Chapter 17. The Agreement of the Promises of the Law and the Gospel

Now let us also go through the other arguments with which Satan, by the soldiers of his guard, goes about either to overthrow or batter the justification of faith. This I think we have already wrested from the slanderers, that they can no more charge us as enemies of good works. For, justification is taken away from good works, not that no good works should be done, or that those which are done should be denied to be good, but that we should not put confidence in them, not glory in them, not ascribe salvation to them. For this is our confidence, this is our glory, and the only author of our salvation, that Christ the Son of God is ours, and we likewise are in him the sons of God, and heirs of the heavenly kingdom, being called by the goodness of God, not by our own worthiness, into the hope of eternal blessedness. But because they do beside these assail us, as we have said, with other engines, let us go forward in beating away these also. First they come back to the promises of the law, which the Lord did set forth to the keepers of his law: and they ask whether we will have them to be utterly void or effectual. Because it were an absurdity and to be scorned to say that they are void, they take it for granted that they are of some effectiveness. Hereupon they reason that we are not justified by faith alone. For thus says the Lord: And it shall be, if you shall hear these commandments and judgments, and shall keep them and do them, the Lord also shall keep with you his covenant and mercy which he has sworn to your fathers, he shall love you and multiply you, and bless you, etc. (Deuteronomy 7:11). Again, If you shall well direct your ways and your endeavors, if you walk not after strange gods, if you do judgment between man and man, and go not back into malice, I will walk in the midst of you (Jeremiah 7:2 and 23). I will not recite a thousand pieces of the same sort, which since they nothing differ in sense, shall be declared by the solution of these. In sum, Moses testifies that in the law is set forth blessing and curse, death and life (Deuteronomy 11:26). Thus therefore they reason, that either this blessing is made idle and fruitless, or that justification is not of faith alone. We have already before shown, how if we stick fast in the law, over us being destitute of all blessing, hangs only the curse which is threatened to all transgressors. For the Lord promises nothing but to the perfect keepers of his law, such as there is none found. This therefore remains, that all mankind is by the law accused, and subject to curse and the wrath of God: from which, that they may be loosed, they must needs go out of the power of the law, and be as it were brought into liberty from the bondage thereof: not that carnal liberty which should withdraw us from the keeping of the law, should allure us to think all things lawful and to suffer our lust, as it were the restraints being broken and with loose reins to run at riot: but the spiritual liberty, which may comfort and raise up a dismayed and overthrown conscience, showing it to be free from the curse and damnation with which the law held it down bound and fast tied. This deliverance from the subjection of the law, and manumission (as I may call it) we obtain when by faith we take hold of the mercy of God in Christ, whereby we are certified and assured of the forgiveness of sins, with the feeling of which the law did prick and bite us.

By this reason even the promises that were offered us in the law, should be all ineffectual and void, unless the goodness of God by the Gospel did help. For, this condition that we keep the whole law, upon which the promises hang, and by which alone they are to be performed, shall never be fulfilled. And the Lord so helps, not by leaving part of righteousness in our works, and supplying part by his merciful bearing with us, but when he sets only Christ for the fulfilling of righteousness. For the Apostle, when he had before said that he and other Jews believed in Jesus Christ, knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, adds a reason: not that they should be helped to fullness of righteousness by the faith of Christ, but by it should be justified, not by the works of the law. If the faithful remove from the law into faith, that they may in faith find righteousness which they see to be absent from the law: truly they forsake the righteousness of the law. Therefore now let him that wishes, amplify the rewardings which are said to be prepared for the keeper of the law, so that he along with that consider that it comes to pass by our perverseness, that we feel no fruit thereof till we have obtained another righteousness of faith. So David, when he made mention of the rewarding which the Lord has prepared for his servants, by and by descends to the acknowledging of sins, by which that same rewarding is made void. Also in Psalm 19, he gloriously sets forth the benefits of the law, but he by and by cries out: Who shall understand his faults? Lord, cleanse me from my secret faults. This place altogether agrees with the place before, where when he had said that all the ways of the Lord are goodness and truth to them that leave him, he adds: For your name's sake, Lord, you shall be merciful to my perverseness, for it is much. So ought we also to acknowledge, that there is indeed the good will of God set forth to us in the law, if we might deserve it by works, but that the same never comes to us by the deserving of works.

How then? Are they given that they should vanish away without fruit? I have even now already protested that the same is not my meaning. I say truly that they utter not their effectiveness toward us, so long as they have respect to the merit of works, and that therefore if they be considered in themselves, they be after a certain manner abolished. If the apostle teaches that this noble promise: I have given you commandments, which whoever shall do, shall live in them, is of no value if we stand still in it, and shall never a whit more profit than if it had not been given at all: because it belongs not even to the most holy servants of God, which are all far from the fulfilling of the law, but are compassed about with many transgressions. But when the promises of the Gospel are put in place of them, which do offer free forgiveness of sins, they bring to pass that not only we ourselves be acceptable to God, but that our works also have their thanks: and not this only that the Lord accepts them, but also extends to them the blessings which were by covenant due to the keeping of the law. I grant therefore, that those things which the Lord has promised in his law to the followers of righteousness and holiness, are rendered to the works of the faithful: but in this rendering, the cause is always to be considered that pours grace to works. Now causes we see that there be three. The first is, that God turning away his sight from the works of his servants, which always deserve rather reproach than praise, embraces them in Christ, and by the only means of faith reconciles them to himself without the means of works. The second, that of his fatherly kindness and tender mercifulness, he lifts up works to so great honor, not weighing the worthiness of them that he accounts them of some value. The third, that he receives the very same works with pardon, not imputing the imperfection, with which they all being defiled, should otherwise be rather reckoned among sins than virtues. And hereby appears how much the Sophisters have been deceived, which thought that they had gaily escaped all absurdities when they said that works do not of their own inward goodness avail to deserve salvation, but by the form of the covenant, because the Lord has of his liberality so much esteemed them. But in the mean time they considered not, how far those works which they would have to be meritorious, were from the condition of the promises, unless there went before both justification grounded upon only faith, and the forgiveness of sins, by which even the good works themselves have need to be wiped from spots. Therefore of three causes of God's liberality, by which it is brought to pass that the works of the faithful are acceptable, they noted but one, and suppressed two, yes and those the principal.

They allege the saying of Peter, which Luke rehearses in the Acts: I find in truth that God is not an accepter of persons: but in every nation he that does righteousness is acceptable to him. And hereupon they gather that which seems to be undoubted, that if man does by right endeavors get himself the favor of God, it is not the beneficial gift of God alone that he obtains salvation: indeed that God does so of his mercy help a sinner, that he is by works bowed to mercy. But you can in no wise make the Scriptures agree together, unless you note a double accepting of man with God. For, such as man is by nature, God finds nothing in him whereby he may be inclined to mercy, but only misery. If therefore it be certain that man is naked and needy of all goodness, and on the other side full stuffed and laden with all kinds of evils, when God first receives them: for what quality, I pray you shall we say that he is worthy of the heavenly calling? Away therefore with the vain imagining of merits, where God so evidently sets out his free mercifulness. For, that which in the same place is said by the voice of the angel to Cornelius, that his prayers and alms had ascended into the sight of God, is by these men most lewdly wrested, that man by endeavor of good works is prepared to receive the grace of God. For it must needs be that Cornelius was already enlightened with the Spirit of wisdom, since he was endowed with true wisdom, namely with the fear of God: that he was sanctified with the same Spirit, since he was a follower of righteousness, which the apostle teaches to be a most certain fruit of it. All those things therefore which are said to have pleased God in him, he had of his grace, so far is it from that he did by his own endeavor prepare himself to receive it. Truly there cannot one syllable of the Scripture be brought forth, that agrees not with this doctrine, that there is none other cause for God to accept man to him, but because he sees that man should be every way lost, if he be left to himself: but because he will not have him lost, he uses his own mercy in delivering him. Now we see how this accepting has not regard to the righteousness of man, but is a mere token of the goodness of God toward men being miserable and most unworthy of so great a benefit.

But after that the Lord has brought man out of the bottomless depth of destruction, and severed him to himself by grace of adoption: because he has now begotten him and newly formed him into a new life, he now embraces him, as a new creature with the gifts of his Spirit. This is that accepting of which Peter makes mention, by which the faithful are after their vocation allured of God even in respect also of works: for the Lord can not but love and kiss those good things which he works in them by his Spirit. But this is always to be remembered, that they are none otherwise acceptable to God in respect of works, but in as much as for their cause and for their sakes, whatever good works he has given them in increasing of his liberality, he also vouchsafes to accept. For where have they good works, but because the Lord, as he has chosen them for vessels to honor, so will garnish them with true godliness? By which also are they accounted good as though there were nothing wanting in them, but because the kind Father tenderly grants pardon to those deformities and spots that cleave to them? Summarily, he signifies nothing else in this place, but that to God his children are acceptable and lovely in whom he sees the marks and features of his own face. For we have in another place taught that regeneration is a repairing of the image of God in us. For as much as therefore wherever the Lord beholds his own face, he both worthily loves it and has it in honor: it is not without cause said, that the life of the faithful being framed to holiness and righteousness pleases him, but because the godly being clothed with mortal flesh, are yet sinners, and their good works are but begun and savoring of the faultiness of the flesh; he can not be favorable neither to those nor to these, unless he more embrace them in Christ than in themselves. After this manner are those places to be taken, which testify that God is kind and merciful to the followers of righteousness. Moses said to the Israelites, The Lord your God keeps covenant, to a thousand generations: which sentence was afterward used of the people for a common manner of speech. So Solomon in his solemn prayer, says, Lord God of Israel, which keeps covenant and mercy to your servants which walk before you in their whole heart. The same words are also repeated of Nehemiah. For, as in all the covenants of his mercy, the Lord likewise on their behalf requires of his servants uprightness and holiness of life, that his goodness should not be made a mockery, and that no man swelling with vain rejoicing by reason thereof should bless his own soul, walking in the meantime in the perverseness of his own heart: so his will is by this way to keep in their duty them that are admitted into the communion of the covenant: yet nevertheless the covenant itself is both made at the beginning free, and perpetually remains such. After this manner David when he glories that there was rendered to him reward of the cleanness of his hands, yet omits not that fountain which I have spoken of, that he was drawn out of the womb, because God loved him: where he so sets out the goodness of his cause, that he abates nothing from the free mercy which goes before all gifts, of which it is the beginning.

And here by the way it shall be profitable to touch what these forms of speaking do differ from the promises of the law. I call promises of the law, not those which are everywhere commonly written in the books of Moses: (for as much as in them also are found many promises of the Gospel) but those which properly belong to the ministry of the law. Such promises, by whatever name you list to call them, do declare that there is reward ready upon condition, if you do that which is commanded you. But when it is said, that the Lord keeps the covenant of mercy to them which love him, therein is rather shown what manner of men be his servants which have faithfully received his covenant, than the cause is expressed why the Lord should do good to them. Now this is the manner of showing it. As the Lord vouchsafes to grant us the grace of eternal life, to this end that he should be loved, feared, and honored of us: so whatever promises there are of his mercy in the Scriptures, they are rightly directed to this, and that we should reverence and worship the author of the benefits. So often therefore as we hear that he does good to them that keep his law, let us remember that the children of God are there signified by the duty which ought to be continual in them: that we are for this cause adopted, that we should honor him for our Father. Therefore lest we should disinherit ourselves from the right of adoption, we must always endeavor to this to which our calling tends. But let us again keep this in mind, that the accomplishment of the mercy of God hangs not upon the works of the faithful: but that he therefore fulfills the promise of salvation to them which answer to their calling in uprightness of life, because in them he acknowledges the natural tokens of his children which are ruled with his Spirit to good. Here let that be referred which is in Psalm 15 spoken of the citizens of the Church, Lord who shall dwell in your tabernacle, and who shall rest in your holy hill: The innocent in hands and of a clean heart, etc. Again in Isaiah, Who shall dwell with devouring fire? He that does righteousness, he that speaks right things, etc. For there is not described the stay on which the faithful may stand before the Lord, but the manner by which the most merciful Father brings them into his fellowship, and therein defends and strengthens them. For, because he abhors sin, he loves righteousness: whom he joins to himself, them he cleanses with his Spirit, that he may make them of like fashion to himself and his kingdom. Therefore if the question be of the first cause by which the entry is made open to the holy ones into the kingdom of God, from where they have that they may stand fast and abide in it, we have this answer ready, because the Lord by his mercy both has once adopted them, and perpetually defends them. But if the question be of the manner, then we must come down to regeneration and the fruits thereof, which are described in that Psalm.

But there seems to be much more hardness in these places, which do both garnish good works with the title of righteousness, and affirm that man is justified by them. Of the first sort there are very many places, where the observances of the commandments are called justifications or righteousnesses. Of the other sort, that is an example which is in Moses: This shall be our righteousness, if we keep all these commandments (Deuteronomy 6:25). And if you take exception and say that this is a promise of the law, which being knit to a condition impossible, proves nothing — there are other texts of which you cannot make the same answer, as this: And it shall be to you for righteousness before the Lord, to redeliver to the poor man his pledge, etc. (Deuteronomy 24:13). Again, that which the prophet says, that the zeal in avenging the shame of Israel was imputed to Phinehas for righteousness (Psalm 106:31). Therefore the Pharisees of our time think that here they have a large matter to triumph upon. For when we say that when the righteousness of faith is set up, the justification of works gives place — by the same right they make this argument: If righteousness is of works, then it is false that we are justified by faith only. Though I grant that the commandments of the law are called righteousnesses, it is no marvel, for they are so indeed. However, we must warn the readers that the Greeks have not fitly translated the Hebrew word Hucmi — Dikaiomata, righteousnesses — for commandments. But for the word, I willingly release my quarrel. For neither do we deny this to the law of God, that it contains perfect righteousness. For although, because we are debtors of all the things that it commands, therefore even when we have performed full obedience to it, we are unprofitable servants — yet because the Lord has vouchsafed to grant it the honor of righteousness, we do not take away that which he has given. Therefore we willingly confess that the full obedience of the law is righteousness: that the keeping of every commandment is a part of righteousness, if so be that the whole sum of righteousness were had in the other parts also. But we deny that there is anywhere any such form of righteousness. And therefore we take away the righteousness of the law, not because it is maimed and imperfect in itself, but because by reason of the weakness of our flesh it is nowhere seen. But the Scripture not only calls simply the commandments of the Lord righteousnesses, but it also gives this name to the works of the holy ones. As when it reports that Zechariah and his wife walked in the righteousnesses of the Lord (Luke 1:6) — truly when it so speaks, it weighs works rather by the nature of the law than by their own proper estate. However, here again is that to be noted which I even now said, that the negligence of the Greek translator is not a law to be made. But for as much as Luke would alter nothing in the received translation, I will also not strive about it. For God has commanded these things that are in the law to men for righteousness, but this righteousness we perform not but in keeping the whole law, for by every transgression it is broken. Whereas therefore the law does nothing but prescribe righteousness: if we have respect to it, all the several commandments thereof are righteousness; if we have respect to men by whom they are done, they do not obtain the praise of righteousness by one work, being trespassers in many, and by that same work which is ever partly faulty by reason of imperfection.

But now I come to the second kind, in which is the chief hardness. Paul has nothing more strong to prove the righteousness of faith, than that which is written of Abraham, that his faith was imputed to him for righteousness ([reconstructed: Genesis 15:6]). Since therefore it is said that the act done by Phinehas was imputed to him for righteousness (Psalm 106:31): what Paul affirms of faith, the same may we also conclude of works. Whereupon our adversaries, as though they had won the victory, determine that we are indeed not justified without faith, but that we are also not justified by it alone, and that works accomplish our righteousness. Therefore here I beseech the godly, that if they know that the true rule of righteousness is to be taken out of the Scripture only, they will religiously and earnestly weigh with me how the Scripture may without cavillations be rightly made to agree with itself. For as much as Paul knew that the justification of faith is the refuge for them that are destitute of their own righteousness, he does boldly conclude that all they that are justified by faith are excluded from the righteousness of works. But since it is certain that the justification of faith is common to all the faithful, he does thereof with like boldness conclude that no man is justified by works, but rather contrariwise that men are justified without any help of works. But it is one thing to dispute of what value works are by themselves, and another thing what account is to be made of them after the establishing of the righteousness of faith. If we shall set a price upon works according to their worthiness, we say that they are unworthy to come into the sight of God; and therefore that man has no works of which he may glory before God; then, being stripped of all help of works, he is justified by faith alone. Now we define righteousness thus: that a sinner being received into the communion of Christ, is by his grace reconciled to God, when being cleansed with his blood he obtains forgiveness of sins, and being clothed with his righteousness as with his own, he stands assured before the heavenly judgment seat. When the forgiveness of sins is set before, the good works which follow have now another valuation than after their own deserving, because whatever is in them imperfect is covered with the perfection of Christ; whatever spots or filthiness there is, it is wiped away with his cleanness, that it may not come into the examination of the judgment of God. Therefore when the guiltiness of all trespasses is blotted out, whereby men are hindered that they can bring forth nothing acceptable to God, and when the fault of imperfection is buried, which is wont also to defile good works — the good works which the faithful do are counted righteous, or (which is all one) are imputed for righteousness.

Now if any man objects this against me to assail the righteousness of faith, first I will ask whether a man is counted righteous for one or two holy works, being in the rest of the works of his life a transgressor of the law. This is more than an absurdity. Then I will ask if he is counted righteous for many good works, if he is in any part found guilty. This also he shall not be so bold to affirm, when the penal ordinance of the law cries out against it, and proclaims all them accursed which have not fulfilled all commandments of the law to the uttermost. Moreover I will go further and ask, whether there be any work that deserves to be accused of no uncleanness or imperfection. And how could there be any such before those eyes, to whom even the very stars are not clean enough, nor the angels righteous enough? So shall he be compelled to grant that there is no good work which is not so defiled with transgressions adjoined with it, and with the corruptness of itself, that it cannot have the honor of righteousness. Now if it is certain that it proceeds from the righteousness of faith that works which are otherwise impure, unclean, and but half works, not worthy of the sight of God, much less of his love, are imputed to righteousness, why do they with boasting of the righteousness of works destroy the justification of faith, whereas if this justification were not, they should in vain boast of that righteousness? Will they make a viper's brood? For to that end the sayings of the ungodly men. They cannot deny that the justification of faith is the beginning, foundation, cause, matter, and substance of the righteousness of works: yet they conclude the man is not justified by faith, because good works also are accounted for righteousness. Therefore let us let pass these follies and confess as the truth is, that if the righteousness of works of whatever sort it is accounted, hangs upon the justification of faith, it is by this not only nothing diminished but also confirmed, namely whereby the strength thereof appears more mighty. Neither yet let us think that works are so commended after free justification, that they also afterward come into the place of justifying a man, or do part that office between them and faith. For unless the justification remains always whole, the uncleanness of works shall be uncovered. And it is no absurdity, that a man is so justified by faith that not only he himself is righteous, but also his works are esteemed righteous above their worthiness.

After this manner we will grant in works not only a righteousness in parts (as our adversaries themselves would have) but also that it is allowed of God as if it were a perfect and full righteousness. But if we remember upon what foundation it is upheld, all the difficulty shall be dissolved. For then and not till then begins to be an acceptable work, when it is received with pardon. Now from where comes pardon, but because God beholds both us and all our things in Christ? Therefore as we, when we are grafted into Christ, do therefore appear righteous before God, because our wickednesses are covered with his innocence, so our works are and be taken for righteous, because whatever faultiness is otherwise in them, being buried in the cleanness of Christ, it is not imputed. So we may rightly say, that by only faith not only we but also our works are justified. Now if this righteousness of works of whatever sort it is, hangs upon faith and free justification, and is made of it: it ought to be included under it, and to be set under it as the effect under the cause thereof, as I may so call it: so far is it from that it ought to be raised up either to destroy or darken it. So Paul, to drive men to confess that our blessedness consists of the mercy of God, not of works, chiefly enforces that saying of David, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is he to whom the Lord has not imputed sin. If any man does thrust in to the contrary innumerable sayings wherein blessedness seems to be given to works: as are these: Blessed is the man which fears the Lord, which has pity on the poor, which has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, which bears temptation: Blessed are they which keep judgment, the undefiled, the poor in spirit, the meek, the merciful, etc. they shall not make but that it shall be true which Paul says. For because those things that are there commended are never so in man, that he is therefore allowed of God, it follows that man is always miserable, unless he is delivered from misery by forgiveness of sins. For as much as therefore all the kinds of blessedness which are extolled in the Scriptures, do fall down void, so that man receives fruit of none of them, till he has obtained blessedness by forgiveness of sins, which may afterward make place for them: it follows that this is not only the highest and the chief but also the only blessedness: unless perhaps you will have that it be weakened of those which consist in it alone. Now there is much less reason why the calling of men righteous should trouble us, which is commonly given to the faithful. I grant truly that they are called righteous of the holiness of life: but for as much as they rather endeavor to the following of righteousness, than do fulfill righteousness itself, it is fitting that this righteousness such as it is, give place to the justification of faith, from which it has that which it is.

But they say that we have yet more business with James, namely which with open voice fights against us. For he teaches both that Abraham was justified by works, and also that all we are justified by works, not by faith only. What then? Will they draw Paul to fight with James? If they hold James for a minister of Christ, his saying must be so taken that it does not disagree from Christ speaking by the mouth of Paul. The Holy Ghost affirms by the mouth of Paul, that Abraham obtained righteousness by faith, not by works: and we also teach that all are justified by faith without the works of the law. The same Holy Ghost teaches by James that both Abraham's righteousness and ours consists of works, not of only faith. It is certain that the Holy Ghost does not fight with himself. What agreement shall there be therefore of these two? It is enough for the adversaries, if they pluck up the righteousness of faith which we would have to be fastened with most deep roots: but to render to consciences their quietness, they have no great care. Whereby truly you may see that they gnaw the justification of faith, but in the meantime appoint no mark of righteousness where consciences may stay. Therefore let them triumph as they please, so that they may boast of no other victory than that they have taken away all certainty of righteousness. And this wretched victory they shall obtain, where the light of truth being quenched, the Lord shall suffer them to overspread the darkness of lies. But wherever the truth of God shall stand, they shall nothing prevail. I deny therefore that the saying of James which they still continually hold up against us as it were the shield of Achilles does anything at all make for them. That this may be made plain, first we must look at the mark that the apostle shoots at: and then we must note where they are deceived. Because there were then many (which mischief is wont to be continual in the Church) which openly betrayed their infidelity, in neglecting and omitting all the proper works of the faithful, and yet ceased not to boast of the false name of faith: James does here mock the foolish boldness of such men. Therefore it is not his purpose in any point to diminish the force of true faith, but to show how [reconstructed: fondly] those trifles did challenge so much the vain image of it, that being contented with it they carelessly ran dissolutely abroad into all licentiousness of vices. This ground being conceived, it shall be easy to perceive where our adversaries do miss. For they fall into two deceits in the word, the one in the name of faith, the other in the word of justifying. Whereas the Apostle names faith a vain opinion far distant from the truth of faith, it is spoken by way of granting, which is no derogation to the matter: which he shows at the beginning in these words. What does it profit, my brothers, if any man says that he has faith, and has no works? He does not say, if any have faith without works, but, if any man boast. More plainly also he speaks a little after, where he in mockery makes that worse than the devils' knowledge: last of all, when he calls it dead. But by the definition you may sufficiently perceive what he means. You believe (says he) that there is a God. Truly if nothing be contained in this faith but to believe that there is a God, it is now no marvel if it does not justify. And when this is taken from it, let us not think that anything is abated from the Christian faith, the nature of which is far otherwise. For after what manner does true faith justify us, but when it conjoins us with Christ, that being made one with him, we may enjoy the partaking of his righteousness. It does not therefore justify us by this that it conceives a knowledge of the being of God, but by this that it rests upon the assuredness of the mercy of God.

We have not yet done with the matter, unless we also examine the other deceit in the word, inasmuch as James sets part of justification in works. If you will make James agreeing both with the rest of the Scriptures, and in himself, you must of necessity take the word of justifying in another sense than it is taken in Paul. For Paul says that we are justified, when the remembrance of our unrighteousness being blotted out, we are accounted righteous. If James had meant of that taking, he had wrongfully alleged that out of Moses, Abraham believed God, etc. For he thus frames it together: Abraham by works obtained righteousness, because he did not shrink at the commandment of God, to offer up his son. And so the Scripture was fulfilled which says, that he believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. If it be an absurdity, that the effect is before its cause, either Moses does in that place falsely testify, that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness: or he deserved not righteousness by that obedience which he showed in offering up of Isaac. Abraham was justified by his faith, when Ishmael was not yet conceived, who was now grown past childhood before Isaac was born. Now therefore shall we say, that he got to himself righteousness by obedience which followed long afterward? Therefore either James did wrongfully invert the order (which it is a wickedness to think) or he meant not to say that he was justified, as though he deserved to be accounted righteous. How then? Truly it appears that he speaks of the declaration of righteousness and not the imputation: as if he had said, whoever are righteous by true faith, they do prove their righteousness with obedience and good works, not with a bare and image-like visor of faith. In sum, he does not dispute by what means we are justified, but he requires of the faithful a working righteousness. And as Paul affirms that men are justified without the help of works: so James does here not suffer them to be accounted righteous who lack good works. The considering of this end, shall deliver us out of all doubt. For our adversaries are hereby chiefly deceived, that they think that James defines the manner of justifying, whereas he labors about nothing else but to overthrow their perverse carelessness, which did vainly pretend faith to excuse their despising of good works. Therefore into however many ways they wrest the words of James, they shall wring out nothing but two sentences: that a vain bodiless show of faith does not justify, and that a faithful man not contented with such an imaginative show, does declare his righteousness by good works.

As for that which they allege out of Paul the same meaning, that the doers of the law, not the hearers, are justified, it nothing helps them. I will not escape away with the solution of Ambrose, that that is therefore spoken because the fulfilling of the law is faith in Christ. For I see that it is but a mere escape, which nothing needs where there is a broad way open. There the Apostle throws down the Jews from foolish confidence, who boasted themselves of the only knowledge of the law, when in the mean time they were the greatest despisers of it. Therefore that they should not stand so much in their own conceit for the bare knowledge of the law he warns them, that if righteousness be sought out of the law, not the knowledge but the observing of it is required. We verily make no doubt of this, that the righteousness of the law stands in works: nor yet of this also, that the righteousness consists in the worthiness and merits of works. But it is not yet proved, that we are justified by works, unless they bring forth some man that has fulfilled the law. And that Paul meant none otherwise, the hanging together of the text shall be a sufficient testimony. After that he had generally condemned the Gentiles and the Jews of unrighteousness, then he descends to the particular showing of it, and says that they which sinned without the Law, do perish without the law: which is spoken of the Gentiles: but they which have sinned in the law, are judged by the law: which pertains to the Jews. Now because they, winking at their own trespasses, proudly gloried of the only law: he adjoins that which most fitly agreed, that the law was not therefore made, that men should be made righteous by only hearing of the voice thereof: but then and not till then when they obeyed: as if he should say: Do you seek righteousness in the law? Allege not the hearing of it, which of itself is of small importance: but bring works, by which you may declare that the law was not set for you in vain. Of these works because they were all destitute, it followed that they were stripped of glorying of the law. Therefore we must of the meaning of Paul rather frame a contrary argument. The righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works. No man can boast that he has by works satisfied the law. Therefore there is no righteousness by the law.

Now they allege also these places, wherein the faithful do boldly offer their righteousness to the judgment of God to be examined, and require the sentence be given of them according to it. Of which sort are these: Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness, and according to my innocence, which are in me. Again, Hear my righteousness, O God. You have proved my heart, and have visited it in the night, and there was no wickedness found in me. Again, The Lord shall render to me according to my righteousness, and he shall recompense me according to the cleanness of my hands. Because I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God. And I shall be unspotted and shall keep me from my iniquity. Again, Judge me, Lord, because I have walked in my innocence. I have not sat with lying men, I will not enter in with them that do wicked things. Destroy not my soul with the ungodly, my life with men of blood: in whose hands are iniquities: whose right hand is filled with gifts. But I have walked innocently. I have above spoken of the confidence which the holy ones do seem simply to take to themselves of works. As for these testimonies that we have here alleged, they shall not much encumber us if they be understood according to their scope, or (as they commonly call it) their circumstance. Now the same is double. For neither would they have them to be wholly examined, that they should be either condemned or acquitted according to the continual course of their whole life: but they bring into judgment a special cause to be debated. Neither do they claim to themselves righteousness in respect of the perfection of God, but by comparison of naughty and wicked men. First when the justifying of man is treated of, it is not only required that he have a good cause in some particular matter, but a certain perpetual agreement of righteousness in his whole life. But the holy ones, when they call upon the judgment of God to approve their innocence, do not offer themselves free from all guiltiness and in every behalf faultless: but verily when they have fastened their confidence of salvation in his goodness only, yet trusting that he is the avenger of the poor afflicted against right and equity, they commend to him the cause wherein the innocent are oppressed. But when they set their adversaries with them before the judgment seat of God, they boast not of such an innocence as shall answer to the [reconstructed: pure gaze] of God if it be severely searched, but because in comparison of the malice, obstinacy, subtlety, and wickedness of their adversaries they know that their plainness, righteousness, simplicity, and cleanness is known and pleasing to God: they fear not to call upon him to be judge between themselves and them. So when David said to Saul: The Lord render to every man according to his righteousness and truth: he meant not that the Lord should examine by himself and reward every man according to his deserts, but he took the Lord to witness, how great his innocency was in comparison of the wickedness of Saul. And Paul himself, when he boasts with this glorying that he has a good witness of conscience, that he has labored with simplicity and uprightness in the Church of God, means not that he stands upon such glorying before God: but being compelled with the slanders of the wicked, he defends his faithful and honest dealing, which he knew to be pleasing to the merciful kindness of God, against all evil speaking of men whatever it be. For we see what he says in another place, that he knows no evil by himself, but that he is not thereby justified: namely because he knew that the judgment of God far surpasses the bleary-eyed sight of men. However therefore the godly do defend their innocence against the hypocrisy of the ungodly, by the witnessing and judgment of God: yet when they have to do with God alone, they all cry out with one mouth: If you mark iniquity, Lord, Lord, who shall abide it: Enter not into judgment with your servants: because everyone that lives shall not be justified in your sight: and distrusting their own works, they gladly sing, Your goodness is better than life.

There are also other places not unlike these before, in which a man may yet tarry. Solomon says that he who walks in his uprightness is righteous. Again, that in the path of righteousness is life, and that in the same is not death. After which manner Ezekiel reports that he shall live who does judgment and righteousness. None of these do we either deny or darken. But let there come forth one of the sons of Adam with such an uprightness. If there be none, either they must perish at the sight of God, or flee to the sanctuary of mercy. Neither do we in the meantime deny but that to the faithful their uprightness, though it be but half and imperfect, is a step toward immortality. But where does that come from but because, whom the Lord has taken into the covenant of grace, he searches not their works according to their deservings, but kisses them with fatherly kindness? Whereby we do not only understand that which the schoolmen teach, that works have their value of the accepting grace. For they mean that works which are otherwise insufficient to purchase righteousness by the covenant of the law, are by the accepting of God advanced to the value of equality. But I say that they being defiled both with other trespassings and with their own spots, are of no other value at all, than in so much as the Lord tenderly grants pardon to both: that is to say, gives free righteousness to man. Neither are here those prayers of the Apostle seasonably thrust in place, where he wishes so great perfection to the faithful, that they may be faultless and unblamable in the day of the [reconstructed: Lord]. These words indeed the Celestines did in old time turmoil, to affirm a perfection of righteousness in this life. But, which we think to be sufficient, we answer briefly after Augustine, that all the godly ought indeed to endeavor toward this mark, that they may one day appear spotless and faultless before the face of God: but because the best and most excellent manner of this life is nothing but a going forward, we shall then and not till then attain to this mark, when being unclothed of this flesh of sin we shall fully cleave to the Lord. Yet will I not stiffly strive with him who will give the title of perfection to the holy ones, so that he also limit the same with the words of Augustine himself. When (says he) we will call the virtue of the holy ones, perfect: to the same perfection also belongs the acknowledging of imperfection both in truth and in humility.

Now let us also work through the other arguments Satan uses through his agents to either overthrow or undermine justification by faith. I think we have already stripped the slanderers of the charge that we are enemies of good works. For justification is taken away from good works not so that no good works should be done, nor to deny that the ones being done are good — but so that we should not place our confidence in them, glory in them, or attribute salvation to them. For this is our confidence, our glory, and the sole author of our salvation: that Christ the Son of God is ours, and we likewise are in Him the sons of God, heirs of the heavenly kingdom — called by the goodness of God, not by our own worthiness, into the hope of eternal blessedness. But since, as we have said, they attack us with other weapons as well, let us press on and beat those aside too. First they return to the promises of the law — those which the Lord set forth for those who keep His law — and they ask whether we consider those promises to be utterly void or effective. Since it would be absurd and ridiculous to say they are void, they assume they must have some effect. From this they reason that we are not justified by faith alone. For the Lord says: 'And it shall come to pass, if you listen to these judgments and keep and do them, that the Lord your God will keep with you His covenant and His lovingkindness which He swore to your forefathers. He will love you and bless you and multiply you' (Deuteronomy 7:12-13). Again: 'If you will indeed direct your ways and your deeds, if you will practice justice between a man and his neighbor, then I will let you dwell in this place' (Jeremiah 7:3, 5-7). I will not cite a thousand passages of the same sort, which since they all carry the same meaning, will be answered by the solution to these. In short, Moses testifies that in the law are set before us blessing and curse, life and death (Deuteronomy 11:26). They therefore reason: either this blessing is made idle and fruitless, or justification is not by faith alone. We have already shown how, if we remain within the law, nothing hangs over us but the curse threatened to all transgressors — for God promises nothing except to perfect keepers of His law, and none such can be found. What remains, then, is that all humanity stands accused by the law and subject to its curse and to God's wrath. To be freed from this, people must be brought out from under the power of the law and brought, as it were, into freedom from its bondage — not the carnal freedom that would withdraw us from keeping the law and tempt us to think all things lawful, letting our desires run unchecked with the reins broken loose; but the spiritual freedom that comforts and lifts up a conscience that has been crushed and overthrown, showing it to be free from the curse and condemnation by which the law had bound and held it fast. This deliverance from subjection to the law — this liberation, as I might call it — we obtain when through faith we lay hold of God's mercy in Christ, by which we are certified and assured of the forgiveness of sins, whose sting the law had been pressing into us.

For this reason even the promises offered to us in the law would all be ineffective and void, unless the goodness of God came to help us through the Gospel. For the condition on which those promises depend — keeping the whole law — is the only means by which they could be fulfilled, and that condition is never met. The Lord helps not by leaving part of righteousness to our works and supplying the remainder with His merciful indulgence, but by setting Christ alone as the fulfillment of righteousness. For the apostle, after saying that he and other Jews had believed in Jesus Christ, knowing that a person is not justified by the works of the law, gives this reason: not that they might have the remaining portion of righteousness topped up by faith in Christ, but that they might be entirely justified by faith rather than by the works of the law. If the faithful turn away from the law to faith in order to find in faith the righteousness they see to be absent from the law, then truly they are abandoning the righteousness of the law. So let anyone who wishes amplify the rewards said to be prepared for the keeper of the law — but let him also consider that it is precisely our own perversity that prevents us from experiencing any fruit of them, until we have obtained another righteousness through faith. So David, when he spoke of the reward the Lord has prepared for His servants, immediately descended to an acknowledgment of sins by which that same reward is rendered void. So too in Psalm 19 he gloriously sets forth the benefits of the law — and then immediately cries out: 'Who can understand his errors? Cleanse me from hidden faults.' This corresponds exactly to another passage, where after saying that all the paths of the Lord are lovingkindness and truth to those who keep His covenant, he adds: 'For Your name's sake, O Lord, pardon my iniquity, for it is great.' So we also ought to acknowledge: that the good will of God is indeed set forth to us in the law — if we could deserve it by works — but that it never actually comes to us through the deserving of works.

How then — are those promises given only to vanish away without effect? I have already protested that this is not my meaning. What I say is that they do not produce their effect toward us so long as they look to the merit of works — and therefore if considered in themselves, they are in a certain sense abolished. The apostle teaches that the great promise — 'Keep My statutes and My judgments, by which, if a man observes them, he will live' — is of no value if we remain standing in it as it is. It will profit us no more than if it had never been given, because it belongs only to perfect keepers of the law, and none such exist. Even the most holy servants of God fall far short of fulfilling the law and are surrounded by many transgressions. But when the promises of the Gospel are placed before us instead — offering free forgiveness of sins — they bring it about that not only we ourselves become acceptable to God, but our works also receive His approval. And not only does the Lord accept them, but He also extends to them the blessings that were by covenant due to the keeping of the law. I grant, therefore, that the things the Lord promised in His law to those who pursue righteousness and holiness are rendered to the works of the faithful — but in that rendering, the cause that pours grace upon those works must always be recognized. There are three such causes. The first: God, turning His eyes away from the works of His servants — which always deserve reproach rather than praise — embraces them in Christ and by faith alone reconciles them to Himself without any contribution from works. The second: out of His fatherly kindness and tender mercy, He lifts works to such great honor — not weighing their worthiness — that He counts them as valuable. The third: He receives those same works with pardon, not imputing the imperfection by which they are all defiled, which would otherwise cause them to be reckoned as sins rather than virtues. This reveals how greatly the Sophists were mistaken when they thought they had cleverly avoided all difficulties by saying that works do not merit salvation by their own intrinsic goodness, but do so by the form of the covenant — because the Lord in His generosity has chosen to value them so highly. But they failed to see how far the works they wanted to call meritorious were from meeting the conditions of those promises, unless there first went ahead both a justification grounded in faith alone and the forgiveness of sins — by which even good works themselves need to be cleansed of their spots. Of the three causes of God's generosity by which the works of the faithful are made acceptable, they recognized only one and suppressed two — and those the principal ones.

They also cite Peter's statement recorded by Luke in Acts: 'I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.' From this they conclude — and consider it beyond question — that if a person, through right effort, obtains God's favor, then salvation is not entirely God's gift; or that God, out of His mercy, so helps the sinner that He is moved to mercy by works. But you cannot make Scripture agree with itself on this point unless you recognize a double acceptance of humanity by God. For as people are by nature, God finds in them nothing that might incline Him to mercy — only misery. If it is certain that when God first receives people they are naked and destitute of every good and on the other hand filled and loaded with all manner of evil — by what quality, I ask, shall we say they are worthy of the heavenly calling? Away, then, with the vain imagining of merits, when God so plainly sets forth His free mercy. As for what the angel said to Cornelius in the same passage — that his prayers and alms had come up as a memorial before God — these people most wrongly twist it to mean that a person prepares himself to receive God's grace through good works. For Cornelius must already have been enlightened by the Spirit of wisdom, since he possessed true wisdom — namely the fear of God. And he must have been sanctified by the same Spirit, since he was pursuing righteousness, which the apostle teaches is a sure fruit of that Spirit. All those things in him that are said to have pleased God he had from God's grace — so far was he from having prepared himself to receive it by his own effort. Truly not one syllable of Scripture can be found that disagrees with this teaching: that there is no other reason for God to receive a person than that He sees the person would be entirely lost if left to himself — and because He is unwilling to see that person lost, He exercises His own mercy in delivering him. We see, then, how this acceptance has no regard to the righteousness of the person but is a pure expression of God's goodness toward those who are miserable and most unworthy of so great a benefit.

But after the Lord has drawn a person up out of the deep pit of destruction and separated him for Himself by the grace of adoption — having now begotten him and reshaped him into new life — He now embraces him as a new creature with the gifts of His Spirit. This is the acceptance Peter speaks of, by which the faithful — after their calling — are welcomed by God even with respect to their works. For the Lord cannot help but love and cherish the good things He works in them by His Spirit. But this must always be remembered: they are acceptable to God with respect to their works only in this sense — that for their sake, and on their account, He graciously chooses to accept what good works He has given them, as a further expression of His generosity. For where do they have good works, except that the Lord, having chosen them as vessels of honor, also adorns them with true godliness? And how are those works counted as good, as though nothing were lacking in them, except that the kind Father tenderly pardons the deformities and spots that cling to them? In short, what Peter means in that passage is simply this: that to God, His children are acceptable and beloved in whom He sees the marks and features of His own face. For we have taught elsewhere that regeneration is a restoring of God's image in us. Therefore, wherever the Lord beholds His own face, He rightly loves it and holds it in honor. It is not without reason that the life of the faithful, shaped toward holiness and righteousness, is said to please Him. But because the godly, being clothed in mortal flesh, are still sinners and their good works are only begun and tainted by the weakness of the flesh — He cannot be favorable to either the people or their works unless He embraces them more in Christ than in themselves. In this way are we to understand all the passages that testify to God's kindness and mercy toward those who pursue righteousness. Moses said to the Israelites: 'Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation' — a sentence that afterward became a common expression among the people. So Solomon in his solemn prayer says: 'O Lord, the God of Israel, there is no God like You in heaven above or on earth beneath, keeping covenant and showing lovingkindness to Your servants who walk before You with all their heart.' The same words are also repeated by Nehemiah. For in all the covenants of His mercy, the Lord requires uprightness and holiness of life from His servants — so that His goodness would not be mocked, and so that no one would swell with self-congratulation and bless his own soul while walking in the perverseness of his own heart. By this means He keeps in duty those admitted into the fellowship of the covenant. Yet the covenant itself is both made freely at the beginning and remains free perpetually. So also David, when he glories that reward was rendered to him for the cleanness of his hands, does not omit the fountain I have spoken of — that he was drawn out from the womb because God loved him. In this way he sets forth the goodness of his cause while taking nothing away from the free mercy that precedes all gifts and is the source of them all.

It will be useful here to touch briefly on how these ways of speaking differ from the promises of the law. By 'promises of the law' I mean not all the promises scattered throughout the books of Moses — for many Gospel promises are found there as well — but those promises that belong specifically to the ministry of the law. Such promises, by whatever name you call them, declare that a reward is ready on the condition that you do what is commanded. But when it is said that the Lord keeps His covenant of mercy to those who love Him, what is being shown is what kind of people His servants are who have faithfully received His covenant — not the reason why the Lord should do good to them. This is how it works: as the Lord deigns to give us the grace of eternal life so that He might be loved, feared, and honored by us, so all the promises of His mercy in Scripture are rightly directed toward this purpose — that we should revere and worship the author of these benefits. Therefore, as often as we hear that He does good to those who keep His law, let us remember that the children of God are there being described by the duty that should be constant in them — that we are adopted for this purpose, that we might honor Him as our Father. Therefore, lest we disinherit ourselves from the right of adoption, we must always strive toward the goal to which our calling directs us. But let us also keep this in mind: the fulfillment of God's mercy does not depend on the works of the faithful. Rather, He fulfills His promise of salvation to those who answer their calling with uprightness of life because in them He recognizes the natural marks of His children, who are governed by His Spirit toward what is good. Here belongs what is said in Psalm 15 about the citizens of God's kingdom: 'Lord, who may dwell on Your holy hill? He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness,' and so on. And again in Isaiah: 'Who among us can live with the consuming fire? He who walks righteously and speaks with sincerity,' and so on. For there is not being described the ground on which the faithful stand before the Lord, but the manner in which the most merciful Father brings them into His fellowship and there defends and strengthens them. For because He hates sin, He loves righteousness. Those whom He joins to Himself He cleanses with His Spirit, in order to conform them to Himself and His kingdom. Therefore if the question is about the first cause by which the way into God's kingdom is opened to the saints — what enables them to stand firm and remain in it — the answer is ready: the Lord has both once adopted them by His mercy and perpetually defends them. But if the question is about the manner of their life in that kingdom, then we must come to regeneration and its fruits, which are described in that Psalm.

But there appears to be much greater difficulty in certain passages that both describe good works with the title of righteousness and affirm that a person is justified by them. In the first category there are many passages where the observances of the commandments are called 'justifications' or 'righteousnesses.' In the second category, this is an example from Moses: 'It will be righteousness for us if we are careful to observe all this commandment before the Lord our God' (Deuteronomy 6:25). And if you respond that this is a promise of the law bound to an impossible condition — and therefore proves nothing — there are other texts to which you cannot give the same answer: 'It will be righteousness for you before the Lord your God, if you return the pledge to the poor man at sunset' (Deuteronomy 24:13). Again, what the prophet says: that Phinehas's zeal in avenging the dishonor done to Israel was counted to him as righteousness (Psalm 106:31). The Pharisees of our day therefore think they have great grounds for triumph here. For when we say that the righteousness of faith puts the justification of works in its place — they make this argument by the same logic: if righteousness belongs to works, then it is false that we are justified by faith alone. I grant that the commandments of the law are called righteousnesses — for indeed they are. However, readers should be warned that the Greek translators did not render the Hebrew word hukkim accurately when they translated it as dikaiomata, meaning righteousnesses, instead of commandments. But I willingly drop that verbal dispute. For we do not deny to God's law that it contains perfect righteousness. Even though, because we owe everything the law commands, even full obedience to it would make us only unprofitable servants — still, because the Lord has seen fit to honor the law with the title of righteousness, we do not take away what He has given it. We therefore readily confess that full obedience to the law is righteousness, and that keeping each commandment is a part of righteousness — if the whole sum of righteousness were present in every other part as well. But we deny that any such righteousness is found anywhere. And therefore we deny the righteousness of the law not because it is defective or imperfect in itself, but because it is nowhere seen due to the weakness of our flesh. But Scripture not only calls the commandments of God righteousnesses; it also gives this name to the works of holy people — as when it says that Zechariah and his wife walked in all the righteousnesses of the Lord (Luke 1:6). When it speaks this way, it is measuring works by the nature of the law rather than by their actual state. However, the same caution applies here that I mentioned just now: the translator's imprecision is not a binding rule. But since Luke did not alter the received translation, I will not argue the point further. For God has given the commandments in the law to people as righteousness — but this righteousness is only fulfilled by keeping the whole law, and every transgression breaks it. Therefore since the law prescribes nothing but righteousness: when we look at the law itself, each commandment is righteousness; but when we look at the people who do those things, they do not gain the praise of righteousness from one act while being transgressors in many others, and even in that one act there is always partial failure due to imperfection.

Now I come to the second type, which is where the chief difficulty lies. Paul has nothing stronger to prove the righteousness of faith than what is written of Abraham — that his faith was credited to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6). Since then it is said that the act done by Phinehas was credited to him as righteousness (Psalm 106:31), what Paul concludes about faith, our opponents say we may equally conclude about works. Our adversaries therefore, as though they had won the day, conclude that we are indeed not justified without faith, but that we are also not justified by faith alone — and that works complete our righteousness. I therefore ask the godly, if they know that the true rule of righteousness must be drawn from Scripture alone, to weigh carefully with me how Scripture can be made to agree with itself without distorting it. Since Paul knew that justification by faith is the refuge of those who have no righteousness of their own, he boldly concludes that all who are justified by faith are excluded from justification by works. And since it is certain that justification by faith is common to all the faithful, he concludes with equal boldness that no one is justified by works — but rather that people are justified entirely apart from any contribution from works. But there is a difference between disputing what works are worth in themselves and determining what account is to be made of them after the righteousness of faith has been established. If we assess works according to their own worthiness, we say they are unworthy to come before God's sight — and therefore a person has no works to boast of before God. Stripped of all help from works, he is justified by faith alone. We define righteousness this way: a sinner, received into union with Christ, is reconciled to God by His grace — his sins forgiven through the cleansing of Christ's blood, and clothed with Christ's righteousness as his own, he stands secure before the heavenly judgment seat. When forgiveness of sins goes before, the good works that follow are now evaluated differently from what they deserve on their own — because whatever is imperfect in them is covered by the perfection of Christ, and whatever spots or filthiness they carry is washed away by His purity, so it does not come before the examination of God's judgment. Therefore, when the guilt of all transgressions — which prevents people from bringing anything acceptable to God — is blotted out, and when the fault of imperfection — which also tends to defile even good works — is buried, the good works of the faithful are counted as righteous, or, which amounts to the same thing, are credited as righteousness.

Now if anyone uses this against me to undermine the righteousness of faith, I will first ask: is a person counted righteous for one or two holy acts, while being a transgressor of the law in everything else he does? That would be more than absurd. Then I will ask: is he counted righteous for many good works, if he is found guilty in any single point? No one will dare to affirm that, when the penalty the law declares cries out against it and pronounces all those accursed who have not fulfilled every commandment to the last detail. Furthermore, I will press further and ask: is there any work that can be charged with no impurity or imperfection? How could there be any such work before eyes before which even the stars are not pure enough and the angels not righteous enough? So opponents will be forced to grant that there is no good work that is not so tainted — both by accompanying transgressions and by its own corruption — that it cannot claim the honor of righteousness. Now, if it is certain that it is the righteousness of faith that enables works — which are otherwise impure, unclean, half-done, unworthy of God's sight, and far less worthy of His love — to be credited as righteousness, why do they boast of the righteousness of works in a way that destroys justification by faith, when without that justification their boasting of righteousness would be completely empty? Would they produce a viper's brood? That is what such statements from ungodly people amount to. They cannot deny that justification by faith is the beginning, foundation, cause, material, and substance of the righteousness of works — and yet they conclude that a person is not justified by faith because good works are also credited as righteousness. Therefore let us leave these follies aside and confess what is true: that if the righteousness of works — of whatever kind it may be — depends on justification by faith, it is by no means diminished by faith but actually confirmed — because through faith its power appears more clearly. Nor should we think that works are so commended after free justification that they then take over the role of justifying a person, or share that office with faith. For unless justification remains always complete, the impurity of works will be exposed. And there is no absurdity in saying that a person is so justified by faith that not only he himself is righteous but also his works are esteemed as righteous beyond what they actually deserve.

In this way we grant to works not only a partial righteousness — as our adversaries themselves would have it — but also that it is accepted by God as though it were a perfect and complete righteousness. But if we remember on what foundation this rests, all difficulty dissolves. For a work only then begins to be acceptable when it is received with pardon. And from where does pardon come, except that God beholds both us and all that is ours in Christ? Therefore, just as we — being grafted into Christ — appear righteous before God because our wickedness is covered by His innocence, so our works are also accepted as righteous because whatever fault is otherwise in them is buried in the purity of Christ and not counted against them. So we may rightly say that by faith alone not only we but also our works are justified. Now if the righteousness of works — of whatever kind — depends on faith and free justification and is produced by it, then it ought to be included under justification and stand below it as an effect under its cause. It is far from the case that it should be elevated to destroy or overshadow justification. So Paul, to drive people to acknowledge that our blessedness consists in God's mercy and not in works, presses especially on David's words: 'Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.' If anyone pushes back with the countless sayings in which blessedness seems to be attributed to works — such as: 'Blessed is the man who fears the Lord'; 'who has compassion on the poor'; 'who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked'; 'who endures temptation'; 'Blessed are those who keep justice'; 'the blameless'; 'the poor in spirit'; 'the meek'; 'the merciful,' and so on — they will not succeed in overturning what Paul says. For because the things commended in those passages are never found in a person in such a way that God accepts him on their account, it follows that a person is always miserable unless delivered from misery by the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, since all the kinds of blessedness praised in Scripture collapse and come to nothing — so that a person benefits from none of them until he has obtained blessedness through the forgiveness of sins, which then makes room for everything else — it follows that this is not only the highest and chief but the only blessedness. Unless you want it to be weakened by those who say it consists in faith alone. Now there is even less reason why the description of people as 'righteous' — which is commonly given to the faithful — should trouble us. I grant that they are called righteous because of their holy lives. But since they are striving toward righteousness rather than actually fulfilling righteousness itself, it is fitting that this righteousness — such as it is — yield to justification by faith, from which it derives whatever it is.

But they say we still have a problem with James, who openly fights against us. He teaches both that Abraham was justified by works and that we are all justified by works, not by faith alone. What then? Will they pit Paul against James? If they consider James a minister of Christ, his words must be understood in a way that does not contradict Christ speaking through Paul. The Holy Spirit declares through Paul that Abraham obtained righteousness by faith, not by works, and we also teach that all are justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Yet the same Holy Spirit teaches through James that both Abraham's righteousness and ours consist of works, not of faith alone. The Holy Spirit certainly does not contradict Himself. What agreement can there be between these two? It is enough for our opponents if they uproot the righteousness of faith that we insist must be deeply rooted. But they have no concern for giving consciences their peace. From this you can see that they attack the justification of faith but in the meantime set up no standard of righteousness where consciences can rest. So let them celebrate as they please, as long as their only victory is the destruction of all certainty of righteousness. They will achieve this miserable victory only where the light of truth is extinguished and the Lord lets the darkness of lies spread. But wherever God's truth stands, they will accomplish nothing. I therefore deny that the passage from James they constantly hold up against us -- like the shield of Achilles -- does anything at all for their case. To make this clear, first we must look at what the apostle is aiming at, and then we must note where our opponents go wrong. Since there were then many (as there always are in the church) who openly revealed their unbelief by neglecting all the proper works of the faithful, yet still boasted of the false name of faith, James mocks the foolish boldness of such people. His purpose is not to diminish the power of true faith in any way, but to show how foolishly those pretenders claimed the empty image of faith for themselves. Content with it, they ran carelessly into all kinds of sinful behavior. Once this foundation is understood, it will be easy to see where our opponents go wrong. They fall into two errors: one about the word "faith" and the other about the word "justify." When the apostle calls it a vain opinion far removed from true faith, he speaks by way of concession, without weakening the truth. He shows this at the beginning when he says: "What good is it, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith but has no works?" He does not say: if anyone has faith without works. He says: if anyone boasts of having it. He speaks even more plainly a little later, when he mockingly makes this supposed faith worse than what the devils know. And finally, he calls it dead. But you can understand clearly enough what he means from his definition. "You believe that there is one God." If this faith contains nothing more than believing God exists, then of course it will not justify. When this is removed from genuine faith, let us not think anything has been taken away from Christian faith, whose nature is far different. How does true faith justify us? By uniting us to Christ, so that being made one with Him we may share in His righteousness. Faith does not justify because it grasps the knowledge that God exists, but because it rests on the assurance of God's mercy.

We are not yet finished with the matter until we also examine the other error in the word "justify," since James places part of justification in works. If you want to make James agree both with the rest of Scripture and with himself, you must understand the word "justify" differently than Paul uses it. Paul says we are justified when the memory of our unrighteousness is wiped away and we are counted righteous. If James had meant the same thing, he would have been wrong to cite Moses' statement that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. For he puts it together this way: Abraham achieved righteousness by works because he did not hesitate at God's command to offer up his son. And so the Scripture was fulfilled that says he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. If it is absurd for the effect to come before its cause, then either Moses falsely testified that faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness, or Abraham did not earn righteousness by the obedience he showed in offering Isaac. Abraham was justified by his faith when Ishmael had not yet been conceived, and Ishmael was already grown before Isaac was born. Shall we then say Abraham earned righteousness by an act of obedience that came long afterward? Either James wrongly reversed the order (which would be wicked to think), or he did not mean to say Abraham was justified in the sense of deserving to be counted righteous. How then? It is clear that he is speaking about the demonstration of righteousness, not its imputation. It is as if he said: whoever is truly righteous by genuine faith proves their righteousness through obedience and good works, not by a bare and image-like mask of faith. In short, he does not debate how we are justified, but he requires a working righteousness from the faithful. Paul declares that people are justified without the help of works; James does not allow them to be considered righteous if they lack good works. Keeping this purpose in mind will free us from all difficulty. Our opponents are mainly deceived because they think James is defining the method of justification, when he is actually doing nothing more than tearing down the careless attitude of those who falsely used faith as an excuse for despising good works. No matter how many ways they twist James' words, they will squeeze out nothing but two conclusions: a vain, empty show of faith does not justify; and a faithful person, not content with such a pretense, demonstrates their righteousness through good works.

What they cite from Paul -- that the doers of the law, not the hearers, are justified -- does not help them at all. I will not use Ambrose's solution that Paul said this because the fulfillment of the law is faith in Christ. I see that it is merely an evasion, and one that is not needed when there is a broad, open road. In that passage, the apostle strikes down the Jews' foolish pride. They boasted in their mere knowledge of the law while being its greatest violators. To keep them from being so self-satisfied about their bare knowledge of the law, he warns them that if righteousness is sought from the law, not the knowledge of it but the practice of it is required. We certainly have no doubt that the righteousness of the law consists in works. Nor do we doubt that righteousness comes from the value and merits of works. But it is not yet proven that we are justified by works, unless someone can produce a person who has actually fulfilled the law. That Paul meant nothing different is shown clearly by the flow of the text. After condemning both Gentiles and Jews for unrighteousness in general, he descends to the specifics. He says those who sinned without the law will perish without the law (referring to the Gentiles), and those who sinned under the law will be judged by the law (referring to the Jews). Since the Jews proudly gloried in the law alone while overlooking their own transgressions, he adds what perfectly fits: the law was not made so that people could be made righteous by merely hearing it. Only when they obeyed it could it serve them. It is as if he said: "Do you seek righteousness in the law?" "Then do not boast about hearing it, which counts for little. Bring works by which you can prove the law was not given to you in vain." Since they were all destitute of such works, it followed that they were stripped of any right to glory in the law. We should therefore draw the opposite conclusion from Paul's argument. The righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works. No one can boast that they have satisfied the law through works. Therefore, there is no righteousness through the law.

They also cite passages where the faithful boldly present their righteousness for God's examination and ask that judgment be given according to it. Examples include: "Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and according to my integrity." Again: "Hear my righteousness, O God." "You have tested my heart and visited it in the night, and no wickedness was found in me." Again: "The Lord will reward me according to my righteousness and repay me according to the cleanness of my hands." "Because I have kept the ways of the Lord and have not wickedly departed from my God." "I shall be blameless and shall keep myself from my sin." Again: "Judge me, Lord, for I have walked in my integrity." "I have not sat with lying men; I will not associate with those who do wicked things." "Do not destroy my soul with the ungodly, my life with men of bloodshed, in whose hands are wicked schemes, whose right hand is full of bribes." "But I have walked in my integrity." I have already discussed the confidence the saints seem to draw simply from their works. These passages will not cause us much difficulty if they are understood according to their context. Now, that context is twofold. The saints did not want their entire lives examined so they could be condemned or acquitted based on their overall record. Instead, they bring a specific case before God for judgment. Nor do they claim righteousness measured against God's perfection, but only in comparison with wicked and evil people. First, when a person's justification before God is at issue, what is required is not a good record in one particular matter, but a consistent pattern of righteousness throughout their whole life. But when the saints call upon God to approve their innocence, they do not present themselves as completely guiltless and faultless in every respect. Rather, having placed their confidence of salvation in God's goodness alone, they still trust that He is the avenger of the poor who are unjustly oppressed. They commend to Him the cause in which innocent people are being wronged. When they appear alongside their adversaries before God's judgment seat, they do not boast of an innocence that could withstand God's pure scrutiny. But since they know that their integrity, righteousness, simplicity, and cleanness -- compared to the malice, stubbornness, cunning, and wickedness of their adversaries -- is known to and pleasing to God, they do not hesitate to call upon Him as judge between themselves and their enemies. So when David said to Saul, "The Lord reward each person according to his righteousness and truth," he did not mean that the Lord should examine everyone by His own standard and reward them by their merits. He was calling the Lord as witness of how great his innocence was compared with Saul's wickedness. When Paul boasts of having a good conscience -- that he served in the church with simplicity and integrity -- he does not mean he stands on such boasting before God. Compelled by the slanders of the wicked, he defends his faithful and honest dealing, which he knew was pleasing to the merciful kindness of God, against all malicious talk. We see what he says elsewhere: he knows nothing against himself, yet he is not thereby justified. He understood that God's judgment far surpasses the dim sight of human beings. However the godly may defend their innocence against the hypocrisy of the ungodly by calling upon God as witness and judge, when they have to do with God alone they all cry out with one voice: "If You, Lord, kept a record of sins, who could stand?" "Do not bring Your servant into judgment, for no living person will be justified in Your sight." Distrusting their own works, they gladly sing: "Your lovingkindness is better than life."

There are also other similar passages that may still detain us. Solomon says that whoever walks in integrity is righteous. Again: in the path of righteousness there is life, and in that path there is no death. In the same way, Ezekiel reports that whoever practices justice and righteousness will live. We neither deny nor obscure any of these. But let one of the sons of Adam come forward with such integrity. If there is none, then they must either perish before God's sight or flee to the sanctuary of mercy. We do not deny that for the faithful, their integrity, though only partial and imperfect, is a step toward immortality. But where does this come from? Only because God, having taken them into the covenant of grace, does not judge their works according to their merits but instead embraces them with fatherly kindness. By this we do not merely mean what the Scholastics teach: that works get their value from God's "accepting grace." They mean that works which by themselves fall short of earning righteousness under the law's standard are, through God's acceptance, raised to an equal value. But I say that these works, being stained both by other transgressions and by their own imperfections, have no value at all except insofar as the Lord tenderly grants pardon for both. In other words, He gives people free righteousness. The apostle's prayers for believers to have great perfection -- to be faultless and blameless on the day of the Lord -- should not be inappropriately brought in here. The Celestines of old used these words to claim that perfection of righteousness is possible in this life. But, like Augustine, we think a brief answer is sufficient: all the godly should certainly strive toward this goal -- to one day appear spotless and faultless before God. But since the best and most excellent life in this world is nothing more than a journey forward, we will not reach this goal until we have been freed from this sinful flesh and fully united with the Lord. Yet I will not stubbornly argue with anyone who wants to give the saints the title of perfection, as long as they also limit it with Augustine's own words. "When we call the virtue of the saints perfect," he says, "part of that very perfection is acknowledging imperfection, both in truth and in humility."