no place in it. And their objection to the exclusive word "alone" is not only false but also foolish. Does Paul not clearly enough give everything to faith alone when he takes everything away from works? What else do these statements mean: that righteousness was revealed apart from the law, and that a person is justified freely, without the works of the law? Here they have a clever dodge to escape with -- one they did not invent themselves but borrowed from Origen and some of the early writers. Yet it is very foolish. They claim that only the ceremonial works of the law are excluded, not the moral ones. Their constant arguing has left them so confused that they do not even know the basic rules of logic. Do they think the apostle was confused when he cited these passages to prove his point? "The person who does these things shall live by them." And: "Cursed is everyone who does not fulfill all things written in the book of the law." Unless they are insane, they will not say that life was promised to the keepers of ceremonies, or that the curse was threatened only against those who broke them. If these passages are about the moral law, then moral works are also clearly excluded from the power of justifying. Paul's other arguments serve the same purpose: since the knowledge of sin comes through the law, righteousness does not come through the law. Since the law produces wrath, it does not produce righteousness. Since the law cannot give the conscience assurance, it cannot give righteousness either. Since faith is credited as righteousness, righteousness is not a reward for works but is given as a gift that is not owed. Since we are justified by faith, all boasting is eliminated. If a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would truly come from the law. But God has shut everyone up under sin, so that the promise might be given to those who believe. Let them now foolishly claim, if they dare, that these things are said about ceremonies and not about morals. But even children would mock such obvious shamelessness. Therefore, let us hold this as certain: the entire law is meant when the power of justifying is taken away from the law.

But if anyone wonders why the apostle specifically mentions "works of the law" rather than simply "works," the reason is easy to explain. Although works are highly valued, they get that value from God's approval, not from their own worth. Who can boast of any righteousness before God except what He has approved? Who can claim any reward as owed except what He has promised? Works therefore have their value by God's generosity: they are counted worthy of both the name and reward of righteousness. And they have value only when the person performing them intends to show obedience to God through them. That is why the apostle, in another place, when trying to prove that Abraham could not have been justified by works, points out that the law was given almost 430 years after the covenant was made. Uneducated people would laugh at such an argument, since righteous works could have existed before the law was published. But Paul knew that works had no such value except by God's testimony and approval. So he took it as an established fact that before the law, works had no power to justify. We understand why he specifically mentions "works of the law" when he wants to deny that works can justify: because disputes can only arise about those works, and no others. Yet sometimes he excludes all works without qualification, as when he says that according to David's testimony, blessedness belongs to the person to whom the Lord credits righteousness without works. Therefore, no amount of clever arguing can prevent us from holding to this general exclusion: faith alone. Their attempt to find a subtle way around this -- that we are justified by a faith that works through love, so that righteousness depends on love -- also fails. We do indeed agree with Paul that the only faith that justifies is the kind that is actively working through love. But faith does not get its power to justify from that working of love. It justifies only because it brings us into communion with Christ's righteousness. Otherwise, everything the apostle argues so earnestly would fall apart. "To the one who works," he says, "the reward is not credited as grace but as debt." "But to the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness." Could he have spoken more clearly? There is no righteousness of faith except where there are no works deserving any reward. Faith is only credited as righteousness when righteousness is given by grace -- when it is not owed.

Now let us examine whether it is true, as stated in our definition, that the righteousness of faith is reconciliation with God, which consists entirely in the forgiveness of sins. We must always return to this principle: the wrath of God rests on all people as long as they continue to be sinners. Isaiah has expressed this excellently: "The hand of the Lord is not shortened so that He cannot save, nor His ear dull so that He cannot hear. But your sins have caused a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear" (Isaiah 59:1-2). We hear that sin creates a division between humanity and God, and that it turns God's face away from the sinner. It cannot be otherwise, since it is incompatible with His righteousness to have any fellowship with sin. Therefore, the apostle teaches that people are enemies of God until they are restored to favor through Christ. When the Lord receives someone into union with Himself, He is said to justify that person, because He cannot accept them into favor or join them to Himself without turning a sinner into a righteous person. We further say that this is accomplished through the forgiveness of sins. If those whom the Lord has reconciled to Himself were judged by their works, they would indeed still be sinners -- yet they must be free and clean from sin. It is therefore certain that those whom God embraces are made righteous in no other way than by being cleansed through the forgiveness that wipes away the stains of their sins. Such righteousness may, in a word, be called the forgiveness of sins.

Both of these points are most clearly seen in Paul's words, which I have already quoted: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their sins against them, and He has entrusted to us the message of reconciliation." Then he adds the summary of his message: "Him who knew no sin He made to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Here he names righteousness and reconciliation interchangeably, so we may understand that each is mutually contained in the other. He teaches that the way to achieve this righteousness is when our sins are not counted against us. Therefore, do not wonder any longer how God justifies us, since you hear that He reconciles us to Himself by not counting our sins. Paul proves this from the testimony of David in Romans: righteousness is credited to a person apart from works, because David declares blessed the one whose sins are forgiven, whose transgressions are covered, and to whom the Lord does not count their offenses. Without question, David is speaking of righteousness when he uses the word blessedness. Since he says this blessedness consists in the forgiveness of sins, there is no reason to define righteousness any differently. Therefore, Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, sings that the knowledge of salvation is found in the forgiveness of sins. Paul followed this same principle in his sermon to the people of Antioch about the sum of salvation, as Luke reports. He concluded this way: "Through Him, forgiveness of sins is preached to you, and everyone who believes in Him is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses." The apostle ties forgiveness of sins so closely to righteousness that he shows they are one and the same thing. Therefore, he rightly argues that the righteousness given to us freely is obtained through the mercy of God. It should not seem strange or unusual that believers are righteous before God not by works but by free acceptance. Both Scripture says this often, and the early church fathers sometimes spoke the same way. Augustine says in one place: "The righteousness of the saints in this world stands in the forgiveness of sins rather than in the perfection of virtues." Bernard's notable statements agree: "Not to sin is God's righteousness; but the righteousness of humanity is the merciful kindness of God." He had earlier affirmed that Christ is our righteousness through absolution, and that therefore only those are righteous who have received pardon through mercy.

From this also follows that we are justified before God solely through Christ's righteousness. This is the same as saying that a person is not righteous in themselves, but because Christ's righteousness is shared with them through imputation -- a point well worth careful attention. The trivial error vanishes that says a person is justified by faith because faith receives a portion of God's Spirit that makes them righteous. This is so contrary to the teaching explained above that the two can never be reconciled. Whoever is taught to seek righteousness outside themselves must certainly be devoid of their own righteousness. The apostle says this most plainly when he writes that the One who knew no sin was made a propitiatory sacrifice for us to cleanse our sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). You see that our righteousness is not in us but in Christ. It belongs to us only because we share in Christ, possessing all His riches along with Him. It does not contradict this that Paul teaches in another place that sin was condemned in the flesh of Christ (Romans 8:3) so that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. He means no other fulfillment than what we obtain through imputation. The Lord Christ shares His righteousness with us in such a way that He pours its power into us, insofar as it pertains to God's judgment. The other statement Paul made a little earlier clearly means the same thing: "As by the disobedience of one man we were made sinners, so by the obedience of one man we are justified" (Romans 5:19). What else does it mean to ground our righteousness in Christ's obedience, than to affirm that we are counted righteous only because Christ's obedience is credited to us as if it were our own? I think Ambrose has given an excellent illustration of this righteousness in the story of Jacob's blessing. Jacob did not deserve the right of the firstborn son on his own merit. But dressed in his brother's garments and wearing his brother's coat -- which gave off a sweet fragrance -- he found favor with his father and received the blessing for his own benefit while wearing another's identity. In the same way, we hide under the precious purity of Christ our elder brother, so that we may receive a testimony of righteousness in God's sight. Ambrose's words are these: "Isaac smelled the fragrance of the garments. Perhaps this means we are justified not by works but by faith, because the weakness of the flesh hinders works. But the brightness of faith, which earns the forgiveness of sins, overshadows the failure of deeds." And truly it is so. In order for us to appear before God's face for salvation, we must carry the sweet fragrance of Christ, and our faults must be covered and hidden by His perfection.