“Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity…”
Ps. 32:1-2
“‘Take away the filthy garments from him.’ And unto him He said, ‘Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.’… So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments.”
Zech. 3:4-5
“A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.”
Gal. 2:16
.
.
Subsections
Westminster Divines on
Christ’s Active Obedience
Eternal Justification
Union to Christ: Fount of Justification
Infant Baptism & Justification
Justifying Faith
Faith without Works does Not Justify
How Sanctification Differs from Justification
Tie Between Justification & Sanctification
Good Works: Necessary to Justification Consequently
Continuation of Justification
Justification at Judgment Day
Works Against Bellarmine: Justification
Reformed vs. Aquinas
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 45+
Books 25+
Quotes 2
Historical 8+
Latin 12+
Causes of 7+
Cross & Justification 3
Justification vs. Sanctification 1
Active vs. Passive 2
Justification without Any Meritorious Works 6
Justification before Faith? 6+
Faith as Condition 7
Faith as Instrument 6+
Faith Counted for Righteousness, Rom. 4:5 3
Faith: Never Alone 6
Christ’s Righteousness Ours? 4
God Knows but does Not Charge 2
Fault & Punishment Remitted 1
Forgiveness of Future Sins 5
Paul & James 3
Faith Does Not Include Repentance or Obedience 5
Certain Inherent Graces: Requisite to Justification 22+
Lutheran 2
Romanists Affirming Imputation of Christ’s Merits 4
Ecumenical Descriptions 2
Twofold Justification 14+
Contra:
Romanism 6
Arminianism 1
Baxter & Neonomianism 4
. Neonomian Writings 4
Socinianism 1
.
Articles
See also ‘Commentaries on the Apostles’ Creed’ on ‘The forgiveness of sins’.
.
Anthology of the Post-Reformation
Heppe, Heinrich – ch. 21, ‘Justification’ in Reformed Dogmatics ed. Ernst Bizer, tr. G.T. Thomson (1861; Wipf & Stock, 2007), pp. 543-65
Heppe (1820–1879) was a German reformed theologian.
.
1500’s
Melanchthon, Philip
ch. 17. ‘On Justification & Faith’ in The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon… tr. Charles L. Hill (1521; Boston: Meador Publishing, 1944), pp. 171-202
Though Melanchthon (1497–1560) was a Lutheran, this work of his was the first ‘systematic theology’ of the Reformation, and, as it was very influential on reformed systematic theologies following shortly thereafter.
Article 4, Of Justification in The Apology of the Augsburg Confession tr: F. Bente & W. H. T. Dau (1531)
What is Justifying Faith
That Faith in Christ Justifies
We Obtain Forgiveness of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ
Scripture Affirms this Teaching
The Church Fathers Affirm this Teaching
The Adversaries Reject this Teaching
Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, Loci Communes, 1555 tr. Clyde L. Manschreck (1555; NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1965)
10. ‘How Man Obtains Forgiveness of Sin & is Justified Before God’ 150-58
11. ‘Of the Word ‘Faith’’ 158-60
12. ‘Of the Word ‘Grace’’ 160-61
13. ‘Of the Word ‘Justification’ & ‘To be Justified’’ 161-75
Hamilton, Patrick – Patrick’s Places… (d. 1528; London: White, 1598)
Hamilton (1504–1528) was a proto-reformer and martyr in Scotland.
Calvin, John
16. ‘We are justified in Christ through Faith’ in Instruction in Faith (1537) tr. Paul T. Fuhrman (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), pp. 40-41
6. ‘Of Justification by Faith & by the Merit of Works’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1541 French Edition tr. Elsie A. McKee (1541; Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 318-85
Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote (1547)
On the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent
Antidote to the Canons of the Council of Trent, Canons 9-12
Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 2, bk. 3
11. ‘Of Justification by Faith. Both the name and reality defined’ 300
13. ‘Two things to be observed in Gratuitous Justification’ 344
14. ‘The beginning of Justification. In what sense progressive’ 351
Bullinger, Henry – 6th Sermon, ‘That the faithful are justified by faith without the Law and works’ in The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1849), vol. 1, 1st Decade, pp. 104-121
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 3
ch. 4. ‘That Justification is of Faith Only, not of Works’ 89-161
‘Of Peace’ in ch. 5. ‘Of Peace, Bondage, Christian Liberty, of Offense, of Conscience & of the Choice of Meats’, pp. 161-62
Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563)
‘Justification’ 222.a
What it is to justify 222.a
Who it is that does justify us 224.b
How God does justify us 225.a
In what respect we be justified of God 226.a
Wherein we be justified 226.b
To what purpose God does justify us 231.a
Becon, Thomas – 9. ‘Of Justification’ in Prayers & Other Pieces by Thomas Becon (d. 1567; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1844), The Common Places of Holy Scripture, pp. 329-31
Becon (c. 1511-1567) was an Anglican reformer, clergyman and a chaplain to Thomas Cranmer. He was initially significantly influenced by Luther, and then Zwingli.
de Brès, Guy – The Staff of Christian Faith… for to Know the Antiquity of our Holy Faith… gathered out of the Works of the Ancient Doctors of the Church… (London, 1577)
‘Of Freewill, of the Merits of Works & of Justification by Faith’ 51-70
‘Of Justification of Faith’ 107-33
de Bres (1522-1567) was a Walloon pastor, Protestant reformer and theologian, a student of Calvin and Beza in Geneva.
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573)
The Sum of the Principal Points of the Christian Faith
22. Of the Justification by Faith 20
A Familiar Exposition of the Principal Points of the Catechism, and of the Christian Doctrine, made in Form of Dialogue
4th Dialogue: Of the Justification & Sanctification of Man
Of the Faith in Jesus Christ, and of the Justification thereby
Of the Justification by faith & by works
Of the Satisfaction towards God by works
Of the Works whereby man may satisfy at the judgement of God
Of the Causes why justification is attributed to faith only
Of the Satisfaction by faith
Of the True spring of good works
Of the Accomplishing of the law in Jesus Christ, and of the difference that is between the justification and sanctification of a Christian man
Of the Distinction that ought to be had between the cause of our salvation, and the testimony of the same
Of the Difference that must be put between the sanctification by Christ, which is attributed unto us, and that which is joined to our person, as a quality sticking to the same
Of the Cause of the difference that is in these two kinds of Sanctification
Beza, Theodore
‘Faith & Justification’ no source info
A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1565), ch. 4
7. How this is to be understand, which we say, as St. Paul says, that we be justified by only faith
pp. 37-43, 45, 55-56 in A Book of Christian Questions & Answers… (London, 1574)
Olevian, Caspar – An Exposition of the Apostle’s Creed (London, 1581), pt. 2
Olevian (1536–1587) was a significant German reformed theologian, and has been said to be a co-author of the Heidelberg Catechism along with Zacharias Ursinus (though this has been questioned).
Prime, John – A Fruitful & Brief Discourse in Two Books: the One of Nature, the Other of Grace, with Convenient Answer to the Enemies of Grace, upon Incident Occasions Offered by the Late Rhemish Notes in their New Translation of the New Testament, & Others (London, 1583), bk. 2
‘How only faith does justify and save’
‘Of Justification, the Fullness & Freeness thereof, and the comfort that comes thereby’
‘Of the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto, and not inherent in a Christian man’
Prime (c.1549-1596) was a reformed Anglican clergyman and Oxford scholar.
Grynaeus, Johann J. & Francis Junius Sr. – ‘Theses on Justification by Faith’ tr. Charles Johnson in The Select Disputations of Franciscus Junius (d. 1602; 1584)
This work has also been translated at ReformedOrthodoxy.org (which includes the Latin), but Johnson’s translation is better. Grynaeus presided and Junius was the respondent. Junius has another disputation on the same topic, where he presided, below in the Latin section.
Zanchi, Girolamo – Confession of the Christian Religion… (1586; Cambridge, 1599), pp. 147-56 & 327-30
ch. 19, ’Of Justification’
. On Aphorism 6
. On the Last Aphorism
Ursinus, Zachary – The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587)
1. What of Justice or Righteousness in General is
2. How manifold Justice is
3. In what justice differs from justification
4. What is our justice
5. How Christ’s satisfaction is made our justice and righteousness
6. Why Christ’s satisfaction is made ours
7. Why Christ’s satisfaction is made ours by faith only
. Objections against this Doctrine of Justification
Hyperius, Andreas – ch. 6, ‘Of Faith, and how sinners are again justified through faith in Jesus Christ’ in The True Trial & Examination of a Man’s own self… (London: John Windet, 1587), pp. 177-89
Beza, Theodore, Anthony Faius & Students – Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva by Certain Students of Divinity there, under Mr. Theodore Beza & Mr. Anthony Faius… (Edinburgh: Waldegrave, 1591)
24. ‘Of Man’s Justification in the Sight of God’ 52
25. ‘Of the Justification of Sinful Man in the Sight of God’ 56
Beza, Theodore – A Defense of Justification by Faith Alone (1592) in Justification by Faith Alone: Selected Writings from Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Amandus Polanus (1561-1610), and Francis Turretin (1623-1687) (RHB, 2022)
Polanus, Amandus
pp. 93-94 of ‘Concerning our Communion with Christ’ in The Substance of the Christian Religion… (London: R.F., 1595)
The Free Justification of Man the Sinner before God (1615) in Justification by Faith Alone: Selected Writings from Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Amandus Polanus (1561-1610) & Francis Turretin (1623-1687) (RHB, 2022)
Perkins, William
4. The Justification of a Sinner in A Reformed Catholic… ([Cambridge] 1598)
37. Concerning the Second Degree of the Declaration of God’s Love in A Golden Chain (Cambridge: Legat, 1600)
Rollock, Robert – ‘Treatise on Justification’ trans. Aaron Clay Denlinger & Noah Phillips MAJT 27 (2016), pp. 99-110 This work was published posthumously in Rollock’s time.
Rollock (c. 1555-1599) was a Scottish minister.
.
1600’s
Trelcatius, Sr., Lucas – ‘On Justification’ in Opuscula Theologica Omnia, trans. AI at Confessionally Reformed Theology
Bucanus, William – 31. ‘Of Man’s Justification before God’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), pp. 328
What is the meaning of this word, ‘justifying’?
In which signification did Paul use this word in the doctrine of the justification of a man before God?
How many ways is a man said by St. Paul to be justified?
What does this signify, ‘to be justified by works’?
What does this signify, ‘to be justified by faith’?
What is justification?
What be the parts of justification?
What is the efficient cause of justification?
What is the cause of justification working together with God?
What is the precedent cause?
What is the meritorious or material cause of our justification, that is to say, for the which we are justified?
What do you understand by the name of Christ’s righteousness?
How many kinds are there of Christ’s obedience?
Tell me whether beside this passive righteousness, the active obedience of Christ also, whereby He did fulfill the law, be imputed unto us by God for righteousness, that is to say, whether are we justified for the obedience that He performed unto the law? Or whether is our salvation only to be ascribed to the death and passion of Christ, or else to his active life and to his inherent holiness also?
Why then is Christ said to be set forth of God a reconciliation through faith in his blood, Rom. 3:25, and we are said to be justified by the blood of Christ? Rom. 5:9, and by it to be cleansed from all sin? 1 Jn. 1:7
How are we said to be justified freely if we be justified for the merit of Christ?
What is the subject of justification?
Seeing God forbids to justify the ungodly, Prov. 17:15, is He said to do that well which He Himself forbids?
Does the justification of those that do already believe and are regenerate differ nothing from the justification of those that are not yet regenerate?
Who are they that are justified?
Are all justified after one and the same manner?
What is the form of justification?
What signifies this word ‘impute’?
How many kinds of imputation are there?
Seeing we do owe unto God the punishment of our sins and are guilty of everlasting death, by which imputation are we discharged, by that which is real, or by that which is free?
Will not justification by this means fall out to be a kind of imaginary matter, or a fiction of law?
But is it not an absurd thing to say that we are justified by another man’s righteousness, even as to live by another man’s life, or to be white by another man’s whiteness is a thing impossible?
How does the righteousness of the Law and the righteousness of the Gospel differ?
What thing is there agreeable unto justification, or of the like nature with it?
Can regeneration be separated from justification?
Do justification and sanctification agree in nothing?
Is there any difference between justification and the giving of the Holy Ghost?
Which is the difference between justification and renovation?
What are the instruments or means of justification?
In what sense then are we said to be justified by faith?
How then is faith said to be imputed for righteousness?
Why is the exclusive particle, ‘alone,’ added in this proposition, ‘We are justified by faith alone?’
Can this exclusive particle, ‘alone,’ be proved by Scripture?
What then is it that the particle, ‘only’ or ‘alone,’ does exclude in that sentence, wherein we are said to be justified only by faith, or by faith alone?
But why does Paul add, Rom. 4:6, ‘Without the works of the law’?
But what works are they that Paul does here exclude?
Why then does St. James, 2:21, say that Abraham was justified by works?
What was the state of the question concerning justification in St. Paul’s time, or whereof was the controversy in old time?
By what arguments or reasons does the apostle Paul take away from works the cause of justification?
By what arguments does the apostle confirm the righteousness of faith?
What is the end of our justification?
What are the adjuncts of justification?
What is the effect of justification?
Is our justification perfected in this life?
Can the benefits of justification perish by reason of our sins?
When is the use and necessity of the doctrine of justification felt and perceived?
What things are there repugnant and contrary to this doctrine of justification by faith?
Berauld, Michel – ‘Theological Theses on the Justification of Man Before God’ tr. by AI by Chaznvo (Salmur, 1607) Latin
Bérauld (1537-1611) was a French reformed professor of theology at Montauban and Saumur.
Trelcatius, Jr., Lucas
Disputation 24, ‘On the Justification of Man before God’ in A System of Theological Disputations. This is the same disputation as is in Gomarus, Trelcatius, Jr. & Arminius, System of Theological Disputations.
‘Theological Theses on Justifying Faith & the Justification of Faith’ (Leiden: Patius, 1603)
‘Theological Disputation on the Justification of a Man before God’ (Leiden: Patius, 1604)
bk. 2, ch. 9, ‘Of Man’s Justification Before God’ in A Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinity… (d. 1607; 1610)
Trelcatius, Jr. (1573-1607) was a professor of theology at Leiden, Netherlands.
Tuke, Thomas – The Highway to Heaven: or, the Doctrine of Election, Effectual Vocation, Justification, Sanctification & Eternal life. Grounded upon the Holy Scriptures, confirmed by the Testimonies of Sundry Judicious & Great Divines, Ancient & Modern. Compiled by Thomas Tuke (London: Nicholas Okes, 1609)
ch. 5, ‘What Justification is. All the Causes of it. Five Effects of it. The Subjects & Time of it…’
ch. 7, ‘Three things wherein Justification & Sanctification Agree. Seven Points in which they Disagree’
Ames, William – ch. 27, ‘Justification’ in The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997), bk. 1, pp. 160-64
Ames (1576-1633) was an English, puritan, congregationalist, minister, philosopher and controversialist. He spent much time in the Netherlands, and is noted for his involvement in the controversy between the reformed and the Arminians. Voet highly commended Ames’s Marrow for learning theology.
Thysius, Anthony – 33. ‘On the Justification of Man in the Sight of God’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 2, pp. 304-42
Wolleb, Johannes – 30. ‘Justification’ in Abridgment of Christian Divinity (1626) in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), bk. 1, pp. 164-71
Wolleb (1589–1629) was a Swiss reformed theologian. He was a student of Amandus Polanus.
Andrewes, Lancelot – ‘Of Justification in Christ’s Name’ in vol. 5 (d. 1626), sermon 5, p. 112 ff. May be in his 96 Sermons
Placeus, Joshua – ‘Theological Theses on the Justification of Man before God’ (1634)
Alsted, Johann H. – ‘On Justification & Good Works in General’ in Theologia polemica, exhibens praecipuas huius aeui in religionis negotio controuersias sex in partes tributa studio (d. 1638) at Nosferatu’s Substack (2024)
Rutherford, Samuel
Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: the Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter tr. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (1638-1642; 1668; RBO, 2019), ch. 12
section 3, ‘Whether the act of believing is imputed to the believer properly, so that it is therefore his righteousness formally before God? We deny against the Remonstrants and Jesuits.’, pp. 103-5
section 10, ‘Whether good works are necessary as causes of justification, and therefore also of salvation? We deny against the Remonstrants and Papists.’, pp. 105-110
ch. 12, ‘On the Justification of a Sinner’ in Examination of Arminianism tr. by AI by Monergism (1639-1642; Utrecht, 1668; 2024), pp. 469-514
1. Whether we are justified by faith alone, not by our works? We affirm against the Jesuits and Remonstrants. Latin
2. Whether God justly imputes the righteousness of Christ to us? We affirm against the Remonstrants, Papists, and Socinians. Latin
* 3. Whether the act of believing is imputed to the believer properly, so that it is therefore his righteousness formally before God? We deny against the Remonstrants and Jesuits. Latin
4. Whether, by the grace of God which is granted to the faithful in this life, the law can be fulfilled perfectly? We deny against the Remonstrants, Papists, and Socinians. Latin
5. Whether a distinction should be made between mortal and venial sin? We respond with a distinction. Latin
6. Whether there is any sin under the New Covenant which is by its nature venial? We deny against the Remonstants and Papists. Latin
7. Whether the most excellent works of the regenerate are polluted with sin? We affirm against the Remonstrants and Papists. Latin
8. Whether the wrestling between the Spirit and the flesh in the regenerate is perpetual and culpable? We affirm against the Remonstrants. Latin
9. Whether the Apostle speaks of the regenerate man in Rom. 7? We affirm against the Remonstrants and Papists. Latin
10. Whether good works are necessary as causes of justification, and therefore also of salvation? We deny against the Remonstrants and Papists. Latin
11. Whether justification is a singular, complete, enduring, and unrepeatable act? We affirm against the Remonstrants. Latin
12. Whether faith only justifies as an instrument? We affirm against the Remonstrants. Latin
13. Whether faith is a token of special mercy? We affirm against the Remonstrants. Latin
14. Whether the Word is the one and only instrument, either preparatory or consummatory, of the internal generation of faith, so that therefore no immediate action of the Spirit is required? We deny against the Remonstrants. Latin
Maccovius, John – ch. 13, ‘On Justification’ in Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological & Philosophical Distinctions & Rules (1644; Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009), pp. 231-39
Maccovius (1588–1644) was a reformed, supralapsarian Polish theologian.
Benbrigge, John – Christ above all Exalted, as in Justification so in Sanctification, wherein Several Passages in Dr. Crisp’s Sermons are Answered, Delivered in a Sermon… (London: Stafford, 1645) 40 pp.
This work appears orthodox, and good. Tobias Crisp was an antinomian.
Fisher, Edward – pp. 60-172 of The Marrow of Modern Divinity… (London: Leybourn, 1646)
Voet, Gisbert – Some Problems on Justification, parts 1-6 tr. by AI in Select Theological Disputations, vol. 5, pp. 277-339
Pawson, John – A Brief Vindication of Free Grace… relating to Several Positions Asserted by Mr. John Goodwin in his late Book entitled, Redemption Redeem’d, and in his former Treatise of Justification: Delivered in a Sermon… (London: Peter Cole, 1652) 24 pp.
Pawson (c.1619-1654?). This is orthodox and good. See the fuller title for the positions he argues.
Woodbridge, Benjamin – Justification by Faith: or, a Confutation of that Antinomian Error, that Justification is Before Faith; being the Sum & Substance of a Sermon (London: John Field, 1652) 36 pp.
Woodbridge (1622-1684)
Mather, Richard – The Sum of Certain Sermons upon Gen. 15:6, wherein Not Only the Doctrine of Justification by Faith is Asserted & Cleared, & Sundry Arguments for Justification before Faith, Discussed & Answered: but also the Nature & the Means of Faith, with the Imputation of our Sins to Christ, and of Christ’s Righteousness to us are Briefly Explained & Confirmed (Cambridge, MA: Samuel Green, 1652) 45 pp.
Hoornbeek, Johannes – ‘Theological Disputation on the Justification of a Man before God’ tr. Onku with AI (Utrecht, 1654) Latin
“IV. We define justification as the action of God by which he absolves from the penalty of sin a predestined man, wicked in himself and dead in sins, on account of Christ’s merit, through faith, by sheer grace.”
Leigh, Edward – A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 7
ch. 6. Of Justification, pp. 512-19
ch. 7. Of the Parts & Terms of Justification, Remission of Sins & Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness, pp. 519-22
ch. 9. Whether one may be Certain of his Justification, pp. 524-28
ch. 10. Whether Faith Alone does Justify, pp. 528-30
Chewney, Nicholas – ‘Fourthly, concerning a Sinner’s Justification before God’ in Anti-Socinianism, or a Brief Explication of Some Places of Holy Scripture for the confutation of certain gross errors & Socinian heresies, lately published by William Pynchion… concerning… 4. The justification of a sinner… (London: J.M., 1656), pp. 89-123
Durham, James – ch. 3, Lecture 3, ‘Concerning the way of Covenanting with God, and of a sinner’s obtaining justification before Him’ in A Commentary upon the Book of the Revelation (Edinburgh, 1658), pp. 234-48
Amyraut, Moses – ‘Two Sermons on Justification & Sanctification’ (Saumur: Desbordes, 1658) French
Hoornbeek, Johannes – ‘Of Justification’ in Institutes of Theology, gathered out of the Best Authors (Leiden: Moyard, 1658), trans. AI Latin at Confessionally Reformed Theology
Hoornbeek (1617-1666). This systematic largely replaced the Leiden Synopsis (1625) in seminaries in the Netherlands. It is wholly comprised of choice, extended quotes from previous, standard reformed authors.
Hyde, Edward – ch. 6, ‘Of Justification’ in A Christian Vindication of Truth against Error concerning these Controversies… 6. Of justification by faith… (London: White, 1659), pp. 359-470
Hyde (1607-1659). This appears orthodox.
Brinsley, John – ‘The Doctrine of Justification’ in Gospel-Marrow, the Great God giving Himself for the Sons of Men: or, The Sacred Mystery of Redemption by Jesus Christ, with Two of the Ends Thereof, Justification & Sanctification. Doctrinally opened, and practically applied… (London: S. Griffin, 1659), pp. 125-68
Ussher, James – Eighteen Sermons preached in Oxford 1640 of Conversion unto God… Justification by Christ (London: S. Griffin, 1660)
Sermon on Rom. 5:1, pp. 382-403
Sermon on Rom. 5:1, pp. 404-24
Sermon on Rom. 5:1, pp. 425-44
Sermon on Rom. 5:1-2, pp. 445-64
Vincent, Thomas – ch. 9, ‘The Justification of the Ungodly by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ Asserted & Proved’ in The Foundation of God Stands Sure, or, A Defence of those Fundamental & so generally believed doctrines of the Trinity… of the Justification of the Ungodly by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, against the Cavils of W.P.J. a Quaker… (London: 1668), pp. 68-74
Ferguson, Robert – Justification only upon a Satisfaction, or the Necessity & Verity of the Satisfaction of Christ as the Alone Ground of Remission of Sin Asserted & Opened Against the Socinians… (London: Newman, 1668)
Chapters 1-3 & 9 deal with justification expressly.
Danson, Thomas – A Synopsis of Quakerism, or, A Collection of the Fundamental Errors of the Quakers… (London, 1668)
Error 3, ‘That we are not justified by imputed righteousness, W. Pen.’, pp. 39-46
Error 4, ‘That our Good Works (as they are wrought in the Spirit) are a Meritorious (or deserving) Cause of our Justification’, pp. 46-54
Voet, Gisbert – ‘Some Problems on Justification’ in Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht: Waesberge, 1669), vol. 5 trans. AI at Confessionally Reformed Theology
Le Blanc de Beaulieu, Louis – Theological Theses Published at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica (1675; London, 1683) Latin
Justifying faith: its nature and essence, distinction from historical, dead and idle faith: various opinions of Protestants 297
. pt. 2, Roman doctrine is compared with Protestant 338
Subject of faith, or on the faculty to which faith adheres, and on connection of faith with charity and good works 352
Use of word ‘justification’ in Scriptures and the schools 362
How we are justified by faith 373
On righteousness through the grace of Christ inherent in believers 389
Righteousness of Christ imputed to believers 404
Whether and how sin is removed in those who are justified 412
Certainty one can and should have about justification, pt. 1, Reformed view 419
. pt. 2, Roman opinion; state of the controversy is gathered and examined 426-45
Le Blanc (1614-1675) was a French reformed professor of theology at Sedan.
Heidegger, Johann H. – ‘The Glory & Corruption of the Church, or a Dissertation on the Justification of a Man’ (1676) in Various Disputations tr. by AI by Onku (d. 1698), pp. 227-46 Latin
Brown of Wamphray, John – Ch. 4, ‘How Christ is Made Use of for Justification, as a Way’ in Christ the Way & the Truth & the Life… (Rotterdam: H.G., 1677), pp. 41-72
Marshall, Walter – ‘The Doctrine of Justification Opened & Applied’ on Rom. 3:23-26 in The Gospel-Mystery of Sanctification… to which is Added a Sermon on Justification (d. 1680; NY: Robert Carter, 1859), pp. 296-320
Turretin, Francis
The Harmony of Paul & James on the Article of Justification (1687) in Justification by Faith Alone: Selected Writings from Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Amandus Polanus (1561-1610) & Francis Turretin (1623-1687) (RHB, 2022)
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 2, 16th Topic
1. ‘Is the word “justification” always used in a forensic sense in this argument; or is it also used in a moral and physical sense? The former we affirm; the latter we deny against the Romanists.’ 633
2. ‘Is the impulsive and meritorious cause (on account of which man is justified in the judgment of God) inherent righteousness infused into us or good works? We deny against the Romanists.’ 637
3. ‘Is the righteousness and obedience of Christ imputed to us the meritorious cause and foundation of our justification with God? We affirm against the Romanists and Socinians.’ 646
4. ‘Does justification consist only in the remission of sins? Or does it embrace also adoption and the right to life? The former we deny and affirm the latter.’ 656
Harrison, Michael – Christ’s Righteousness Imputed, the Saint’s Surest Plea for Eternal Life, or the Glorious Doctrine of Free-Justification, by the Imputation of the Pure & Spotless Righteousness of Jesus Christ, Stated, Cleared, Vindicated… being the Substance of Several Sermons on Isa. 45:24-25 (London: William & Joseph Marshall, 1690) 24 pp.
Cole, Thomas – The Incomprehensibleness of Imputed Righteousness for Justification by Human Reason, till Enlightened by the Spirit of God, Preached in Two Sermons… (London: Thomas Cockerill, 1692) 54 pp.
Rijssen, Leonardus – ‘On Justification’ trans. J. Wesley White (1692) 12 pp. from his A Complete Sum of Elenctic and Instructive Theology in MJT 16 (2005), pp. 115-31
Riissen (1636-1700) was a Dutch reformed minister and theologian who never served an academic post.
Baxter, Richard – ch. 27, sect. 3, ‘On Threefold Justification’ in On the Atonement, Justice, Merit & Justification, pp. 37-86 in A Method of Christian Theology (London: White, 1681)
Keach, Benjamin
The Marrow of True Justification, or, Justification without Works, containing the Substance of Two Sermons lately preached on Rom. 4:5, wherein the nature of justification is opened, as it hath been formerly asserted by all sound Protestants, and the present prevailing errors against the said doctrine detected (London: Dorman Newman, 1692)
Keach was a Calvinistic baptist.
‘Some Short Reflections on Mr. Samuel Clark’s New Book entitled Scripture Justification‘ in Christ Alone the Way to Heaven, or Jacob’s Ladder improved containing four sermons… to which is added… Some Short Reflections… (London: Benjamin Harris, 1698)
Anon. – A Brief Account of the State of the Differences Now Depending & Agitated about Justification, & Some Other Points of Religion declaring Plainly wherein Both Sides Agree & wherein they Differ (London: Thomas Cockerill, 1692)
This document first lists the agreements of the unnamed parties in justification, which are in the main orthodox (there is a question of qualification in at least one of them). Next, the disagreements are listed, revealing tenets which appear to reflect neonomianism and antinomianism. The author’s perspective is on the more orthodox side.
Lobb, Stephen – A Peaceable Inquiry into the Nature of the Present Controversy among our United Brethren about Justification (London: John Dunton, 1693)
Taylor, Thomas – The True Light Shining in Darkness… in the Matter of our Justification: shewing, that by the deeds of the law, or mans own righteousness, no flesh can or shall be justified in the sight of God (London: Crouch, 1693)
Keach, Elias – A Plain & Familiar Discourse on Justification being the Substance of Four Sermons… (London: John Harris, 1694)
Gibbon, John – The Nature of Justification Opened in a Sermon on Romans 5:1 (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1695)
Harley, Edward – A Scriptural & Rational Account of the Christian Religion, Particularly concerning Justification only by the Propitiation & Redemption of the Lord Jesus Christ (London: J. Luntley, 1695)
Bright, George – Six Sermons Preached before the Late Incomparable Princess Queen Mary, at White-Hall with Several Additions & Large Annotations to the Discourse of Justification by Faith (London: J.H. for Walter Kettilby, 1695)
Anon. – Actual Justification Rightly Stated, containing a True Narrative of a Sad Schism made in a church of Christ at Kilby in Leicester-shire, Proving None of the Elect are Actually Justified before Faith (London: B. Harris, 1696)
Tomlyns, Samuel – Jehovah our Righteousness, or the Justification of Believers by the Righteousness of Christ Only Asserted & Applied in Several Sermons (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1696?)
Heidegger, Johann H. – 22. ‘On the Grace of Justification’ in The Concise Marrow of Theology tr. Casey Carmichael in Classic Reformed Theology, vol. 4 (1697; RHB, 2019), pp. 153-61
van Mastricht, Peter
ch. 6, ‘The Justification of those to be Redeemed’ in Theoretical Practical Theology (2nd ed. 1698; RHB), vol. 5, pt. 1, bk. 6
‘The Three Periods of Justification’ (1698) tr. Mark Jones in Jones, Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest? (2013)
Mastricht (1630-1706) was a Dutch reformed professor of theology.
.
1700’s
Witsius, Herman – Concilatory, or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians & Neonomians trans. Thomas Bell (Glasgow, 1807)
ch. 6, ‘Whether the elect are united to Christ before faith, and whether, not only the fruits of his righteousness, but also it itself is imputed to them’, pp. 67-73
Neonomians (such as Humfrey below, contra Davenant) had distinguished that the believer only receives the effects and fruits of Christ’s righteousness, but not Christ’s righteousness itself as his own. Witsius defends the position that the believer receives Christ’s righteousness itself as his own, quoting Davenant’s quotes of Chrysostom in support, as well as the Heidelberg Catechism.
ch. 7, ‘Concerning Paul’s judgment in the matter of justification’, pp. 73-86
Neonomians, in requiring a certain gospel-obedience in justification and the continuation of it, claimed that Paul, in denouncing justification by the works of the law, was only excluding Mosaic, ceremonial works. Witsius argues from the larger historical context of Paul’s argument in Romans and Galatians that Paul was also excluding moral works of a person’s entire life in justification.
ch. 10, ‘What relation faith has to justification’, pp. 108-119
ch. 12, ‘The Explication of Certain Paradoxes’, pp. 122-28
ch. 13, ‘Our judgment concerning these paradoxes’, pp. 129-44
Halyburton, Thomas
Works (d. 1712)
‘A Modest Inquiry whether Regeneration or Justification has the Precedency in Order of Nature’, pp. 547-58
Halyburton was a Scottish minister.
“…the vindication of the commonly received opinion, viz. That though they are agreed on all hands, to be at one and the same time; yet regeneration in order of nature precedes justification.” – p. 548
‘An Inquiry into the Nature of God’s Act of Justification’, pp. 559-68
Trail, Robert – A Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine concerning Justification… from the Unjust Charge of Antinomianism, in a Letter… in The Works… 4 vols. In 2 new ed. (d. 1716; Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1810), vol. 1, pp. 252-96
Trail (1642-1716) was Scottish and became an English presbyterian minister. This work has been considered a classic.
Dickinson, Jonathan – ‘A Discourse on Justification by Faith’ in The True Scripture Doctrine concerning Some Important Points of Christian Faith… (d. 1747; Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, n.d.), pp. 179-218
Witherspoon, John – An Essay on the Connection Between the Doctrine of Justification by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ & Holiness of Life in Treatises on Justification & Regeneration… 3rd ed. (Glasgow: Collins, 1830), pp. 21-87
Witherspoon (1723–1794)
.
1800’s
Buchanan, James – ‘The Immediate & Only Ground of Justification: The Imputed Righteousness of Christ’ 16 paragraphs, no source info, probably from his The Doctrine of Justification
Girardeau, John – ‘The Doctrine of Justification: its Ground, Nature & Condition’ (1890), p. 417 ff. 148 pp. being Part II of his Calvinism & Evangelical Arminianism
Hodge, Charles
Commentary on Rom. 5:12-21, on Adam, Original Sin, Imputation, Christ, Justification, etc.
‘Delivered from the Law as a Rule of Justification – Now Joined to Christ’ in Way of Life
‘Justification’ in Systematic Theology, vol. 3, Buy 21 pp.
Vos, Geerhardus – ch. 5, ‘Justification’ in Reformed Dogmatics tr: Richard Gaffin 1 vol. ed. Buy (1896; Lexham Press, 2020), vol. 4, ‘Soteriology’, pp. 743-92
.
1900’s
Berkhof, Louis – ‘Justification’ (1950) 38 paragraphs, in Systematic Theology
Gerstner, John – A Primer on Justification (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1983) 26 pp. no ToC
McMahon, C. Matthew – ‘A Review of The Doctrine of Justification‘, by James Buchanan, at A Puritan’s Mind. See the classic book below.
.
Books
1500’s
Bullinger, Henry – Of Faith Alone Justifying in Christ, & of True Good Works tr. Onku with AI (Zurich, 1543)
Melanchthon, Philip – The Justification of Man by Faith Only… (London, 1548) 79 pp. ToC
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – Predestination & Justification Buy (Davenant Press, 2018) 296 pp.
Hooker, Richard – On Salvation & the Church of Rome (A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works & how the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown) abridged (1586; Preservation Press, 2007) 65 pp. no ToC Preface by Peter Toon.
Hooker was a chief Anglican apologist.
Hooker, a London minister, made the statement in a morning sermon: “I doubt not but God was merciful to save thousands of our fathers living in popish superstitions, inasmuch as they sinned ignorantly.” (Preface, pp. 3-4) The London presbyterian minister Walter Travers subjected this statement to much criticism in both speech and writing. Hooker defended his statement in three sermons, which he then made into this publication.
Piscator, Johannes – A Learned & Profitable Treatise of Man’s Justification. Two Books. Opposed to the Sophisms of Robert Bellarmine, Jesuit (London, 1599) 128 pp. ToC
Piscator was an early and main proponent of denying the active obedience of Christ, which is not recommended.
.
1600’s
Wilson, Thomas – A Commentary upon… Romans, containing for Matter, the Degeneration of our Nature by Adam’s Fall &… the Cause of Justification of Elect Sinners before God… set down… in Form of a Dialogue… (1614) 1260 pp.
Wilson (1563-1622) was an Anglican preacher at a cathedral church in Canterbury. He discusses justification throughout this work.
Bradshaw, William – A Treatise of Justification, tending to prove that a Sinner is Justified before God only by Christ’s Righteousness Imputed (London: Creede, 1615) 96 pp. Summary
Bradshaw (1571-1618) was an English, congregationalist puritan. Bradshaw teaches justification before faith, that is, that faith is not a condition of justification, which is not recommended.
Forbes, John – A Treatise tending to Clear the Doctrine of Justification (Middelburgh: Richard Schilders, 1616) 189 pp. ToC
Forbes (c.1568-1634) was a Scottish minister who founded a church in Middleburg, Netherlands. He was not one of the Aberdeen Doctors, as Forbes (1593-1648).
Pemble, William – Vindiciae fidei, or a Treatise of Justification by Faith, wherein that Point is Fully Cleared & Vindicated from the Cavils of its Adversaries. Delivered in Certain Lectures… (Oxford: John Lichfield, 1625) 239 pp. ToC
Burton, Henry – The Christians Bulwark Against Satan’s Battery; or the Doctrine of Justification so Plainly & Pithily laid out in the Several Main Branches of it… (London: Taunton, 1632) 373 pp.
Downame, George – A Treatise of Justification (London: Kyngston, 1633) 660 pp.
Hooker, Thomas – The Soul’s Justification in The Soul’s Exaltation… The Soul’s Justification, on 2 Cor. 5:21 (London: Haviland, 1638), pp. 131-311
Davenant, John – A Treatise on Justification: or The Disputatio de justitia habituali et actuali…, vol. 1, 2 trans. Josiah Allport (d. 1641; London: Hamilton, 1844/1846) ToC 1, 2
Ward, Samuel – Treatise on Justifying & Special Faith, also on the Certitude of Grace in Works of Samuel Ward: Theological Determinations, a Treatise on Justification, Lectures on Original Sin, ed. Seth Ward (d. 1643; Gallibrand, 1658), pp. 204-391
Sclater, William – An Exposition with Notes on the Whole Fourth Chapter to the Romans, wherein the Grand Question of Justification by Faith Alone Without Works is Controverted, Stated, Cleared & Fully Resolved… (London: J. L., 1650) 189 pp. no Toc Scripture Index
Norton, John – A Discussion of that Great Point in Divinity, the Sufferings of Christ; & the Question about his Righteousness Active, Passive: & the Imputation thereof. Being an Answer to a Dialogue entitled, The Meritorious Price of Redemption, Justification, etc. (London: A.M., 1653) 270 pp.
Warren, Thomas – Unbelievers No Subjects of Justification, nor of Mystical Union to Christ: being the Sum of a Sermon… with a Vindication of it from the Objections & Calumniations Cast upon it by Mr. William Eyre… Together with… a refutation of that… Error Asserted therein: viz. the Justification of Infidels, or the Justification of a Sinner before & without Faith. Wherein also the Conditional Necessity & Instrumentality of Faith unto Justification, together with the consistency of it, with the freeness of God’s grace, is explained, confirmed & vindicated… (London: E.T. for John Browne, 1654) 255 pp.
Warren (1616 or 17-1694)
Graile, John – A Modest Vindication of the Doctrine of Conditions in the Covenant of Grace & the Defenders thereof, from the Aspersions of Arminianism & Popery, which Mr. William Eyre Cast on them (London, 1654) 125 pp.
Graile treats of justification throughout; search for the term.
John Flavel: “And as for those ancient and modern divines whom the Antinomians have corrupted and misrepresented, the reader may see them all vindicated, and their concurrence with those I have named evidenced by that learned and pious Mr. John Graile, in his Modest Vindication of the Doctrine of Conditions in the Covenant of Grace, from p. 58 onward;
a man whose name and memory is precious with me, not only upon the account of that excellent sermon he preached, and those fervent prayers he poured out many years since at my ordination; but for that learned and judicious treatise of his against Mr. Eyre [above], wherein he hath cast great light upon this controversy, as excellent Mr. Baxter and Mr. Woodbridge have also done. But alas! what evidence is sufficient to satisfy ignorant and obstinate men!” – Works, vol. 3, Appendix, Vindicarum Vindex, pp. 530-31
Eyre (c.1612-1670), according to Benjamin Woodbridge, argued for the doctrine that Justification is before faith (which is wrong). Eyre affirmed in his book, Vindiciae Justificationis Gratuitiae = Justification without Condtions, the instrumental nature of faith in Justification as passive only, not active (pp. 30-31).
Woodbridge, Benjamin – The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners, being a Reply to a Book written by Mr. William Eyre… entitled, Vindiciæ justificationis gratuitæ, or the Free Justification of a Sinner Justified. Wherein the Doctrine contained in the said Book is proved to be… contrary to… the Ancient Apostolic Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Faith Asserted (London: T.R. and E.M., 1656) 359 pp.
Chauncy, Charles – Yahweh Tsidkenu or The Plain Doctrine of the Justification of a Sinner in the Sight of God; Justified by the God of Truth in his Holy Word & the Cloud of Witnesses in All Ages. Wherein are handled the Causes of the Sinner’s Justification. Explained & Applied in Six & Twenty Sermons, in a Plain, Doctrinal & Familiar Way… (London: R.I. for Adoniram Byfield, 1659)
Chauncy (1592-1672) was the second president of Harvard in New England.
Owen, John – The Doctrine of Justification by Faith through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, Explained, Confirmed & Vindicated (London: Boulter, 1677) 560 pp.
Troughton, John – Lutherus Redivivus: or, the Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Faith Only, Vindicated, & a Plausible Opinion of Justification by Faith & Obedience Proved to be Arminian, Popish & to Lead Unavoidably into Socinianism, Part I (London: Samuel Lee, 1677) 235 pp. no ToC
This book is written against the Dutch Arminians, Richard Baxter, Joseph Truman and others.
“The question before us, is Whether a man be justified before God by faith only? Or by faith and sincere obedience to the Gospel jointly?” – p. 1
Vlak, Johannes – Theological Dissertation 3, On Justification in A Triad of Dissertations: on the Covenants of God of Works & of Peace, & on Justification in Response to Leydekker (1689), pp. 253-350 trans. AI Latin
Vlak (c.1635-1690) appears to have leaned towards Cocceius, contra Leydekker who was a Voetian.
Hopkins, Ezekiel – The Doctrine of the Two Covenants: wherein the Nature of Original Sin is at Large Explained; & St. Paul & St. James Reconciled in the Great Article of Justification in The Works of Ezekiel Hopkins… 3 vols. 3rd American ed., ed. Charles Quick (d. 1690; Philadelphia: Protestant Episcopal Book Society, 1867), 2.130-220
Hopkins (d. 1690)
Brown of Wamphray, John – The Life of Justification Opened. Or a Treatise Grounded Upon Gal. 2:11, wherein the Orthodox Doctrine of Justification by Faith & Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness is Clearly Expounded… ed. J. Koelman & Melchior Leydekker (Utrecht, 1695) 563 pp.
Smith, Matthew – The True Notion of Imputed Righteousness & our Justification, thereby being a Supply of what is Lacking in the Late Book of that Most Learned Person, Bishop Stillingfleet, which is a Discourse for Reconciling the Dissenting Parties in London; but dying before he had finished the two last & most desired chapters thereof, he has left this main point therein intended, without determination (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1700) 222 pp.
Fraser, James – A Treatise on Justifying Faith: wherein is Opened the Grounds of Believing, or the Sinner’s Sufficient Warrant to hold of what is offered in the Everlasting Gospel… (d. 1699; Edinburgh: William Gray, 1749) 340 pp. ToC
.
1700’s
à Brakel, Wilhelmus – ‘Justification’ in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vols. 2 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout (1700; RHB, 1992/1999), pp. 341-413
La Placette, Jean – Treatise on Justification (Amsterdam, 1733) 151 pp.
Edwards, John – Part 2, ‘Justification by Faith Alone’ in The Doctrine of Faith & Justification Set in a True Light… (London: Robinson, 1708), pp. 233-441
Edwards (1637–1716) was a calvinistic, Anglican bishop.
Henwood, James – The True State of Justification, as it Stands between God & Man (London: Henry Bonwick, 1710) 195 pp. no ToC
Beart, John – The Sinner’s Justifying Righteousness; or, A Vindication of the Eternal Law & Everlasting Gospel ed. Thomas Jones (d. 1716; London: Seeley, 1829) 146 pp. ToC
.
1800’s
Alexander, Archibald – A Treatise on Justification by Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Tract & Sunday School Society, 1837) 50 pp.
A largely unknown and scarce work of Alexander’s on an important topic from an important figure: the first professor of Old Princeton Seminary.
Table of Contents
1. Importance of the Subject 3
2. Nature of Justification 6
3. Justification by the Law Impossible 9
4. The Above Declarations of Paul Relate to All Works of Every Kind 12
5. The Act of Faith is Not the Righteousness which is the Ground of our Justification in the Sight of God 14
6. Justification in the Sight of God is Not by Evangelical Obedience in Whole, or in Part 15
7. Justification does Not Consist Merely in the Pardon of our Sins, but also in the Acceptance of our Persons as Righteous 21
8. The Only Meritorious Ground of a Sinner’s Justification is the Righteousness of Christ 24
9. The Righteousness of Christ can no Otherwise Justify the Believer but by being Imputed to Him 31
10. Justification by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ is Obtained by the Exercise of a Genuine Faith 38
11. The Time of Justification 45
12. The Doctrine of James 46
Conclusion 48
Buchanan, James – The Doctrine of Justification Buy (1867) 510 pp. ToC
Buchanan was a professor in the Free Church of Scotland.
This is the standard classic on the doctrine of justification. Read it first. Being a “justified sinner” is a contradiction to a Romanist, it is the highest glory of the gospel to the believer. For many more reasons why you should read this work, read this review at A Purtian’s Mind.
.
1900’s
Sproul, R.C. – Faith Alone: the Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Baker, 1995) 215 pp. ToC
.
2000’s
Oden, Thomas – The Justification Reader (Eerdmans, 2002) 175 pp. ToC
Waldron, Samuel – Faith, Obedience & Justification: Current Evangelical Departures from Sola Fide (Reformed Baptist Evangelical Press, 2006) 275 pp. ToC
.
Quotes
Order of
Spanheim
London Presbyterians
.
1600’s
Spanheim, Sr., Friedrich
Disputationum Theologicarum Miscellaneorum Pars Prima (d. 1649; Geneva: Chouët, 1652), ‘Miscellaneous Theological Disputation’, trans. AI by Roman Prestarri at Confessionally Reformed Theology Latin
“35. Justification both presupposes and accompanies effectual calling with indivisible connection.
36. But it is not a physical action, but moral, or rather forensic, nor transmutative of the subject, nor inhesive in the subject, but rather terminative toward the subject.
37. It is to be attributed to God efficiently, to Christ meritoriously, to faith instrumentally.
38. One act of faith is direct toward its object, another reflexive toward itself. Also the first act of faith is to believe, the second to work through charity and by means of it.
39. This latter act is the instrument of our sanctification…”
.
London (Presbyterian) Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), pt. 2, p. 106
“4. All doctrines that set up our own righteousness, whether of morality, or sanctification, in the room of Christ’s righteousness, that place good works in the throne of Christ, are doctrines of Antichrist and not of Christ.
For the Gospel teaches us that all our best works are imperfect, and that we are justified not by our own inherent righteousness, but by the righteousness of Christ only, made ours by faith (Gal. 5:17; Rom. 7:18-19, 23-24; Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:28; Phil. 3:9; 2 Cor. 5:2): this rule will keep you from much of the poison of Popery.”
.
Historical Theology
On the Whole of Church History
Article
Buchanan, James – pt. 1, ‘The History of the Doctrine of Justification’ in The Doctrine of Justification Buy (1867), pp. 17-220
Buchanan was a professor in the Free Church of Scotland.
.
Books
Ritschl, Albrecht – A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification & Reconciliation (Edinburgh, 1872) 620 pp. ToC
Ritschl (1822–1889) was a liberal, German theologian.
McGrath, Alister – Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, vol. 1 (to 1500), 2 (to Present) Buy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986) ToC 1, 2
Kang, Paul C. – Justification: the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness from Reformation Theology to the American Great Awakening & the Korean Revivals Pre (2006) 160 pp. ToC
.
On the Post-Reformation
Articles
Cunningham, William – ‘Justification’ in Historical Theology (1863), vol. 2, pp. 1-120
Van Dixhoorn, Chad – “The Strange Silence of Prolocutor Twisse: Predestination & Politics in the Westminster Assembly’s Debate over Justification” Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. 40 (2) (2009), pp. 395-418
The first prolucotor of the Westminster Assembly. William Twisse, held to an eternal justification. Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 11 says that justification does not occur until the Holy Spirit is applied unto the elect in time. Twisse cited Chamier in support. Pemble held to justification at the Cross, which the WCF also prohibits.
Twisse did not speak much (only three times) in the main debate on justification at Westminster, and this article investigates why. Besides the above, it may have been because his expertise was about predestination, not justification, inline with what Baxter suggested.
Many speeches have been preserved from that debate in manuscript form, which Dixhoorn freely surveys and quotes from. The article shows the influence that anti-Papist and anti-antinomian motives bore on the debate, and how and why things were worded the way they were.
Fesko, J.V. – ‘William Perkins on Union with Christ & Justification’ MAJT 21 (2010), pp. 21-34
Beck, Andreas J. – ‘Doing Justice to Justification: Historical Reflections on a Decisive Controversy of the Reformation Era’ in eds Peter De Mey & Wim François, ‘Ecclesia Semper Reformanda’: Renewal & Reform beyond Politics in Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 306 (Leuven: Peeters, 2020), pp. 135–57
.
Books
Lugioyo, Brian – Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification: Reformation Theology & Early Modern Irenicism (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010) 260 pp. ToC
For a summary of Bucer’s view of Justification, see pp. 100-102. Ch. 4 of the book survey’s Johannes Gropper’s view of justification, a moderate Romanist.
Park, Jae-Eun – Driven by God: Active Justification & Definitive Sanctification in the Soteriology of Bavinck, Comrie, Witsius & Kuyper Pre (V&R, 2018) 250 pp. ToC
Park also analyzes Francis Turretin, Antinomianism, Hyper-Calvinism and John Murray on the topics.
.
On Lutheranism
Articles
Preus, Robert – ‘Justification as Taught by Post-Reformation Lutheran Theologians’ (1982) 20 pp.
Phetsanghane, Souksamay – Thoughts on Objective Justification: Selections from Abraham Calov’s Biblia Illustrata (2014) 43 pp.
‘Objective Justification’ refers to the erroneous notion of an objective, universal and conditional justification of all people through the work of Christ.
While this doctrine is largely absent from the historic creeds of Lutheranism and Lutheran orthodoxy (which emphasized an actual, personal justification by faith), yet Phetsanghane seeks to show that this doctrine was taught to some minor extent, and incidentally, in some of the orthodox Lutheran theologians (principally Abraham Calov, 1612-1686) and it may be contained in some implicit form in some early historic Lutheran confessions.
As most or all of Calov’s writings are in Latin, these translated selections are valuable.
.
On the 1700’s
Book
Park, Jae-Eun – Driven by God: Active Justification & Definitive Sanctification in the Soteriology of Bavinck, Comrie, Witsius & Kuyper Pre (V&R, 2018) 250 pp. ToC
Park also analyzes Francis Turretin, Antinomianism, Hyper-Calvinism and John Murray on the topics.
.
On Jonathan Edwards
Books
McClenahan, Michael – Jonathan Edwards & Justification by Faith Pre (Routledge, 2012) ToC
Cho, Hyun-Jin – Jonathan Edwards on Justification: Reformed Development of the Doctrine in Eighteenth-Century New England (Univ. Press of America, 2012) 150 pp. ToC
.
On the 1800’s
Book
Park, Jae-Eun – Driven by God: Active Justification & Definitive Sanctification in the Soteriology of Bavinck, Comrie, Witsius & Kuyper Pre (V&R, 2018) 250 pp. ToC
Park also analyzes Francis Turretin, Antinomianism, Hyper-Calvinism and John Murray on the topics.
.
The Causes of Justification
Order of
Articles 7
Book 1
Latin 1
.
Articles
1500’s
Calvin, John – ch. 14, sect. 17 in Institutes of the Christian Religion trans. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edniburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 2, bk. 3, pp. 368-69
.
1600’s
Tuke, Thomas – ch. 5, ‘What Justification is. All the causes of it. Five effects of it. The subjects and time of it. Five properties thereof. Four tokens of it.’ in The Highway to Heaven: or, the Doctrine of Election, Effectual Vocation, Justification, Santification & Eternal Life, Grounded upon the Holy Scriptures… (London: Okes, 1609), pp. 93-145
Internal Impulsive Cause, which moves God to justify us: his grace and mere benevolence, and not our works past, present, or to come
External Impulsive Cause, or meritorious efficient cause: not our own works, virtues or obedience, but is Christ by his obedience
Material Cause, according as its parts, is twofold: remission of sins and God’s accepting of us as righteous men
Formal Cause: not faith, love, nor any other virtue, nor an infused quality or habitual sanctity inherent in us, but the free imputation of Christ’s righteousness, by which Christ’s merit and obedience are applied to us by virtue of that near communion whereby He is in us and we in Him
Final Cause in respect of God: the glory of God in an admirable composition of iustice and mercy; of iustice, because He would have his Son to satisfy for our sins, rather than they should escape unpunished; and of mercy as it pleased Him to impute and appropriate the satisfaction of his Son unto us rather than we wretches should be destroyed.
Final Cause in respect of ourselves: that we may be pleasing unto God, may have peace of conscience, and true tranquility of mind, that being redeemed from misery we might be saved, and finally that we should strive against the stream of our own corruptions, and keep a constant course in piety (Lk. 1:74-75; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:24).
Effects and consequents of: adoption, peace of conscience, access to God by prayer with confidence to be heard for Christ, patience in afflictions, and glorification.
Subject (or the persons) of: the elect of God
Time of: in this life, with some sooner, others later; but with none after this life
Properties of: 1. most excellent, 2. a most free act, 3. one absolute, entire, and indiuidual act, 4. an immutable, inviolable and irrevocable act of God, 5. it may be perceived and known
Trelcatius, Lucas – ch. 9, ‘Of Man’s Justification before God’ in A Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinity… (London: Francis Burton, 1610), pp. 222-76 The causes are succinctly stated on pp. 227-38, and then defended afterwards.
“Justification therefore is properly a free judicial action of God, whereby He iudges the elect in themselves subject to the accusation and malediction of the Law, to be just by faith, through Christ by imputation of his righteousness, unto the praise of the glory of his grace, and their own salvation.
That this definition might be rightly understood, it is needful that the causes, which are orderly noted in the same, be two ways considered, according as justification is taken, either actively, in respect of God, who justifies, or passively in respect of man, who is justified.”
Forbes, William – pp. 115-41 in Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, ch. 2
Forbes’s discussion of the formal cause of justification is important, whether it be strictly the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. He argues “No”. He cites for this view, besides Romanists (such as Albert Pighius), Pareus, Prideaux, Sibrandus and Chamier. He does affirm, with others, that Christ’s righteousness is the meritorious cause of justification.
Marshall, Walter – ‘The Doctrine of Justification Open & Applied’, on Rom. 3:23-26 appended to The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification… (London: Parkhurst, 1692) 31 pp.
“In the text [of Rom. 3:23-26] we have the eight following things:
1. The persons justified – (i) Sinners; (ii) Such sinners of all sorts that shall believe, whether Jews or Gentiles.
2. The justifier, or efficient cause – God.
3. The impulsive cause – grace.
4. The means effecting, or material cause – the redemption of Christ.
5. The formal cause – the remission of sins.
6. The instrumental cause – faith.
7. The time of declaring – the present time.
8. The end – that God may appear just.”
Owen, John – in The Doctrine of Justification by Faith
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 2, 16th Topic
2. ‘Is the impulsive and meritorious cause (on account of which man is justified in the judgment of God) inherent righteousness infused into us or good works? We deny against the Romanists.’ 637
3. ‘Is the righteousness and obedience of Christ imputed to us the meritorious cause and foundation of our justification with God? We affirm against the Romanists and Socinians.’ 646
.
Book
1600’s
Baxter, Richard – On Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness, on the Formal vs. Material Cause
Baxter argues, with others above, that Christ’s imputed righteousness is not the formal cause of justification, though it be the meritorious cause.
.
Latin Article
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Of the Causes of Justification in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 3 Abbr.
.
Latin Articles
1500’s
Piscator, Johannes
ch. 13, ‘Justification’ 49 in A Forest of Sayings & Examples out of Sacred Scripture by which Christian Doctrine in Common Places are Distributed & Confirmed (Herborn, 1621), pp. 49-51
ch. 15, ‘Of the Justification of Man before God’ 254 in Theological Theses, vol. 1 (Herborn, 1606-1607)
Theological Theses, vol. 2 (Herborn, 1606-1607)
8. Of the Justification of Man Before God 51
. Same Locus, Another Tract 61
. Same Locus, a Full Tract & an Opposition Against the
. Sophistry of Bellarmine 64
. Bk. 2, Judgment of the Papists & the proofs of the same out
. of the books of Bellarmine are recited & refuted 87
9 Miscellaneous Questions: 6. ‘Whether the Form of Justifying Faith is Love?’ [Gal. 5:6, We Deny]
ch. 13, ‘Justification’ 85 in Theological Common Places, Exposited in Brief Thoughts, or Aphorisms of Christian Doctrine, the Greater Part of which are Excerpts from the Institutes of Calvin (Herborne, 1589; 1605)
Polanus, Amandus
ch. 37, ‘On Free Justification before God, where is of the Remission of Sins & the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ’ 112 in The Divisions of Theology Framed according to a Natural Orderly Method (Basil, 1590; Geneva, 1623)
ch. 36, ‘Of the Free Justification of a Sinful Man with God’ in A System of Theology (Hanau, 1609; 1615), vol. 2, bk. 6, cols. 2933-3008
Junius, Sr., Francis – Theological Disputation on the Justification of a Man before God (Leiden: Joann Patius, 1599)
This is different than the disputation on justification by faith above that has been translated into English.
.
1600’s
Pelargus, Christoph
Theological Disputations, which are in 8 Decades of Holy Disputations not contained in the First Edition, held in the Academy of Frankfurt (Hartmann, 1596/1603) no page numbers
Vol. 1, 10. Justification
Vol. 2
3rd Decade, 5. Justification 45
6th Decade, 40. Justification of a Sinful Man, Rom. 3 388
ch. 12, Justification 73 in A Repetition of 20 Principal Articles of the Christian Faith (Eichorn, 1606)
Bachoff, Reinhard – Catechism of the Christian Religion, which is Taught in the Churches & Schools of the Palitinate (Hanau, 1603) This is a commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, following the order of its questions.
Justification of Man Before God Q. 21 [on faith]
60 [justification]
Bachoff (1544-1614).
de la Faye, Antoine – Theological Theses on the Justificaion of Man before God (Geneva, 1604)
de la Faye (1540-1615)
Keckermann, Bartholomaeus – bk. 3, ch. 7, ‘Justification’ 412 in A System of Scriptural Theology 2nd ed. (Hanau, 1607; 1610)
Keckermann (1572-1608). See Joseph Freedman, ‘The Career & Writings of Bartholomew Keckermann (d. 1609)’ in American Philosophical Society, vol. 141, no. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 305-64.
Pareus, David – Theological Collections of Universal Orthodox Theology, where also All of the Present Theological Controversies are Clearly & Variously Explained (1611/1620)
Vol. 1
Collection 1
ch. 12, ‘Justifying Faith’ 39
ch. 13, ‘Justification by Faith’ 44
Appendix: False Dogmas of Lombard, Council of Trent, Bellarmine, etc. 55-58
Collection 2, 25. Justification 249
Collection 3, 10. Justification by Faith 451
Collection 4, 10. Justification of Man Before God 505
Collection 5, 15. Faith & Justification by Faith From Works 580
Collection 6, 6. Faith & Justification 618
Collection 7, 5. Faith & Justification of Man Before God 655
Collection 8, 7. Justification by Faith 711
Collection 9, 7. Justification of a Sinful Man Before God 764
. 16. Justifying Faith & the Merits of Works 793
Collection 10, 9. Justification of Man Before God 826
.
Vol. 2
Collection 1
7. Justifying Faith 28
10. Justification by Faith 40
Collection 2, 10. Justification of a Sinner Before God 110
Collection 3
11. Justifying Faith & Justification 155
12. Certainty of Justification, the Necessity of Works & of Merit 156
Collection 4, 11. Justification by Faith 181
Collection 5
13. Justification by Faith 205
14. Certainty of Faith & of Justification, & not the Perfection, Justification & Merits of Good Works 206
Collection 6, 12. Justification of a Sinner Before God 245
Collection 7
7. Justification by Faith 305
9. Certainty of Faith, of Grace, of Justification, of Perseverance, of Salvation, Predestination & Finally of the Faithful, Against the Papistical Doubt 309
Collection 8, 6. Faith & Justification 350
Collection 9, Bellarmine’s Vanities on:
36. Formal Cause of Justification & of Inherent
. Righteousness 572
37. Uncertainty, Immutability & Inequality of
. Righteousness 590
38. Necessity & Righteousness of Works 598
39. Merits of Works 606
Alsted, Johann Heinrich
ch. 17, Justification 396-409 in A Lexicon of Theology, in which the Terms of Holy Theology are Clearly Explained in a Series of Common Places (Prostat, 1612)
Alsted (1588-1638)
Polemical Theology, Exhibiting the Principal Eternal Things of Religion in Navigating Controversies (Hanau, 1620; 1627),
Pt. 2, A Major Catholic Symphony: Theological Common Places, 19. Justification 215
Pt. 4, Controversies with the Romanists, Justification & of Good Works in General 548
ch. 25, Justification 89 in Logical Theology (1625)
ch. 32, Justification 227 in Theological Questions Briefly Set Forth & Exposited (Frankfurt, 1627)
ch. 13, Justification 70 in Theological Common Places Illustrated by Perpetual Similitudes (Frankfurt, 1630)
Hommius, Festus – 70 Theological Disputations Against Papists (Leiden, 1614)
ch. 62, Justifying Faith 406
ch. 63. Justification 412
Mylius, Conrad – 25. Justification 512 in Catechetical Essays, or Homilies in the Heidelberg Catechism (Hanau, 1618)
Mylius (fl.1616-1618)
Alsted, Johann H.
ch. 23, ‘Justification & Christian Liberty’ in Distinctions through Universal Theology, taken out of the Canon of the Sacred Letters & Classical Theologians (Frankfurt: 1626), pp. 100-105
ch. 13, ‘On Justification’ in Theological Common Places Illustrated by Perpetual Similitudes (Frankfurt, 1630), pp. 70-78
Diodati, John
Theological Disputation on our Justification before God (Geneva, 1628)
Theological Theses on Justification (Geneva, 1632)
Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich – Christian Theology (Hanau, 1634; 2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1657), bk. 1, of the Knowledge of God
ch. 24, ‘Of the Reception of the Mediator, & of Justifying Faith’ 448
ch. 25, ‘Of the Justification of Men Before God’ 481
Wendelin (1584-1652)
Crocius, Ludwig – 17. The Consequences & Effects of Christian Faith, where is Treated of the Union of the Faithful with God & of Evangelical Justification Before Him 1115-26 in A System of Sacred Theology (Bremen, 1636), bk. 4, Of the Principles & Means of Human Salvation
Crocius (1586-1655)
Rutherford, Samuel – ch. 12, ‘On the Justification of a Sinner’ in The Examination of Arminianism ed. Matthew Nethenus (1639-1643; Utrecht, 1668), pp. 498-553
Gomarus, Francis – Francisci Gomari dispvtationis elencticæ, de iustificationis materiâ & forma, elenchus: autore Thomâ Gatakero Londinate Ref (1640)
Cocceius, Johannes
A Theological Disputation on the Justification of a Sinful Man before God (Franeker, 1646) 16 pp.
ch. 4, ‘Of Justification’ ToC in 22 Theological-Practical Disputations on the Way of Salvation, that is, of Election, Redemption, Calling, Justification, Sanctification, Glorification (Franeker, 1649), pp. 187-295
Alting, J. Henricus
ch. 17, ‘Justification’ 106 in A Method of Didactic Theology (Amsterdam, 1656; 1662)
Voet, Gisbert
9. ‘Justification’ in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 3 Abbr.
As to the Term
Of Justification in General
Of the Causes of Justification
Of the Active & Passive Righteousness of
. Christ
Of the Distinction of Justification into Active &
. Passive
Select Theological Disputations (1669)
Some Problems on Justification, pt. 1 277
. pt. 2 283
. pt. 3 293
. pt. 4 301
. pt. 5 309
. pt. 6 319
On Psalm 103:3, ‘Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases’, pt. 1 339
. pt. 2 348
. pt. 3 357
. pt. 4 366
. pt. 5 376
Wettstein, Gernler & Buxtorf – 16. Justification in A Syllabus of Controversies in Religion which come between the Orthodox Churches & whatever other Adversaries, for material for the regular disputations… customarily held in the theological school of the academy at Basil (Basil, 1662), pp. 56-60
Duising, Heinrich – Disputatio theologica inauguralis de justificatione peccatoris coram Deo (Marburg: Salomon Schadewitz, 1679)
Duising was a German reformed professor of Greek, ethics and theology at Marburg.
.
.
Latin Books
1500’s
Bucer, Martin – The Disputing of Regensburg, in another Colloquium, 1546, and a responding of the collocutors of the Augsburg Confession, wherein they take up and complete on Justification and all places of evangelical doctrine… (1548) 692 pp. no ToC Indices: Subject, Indices Errata
Bullinger, Heinrich – Justification. Of Faith Alone in Christ Justifying, & of True Good Works (Zurich, 1543) 48 pp. no ToC
Alesius, Alexander – Disputation 1, ‘On the Righteousness of God & the Righteousness of Man before God, & of the Mediator, Christ’ in Three Disputations on the Mediator, Reconciliation & the Justification of Man (Leipzig, 1554)
Alesius (1500-1565) was initially Lutheran but became reformed. He was a professor of theology at Leipzig at the time of writing this (his last academic position).
Beza, Theodore – A Defense of Justification through Living Faith having Apprehended the Righteousness of Christ Alone, freely Imputed (Geneva, 1592) 304 pp. no ToC
.
1600’s
Bradshaw, William – Dissertation on the Doctrine of Justification, in which a plain way is built up to the concord of them which vary on this thing (Leiden, 1684) 124 pp. ToC
Bradshaw (1571-1618) was an English, congregationalist puritan. Bradshaw teaches justification before faith, that is, that faith is not a condition of justification, which is not recommended.
von Diest, Heinrich – Sermons on the Five First Chapters of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans, in which is explicated the most noble doctrine of Justification, with other matters subjoined and cohereing with it… (Arnheim, 1676) 599 pp. ToC Abbreviations Errata
von Diest (1595-1673) was a Dutch, reformed professor of Hebrew.
.
Special Topics
.
On How the Cross Relates to Justification
Articles
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel – Sermon 18, ‘Christ’s Satisfaction Performed on the Cross for Sin is not Formally Justification, but Only Causatively, Fundamentally, or Meritoriously’ in The Trial & Triumph of Faith (1645), pp. 210-13
Warren, Thomas – Unbelievers No Subjects of Justification, Nor of Mystical Union to Christ… (London, 1654)
2nd Question, ‘Whether all the Elect for whom Christ died be actually reconciled and justified from the time of Christ’s death…? [No]’, pp. 121-22 of ch. 4, ‘…the doctrine of free justification of a sinner through faith in Christ, reduced unto four several Questions…’
ch. 6, ‘Showing that a man is not justified actually from the time of Christ’s death’, pp. 174-84
ch. 11, ‘Containing an answer to those arguments… to prove the antecedency of justification to faith, that we are actually reconciled from the time of Christ’s death…’, pp. 231-55
Witsius, Herman – ch. 10, sections 1-3 in Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain: under the Unhappy names of Antinomians and Neonomians (1696; Glasgow, 1807), pp. 108-10
.
1800’s
Girardeau, John – pp. 101-7 of ‘The Federal Theology: its Import & its Regulative Influence’ in Memorial Volume of the Semi-Centennial of the Theological Seminary at Columbia, South Carolina (1884)
.
Quotes
Samuel Rutherford
Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself… (London: 1647), pt. 2, p. 253
“Proposition 15. We are justified: [1.] in Christ virtually, as in the public head, when He rose again and was justified in the Spirit. 2. In Christ, as his merits are the cause of our justification.”
.
.
How Justification is Distinguished from Sanctification
Article
Phillips, Rick – ‘Seven Assertions Regarding Justification & Sanctification’ (2015) 9 paragraphs
An excellent, clear and brief Biblical delineation of how Justification is distinguished from Sanctification, and how both flow out of Union to Christ. Phillips is dead-on.
.
On the Distinction of Active (or Objective) vs. Passive Justification
Order of
Article 1
Quote 1
Historical 1
.
Article
1600’s
Calov, Abraham – Thoughts on Objective Justification tr. Souksamay K. Phetsanghane 47 pp. in Biblia Illustrata (1672-1676; 2014), on 2 Cor. 5:18‐19; Rom. 3:23‐24; 4:25; 5:18‐19 with a bibliography Presented for the Southwestern Conference of the Western Wisconsin District of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Winter Conference, Feb. 25, 2014, St. John Lutheran, Baraboo, WI
Calov (1612–1686) was a professor of theology at Konigsberg and Wittenberg and one of the champions of Lutheran orthodoxy in the 17th century.
‘Objective Justification’, in this context, refers to the erroneous notion of an objective, universal and conditional justification of all people through the work of Christ.
While this doctrine is largely absent from the historic creeds of Lutheranism and Lutheran orthodoxy (which emphasized an actual, personal justification by faith), yet Phetsanghane seeks to show that this doctrine was taught to some minor extent, and incidentally, in some of the orthodox Lutheran theologians (principally Abraham Calov) and it may be contained in some implicit form in some early historic Lutheran confessions.
.
Quote
1600’s
Friedrich Spanheim
‘Disputation on Justification’ in Disputationum Theologicarum Miscellaneorum Pars Prima (Geneva: Chovet, 1652), trans. AI by Roman Prestarri at Confessionally Reformed Theology
“10. The form of active justification we hold to be both the plenary remission of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; nor do we hold that these phrases ought to be either equated or confounded.
The form of passive justification we constitute in the apprehension and sense of both in subjects who are capable thereof.
11. As therefore we seek the cause of active justification in the sole favour and grace of God — who imputes to us as our own that which was not ours, and in place of the legal mode of justifying admits an evangelical one, from a certain ineffable temperament of His justice and mercy — so the instrument of passive justification, one among the causes of its own order, we hold to be faith alone: not by the precision of its existence from other virtues, but only by its causality.
Nor indeed do we regard it subjectively, whether dispositively, or habitually, or formally, or meritoriously — whether by reason of an internal dignity or an external acceptilation — but partly organically, by reason of its own act which it exercises, and partly objectively or correlatively, by reason of the object which by its act it has apprehended and applied to us. And this is what the apostle designates when he describes justification by the phrases διὰ πίστεως [dia pisteōs, through faith], ἐκ πίστεως [ek pisteōs, out of faith], πίστει [pistei, by faith] — but never διὰ τὴν πίστιν [dia tēn pistin, on account of faith]; Rom. III.22, 25–26; V.1; and elsewhere throughout.
12. The object of justification is sinful man, elected by destination and already called in execution at a capable age, Rom. VIII.29 — who is antecedently and objectively ungodly, yet consequently and terminatively endowed with faith and through it ingrafted into Christ, Rom. III.26. In the former respect, justification is an absolute act of grace: both of Him who destines the Mediator, and of Him who admits vicarious obedience in place of one’s own, and who imputes it to these rather than to others.”
.
History
On the Post-Reformation
Article
Fesko, J.V. – ‘Reformed Orthodoxy on Imputation. Active & Passive Justification’ in Perichoresis, vol. 14, issue 3 (2016), pp. 61-80
Abstract: “The doctrine of imputation is common to Early Modern Lutheran and Reformed theology, but Reformed orthodox theologians employed the distinction between the active and passive justification of the believer. Active justification is the objective imputation of Christ’s righteousness and passive justification is the subjective reception of the same. This distinction is a unique contribution in Reformed orthodox dogmatics and was used in polemics against Roman Catholic, Arminian, and Socinian theologians. This essay also compares Reformed orthodox formulations with Lutheran orthodox understandings of how they preserved the extra nos [outside of us] of Christ’s righteousness in justification. The Reformed orthodox employed the active-passive justification distinction in conjunction with the decree and the doctrine of the covenant of redemption, whereas the Lutheran orthodox logically placed justification first in the order of salvation. Both groups maintain the extra nos of Christ’s imputed righteousness but do so in different ways.”
.
Justification without any Instrumental or Meritorious Works from us Whatsoever
Order of
Intro
Articles 3
Quotes 3
.
Intro
Owen demonstrates that when Paul excluded works from justification, he meant all works whatsoever without qualification, contrary to the Federal Vision, Norman Shepherdism, the New Perspective on Paul, Romanism and other groups who unduly qualify Paul’s statements.
Paul’s pronouncements, as is clearly seen by their unqualified, all-encompassing nature and various contexts, did not mean only to exclude the works of the Jewish law, works of the ceremonial law, perfect works only, works done with a conceit of merit, only works before we believed or only outward works done without faith, but all of our works altogether.
.
Articles
1500’s
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (London: Veale, 1573), A Familiar Exposition of the Principal Points of the Catechism, 11th Dialogue
.
1600’s
Ward, Samuel – ‘We are Justified by Faith Alone’ in Theological Determinations in Works of Samuel Ward, ed. Seth Ward (d. 1643; Gallibrand, 1658), pp. 14-21
Ward (1572–1643) was an English academic and a master at the University of Cambridge. He served as one of the delegates from the Church of England to the Synod of Dort.
Owen, John – ch. 14, ‘The Exclusion of All Sorts of Works from an Interest in Justification, what is Intended by ‘the Law’ & the ‘Works’ of it in the Epistles of Paul’ †1683 13 pp. in The Doctrine of Justification by Faith in Works, 5.278-90
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 2
15th Topic
13. ‘Whether the form of justifying faith is love or obedience to God’s commands. We deny against the Romanists and Socinians.’ 580
16th Topic
2. ‘Is the impulsive and meritorious cause (on account of which man is justified in the judgment of God) inherent righteousness infused into us or good works? We deny against the Romanists.’ 637
.
Quotes
Order of
Junius
Forbes
Leigh
.
1500’s
Francis Junius
Introduction: On Justification by Faith in Theological Theses for Exercises in Public Disputations in the Famous Academy at Leiden (1584) at ReformedOrthodoxy.org
“1. Justification is an action, by which God makes an ungodly man righteous, according to the good pleasure of his will, and without any merit of his own for salvation.”
.
1600’s
William Forbes
Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 1, ch. 3, pp. 39-41
“There are innumerable passages in Scripture in which forgiveness of sins is attributed to good works, proceeding from faith and the special aid of grace. to mot for the present that passage, St. James 2:24, where man is expressly said to be ‘justified by works, and not by faith only;’ to omit, I say, that passage, about the meaning of which there is such warm contention between the parties, and of which we will afterwards treat in its proper place, see Eze. 17:21, and 33:12, 14-16, 19; Mt. 6:14; 18:35; Lk. 6:37; James 5:19-20, etc.
Nay, any one who attentively reads the Scriptures will find that there are perhaps more passages which exact the condition of good works for obtaining the pardon of sins and eternal life, than there are which require the condition of faith, simply so called (Apology for the Remonstrants’ Confession, ch. 22, p. 237 verso); although it [i.e. faith] is necessarily always understood (nay rather presupposed) in them all. Let whoever chooses consult the Collection of passages for good works taken from both Testaments by G. Wicelius (Coacervatio locorum utriusque Testamenti de absoluta necessitate bonorum operum), and others; but especially let him diligently, and without prejudice, read the Holy Scriptures themselves.
Scripture also very frequently teaches that we are purged from sins by the participation of the sacraments. (Eph. 5:26; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Tit. 3:5-7; Mt. 26:27-28 and frequently others)”
.
Edward Leigh
A System or Body of Divinity… (London, 1654), bk. 7, ch. 10, ‘Whether Faith Alone does Justify?’, p. 528
“How can a man be justified by his works when he himself must be just before the works can be, Gen. 4:4. Good works make not a man good, but a good man makes a work good, and shall that work which a man made good return again and make the man good?”
.
On the View that Justification is before Faith Not Recommended
Order of
Quote 1
Con 5
Pro 2
.
Quote
1600’s
Louis Le Blanc de Beaulieu
Theological Theses, vol. 2 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica at Discord (1675; London, 1683), ‘On Justifying Faith’, pt. 1, pp. 156, 164, 166 Latin
“LXX. Yet, among the Reformers, there are those who seem to concede that the act of faith by which we are justified is the belief that our sins have been erased and forgiven through Christ. They don’t see a contradiction in saying that God forgives us our sins and erases our sins because we believe they have been forgiven and erased. But they note that our sins can be said to be erased in two ways:
First, regarding God’s decree and Christ’s death already completed based on that decree;
Second, regarding the effective application, both on Christ’s part who grants forgiveness of sins and on the believers’ part who receive it through faith.
Thus, their understanding is that we are granted and applied forgiveness of sins because we embrace Christ with certain confidence and are persuaded that Christ, according to God’s decree, has erased and atoned for our sins with his death. This is the teaching of Henricus Altingius.
LXXI. [Daniel] Chamier straightforwardly admits that our sins are forgiven before we believe and that faith follows justification. Yet, the faith by which we believe our sins have already been forgiven is said to justify because it occurs in the justified and is required by the justified; hence, no one who is indeed rational is justified unless he possesses this faith, and no one has this faith unless they are justified.
LXXII. Peter Molinaeus, often cited and professor of theology at the Academy of Sedan, seems to share this view. He considers justification to be from eternity and different from regeneration, which occurs in time and has a beginning. Discussing man’s justification before God, he mentions:
“It is from eternity, part of the decree of election, although its awareness is given to the faithful at a certain time. In contrast, regeneration happens in time, starting with the first sparks of faith and the initial movements of repentance.”
Thus, according to his hypothesis, a sinner’s sins are forgiven before they believe, and faith justifies only because through faith we are aware of justification.
…
CIV. However, Chamier and some others believe that justification is attributed to faith because of the act through which we believe our sins have been forgiven. But this view is entirely contrary to the truth. How can we be justified through an act that presupposes justification has already occurred? But the trust by which we are convinced our sins have been forgiven presupposes that justification has already occurred, as a person to whom sins are forgiven and pardoned is already justified. Chamier concedes that a person is justified
and sins are forgiven before they believe. But this contradicts the entire Scripture, which consistently teaches that God’s wrath remains on those who do not believe, and faith and repentance are the conditions under which forgiveness of sins is promised to us, without
which it cannot be obtained.
CV. Chamier’s argument that faith is said to justify because all who are justified eventually partake in it, and none is found justified without it, does not resolve the difficulty. By the same logic, we could also be said to be elected to grace through faith and good works because all who are elected to grace eventually exhibit faith and good works, and no one has faith and good works who is not also elected to grace.
…
CXV. Chamier and some others contend that justification is attributed to faith because of the act through which we believe our sins have been forgiven. However, this stance seems to conflict with the core essence of faith and justification. How can we be justified by an act that presupposes justification has already occurred?
…
CXVII. Among these various perspectives, some find more plausibility in the view that faith justifies as it adheres to God, relies on His mercy, and seeks grace and forgiveness.”
.
Contra (Recommended)
Articles
1600’s
Woodbridge, Benjamin – Justification by Faith: or, a Confutation of that Antinomian Error, that Justification is Before Faith; being the Sum & Substance of a Sermon (London: John Field, 1652) 36 pp.
Woodbridge (1622-1684)
Anon. – Actual Justification Rightly Stated, containing a True Narrative of a Sad Schism made in a church of Christ at Kilby in Leicester-shire, Proving None of the Elect are Actually Justified before Faith (London: B. Harris, 1696)
.
Books
1600’s
Warren, Thomas – Unbelievers No Subjects of Justification, nor of Mystical Union to Christ: being the Sum of a Sermon… with a Vindication of it from the Objections & Calumniations Cast upon it by Mr. William Eyre… Together with… a refutation of that… Error Asserted therein: viz. the Justification of Infidels, or the Justification of a Sinner before & without Faith. Wherein also the Conditional Necessity & Instrumentality of Faith unto Justification, together with the consistency of it, with the freeness of God’s grace, is explained, confirmed & vindicated… (London: E.T. for John Browne, 1654) 255 pp.
Warren (1616 or 1617 – 1694)
Graile, John – A Modest Vindication of the Doctrine of Conditions in the Covenant of Grace & the Defenders thereof, from the Aspersions of Arminianism & Popery, which Mr. William Eyre Cast on them (London, 1654) 125 pp.
John Flavel: “And as for those ancient and modern divines whom the Antinomians have corrupted and misrepresented, the reader may see them all vindicated, and their concurrence with those I have named evidenced by that learned and pious Mr. John Graile, in his Modest Vindication of the Doctrine of Conditions in the Covenant of Grace, from p. 58 onward;
a man whose name and memory is precious with me, not only upon the account of that excellent sermon he preached, and those fervent prayers he poured out many years since at my ordination; but for that learned and judicious treatise of his against Mr. Eyre [above], wherein he hath cast great light upon this controversy, as excellent Mr. Baxter and Mr. Woodbridge have also done. But alas! what evidence is sufficient to satisfy ignorant and obstinate men!” – Works, vol. 3, Appendix, Vindicarum Vindex, pp. 530-31
Eyre (c.1612-1670), according to Benjamin Woodbridge, argued for the doctrine that Justification is before faith (which is wrong). Eyre affirmed in his book, Vindiciae Justificationis Gratuitiae = Justification without Condtions, the instrumental nature of faith in Justification as passive only, not active (pp. 30-31).
.
Quotes
Order of
Cowper
Forbes
.
1600’s
William Cowper of Galloway
Three Heavenly Treatises upon Romans 8... (1609), on Rom. 8:30, p. 389 Cowper (1568–1619) was a reformed Scottish bishop.
“‘And whom He called, them also He justified.’ Having spoken of our calling, we come now to speak of our justification. This is a new benefit different from the former benefit of our calling, posterior to it in order of working but not in time: for in the same moment wherein the Lord by effectual calling gives us faith to believe, He does also justify us.”
.
William Forbes
Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 1, ch. 3, p. 27
“…they cannot deny that faith at least precedes justification in nature; which [faith] we certainly have not from ourselves, but from the preventing grace of Christ. (Colloquy of Aldeburg, p. 48; Robert Rollock, On Effectual Calling, ch. 33, p. 279; ch. 38, pp. 325 & 328; George Downame, On the Covenant of Grace, Appendix, p. 198 ff.)”
.
Pro (Not Recommended)
Article
1600’s
Mather, Richard – The Sum of Certain Sermons upon Gen. 15:6, wherein Not Only the Doctrine of Justification by Faith is Asserted & Cleared, & Sundry Arguments for Justification before Faith, Discussed & Answered: but also the Nature & the Means of Faith, with the Imputation of our Sins to Christ, and of Christ’s Righteousness to us are Briefly Explained & Confirmed (Cambridge, MA: Samuel Green, 1652) 45 pp.
.
Book
1600’s
Bradshaw, William – A Treatise of Justification, tending to prove that a Sinner is Justified before God only by Christ’s Righteousness Imputed (London: Creede, 1615) 96 pp. Summary
Bradshaw (1571-1618) was an English, congregationalist puritan. Bradshaw teaches justification before faith, that is, that faith is not a condition of justification, which is not recommended.
.
Faith is a Condition for Justification
Order of
Articles 2
Quotes 4
Rutherford’s Positions
.
Articles
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel
ch. 3, section 12, ‘Whether Faith is both a Condition & Promised? [Yes]’ in Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: the Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter tr. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (1638-1642; 1668; RBO, 2019), pp. 72-73
‘The Gospel is Conditional’ (1648) in A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist, pt. 2, ch. 38, pp. 39-40
.
Quotes
Order of
Voet
Westminster
Baxter & Twisse
Le Blanc
.
1600’s
Gisbert Voet
Voet, Gisbert – 9. ‘Justification’, Of Justification in General in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 3 Abbr.
“Whether it [justification] requires some movement of free choice and faith? It is affirmed with a distinction.”
.
Westminster Larger Catechism 32
“The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator,[t] and life and salvation by him;[v] and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him,[w] promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit[x] to all his elect, to work in them that faith,[y] with all other saving graces;[z] and to enable them unto all holy obedience,[a] as the evidence of the truth of their faith[b] and thankfulness to God,[c] and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.[d]
[t] Gen. 3:15. Isa. 42:6. John 6:27.
[v] 1 John 5:11,12.
[w] John 3:16. John 1:12.
[x] Prov. 1:23.
[y] 2 Cor. 4:13.
[z] Gal. 5:22,23.
[a] Ezek. 36:27.
[b] James 2:18,22.
[c] 2 Cor. 5:14,15.
[d] Eph. 2:18.”
.
Richard Baxter
Catholic Theology, Plain, Pure, Peaceable... (London: White, 1675), Preface, n.p.
“I had never read one Socinian, nor much of any Arminians… and I remembered two or three things in Dr. [William] Twisse (whom I most esteemed) which inclined me to moderation in the five Articles [disputed between Arminians and the Reformed]:
…
5. That faith is but causa dispositiva justificationis, and so is repentance.”
.
Louis Le Blanc
Theological Theses put forth at Various Times at the Academy of Sedan, vol. 2 3rd ed. tr. AI by Colloquia Scholastica (1645; London: Moses Pitt, 1683), On Justifying Faith, pt. 1, pp. 165-66 Le Blanc (1614-1675) was a reformed professor of theology at Sedan, France.
“CXIII. Then, it seems somewhat uncertain when they [some Reformed theologians] distinguish between the act that predisposes one to justification and the act they say is formally justifying. According to the Reformed perspective, faith does not justify as a sort of form through which we are justified but rather as an instrument grasping Christ’s merit, as many say, or as a condition of the covenant of grace, which God counts as righteousness for Christ’s sake, as others prefer to say.
These views, upon closer examination, converge to the same point. No one would say faith is a physical instrument of our justification; it can only intervene as a moral instrument. But faith can’t be a moral instrument of justification unless in the sense that God has promised forgiveness of sins to believers, which cannot be attained without the intervention of a living and effective faith. This is essentially the same as being a condition of the covenant of grace, wherein God offers grace and glory to believers and repentants.”
.
Rutherford’s Positions
Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself (London: 1647), pp. 261-69
“Antinomians believe that all the promises in the Gospel made upon conditions to be performed by creatures, especially free-will casting in its share to the work, smell of some grains of the Law and of obedience for hire, and that bargaining of this kind cannot consist with free grace.
And the doubt may seem to have strength in that our divines argue against the Arminian decree of election to glory upon condition of faith and perseverance foreseen in the persons so chosen, because then election to glory should not be of mere grace, but depend on some thing in the creature, as on a condition or motive at least, if not as on a cause, work or hire. But Arminians reply: the condition being of grace cannot make anything against the freedom of the grace of election, because, so justification and glorification should not be of mere grace; for sure we are justified and saved upon condition of faith, freely given us of God.
The question then must be whether there can be any conditional promises in the Gospel of Grace, or whether a condition performed by us and free grace can consist together. Antinomians say they are [as] contrary as fire and water.
Hence these positions for the clearing of this considerable question.”
Position 1. The condition that Arminians fancy to be in the Gospel can neither consist with the grace of election, justification, calling of grace or crowning of believers with glory; this condition they say we hold, but they err: because it is a condition of hire that they have borrowed from lawyers, such as is between man and man, ex causa onerosa, it’s absolutely in the power of men to do or not to do and bows and determines the Lord and his free-will absolutly to this part of the contradiction which the creature chooses, though contrary to the natural inclination and antecedent will and decree of God wishing, desiring and earnestly inclining to the obedience and salvation of the creature.
Position 2. Evangelic conditions wrought in the elect by the irresistible grace of God and grace do well consist together. Jn. 5:24, ‘Verily, Verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and beleeveth in Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation: but is passed from death to life.’… Faith is the condition of the Covenant of Grace and the only condition of justification and of the title, right and claim that the elect have, through Christ, to life eternal. Holy walking, as a witness of faith, is the way to the possession of the kingdom. As Rom. 2.6, ‘Who will render to every man according to his deeds.’ Verse 7, ‘To them who by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honour, and immortality, eternall life.’
Position 3. The decree of election to glory may be said to be more free and gracious in one respect, and justification, glorification and conversion more free in another respect, and all the four, of mere free grace.
Position 4. Conversion, justification are free for election, and therefore election is more free, but all these as they are in God are equally free and are one simple good will. Though Christ justify and crown none but such as are quallified with the grace of believing, yet believing is a condition that removes nothing of the freedom of grace:
1. Because it works nothing in the bowels of mercy and the free grace of God as a motive, cause, or moving condition that does extract acts of grace out of God; only we may conceive this order, that grace of electing to glory stirs another wheel (to speak so) of free love to give faith, effectual calling, justification and eternal glory.
2. It’s no hire nor work at all; nor does it justify as a work, but [it] only lays hold on the Lord our righteousness.
Position 5. Though it be true that grace is essentially in God and in us by participation, yet is it false that grace is not properly in us, but that faith, hope, repentance and the like that are in us are gifts, not graces. For grace in us may be called a gift in that it is freely given us…
There is a great deceitfulness in our heart in the matter of performed conditions:
[1.] So soon as we have performed a condition, though wrought in us by mere grace, we hold out our hand and cry, ‘Pay me, Lord, my wages, for I have done my work;’ so near of kin to our corrupt hearts is the conceit of merit.
2. A second deceit is, when an obligation of obedience presses us, we overlook the condition and fix our eyes on the promise when we should eye the precept; and when it comes to the reward, when we should most look to the promise of free grace, then we eye the precept and challenge debt and forget grace.
3. When we are pressed with the supernatural duty of believing and should look only to free grace, which only must enable us to that high work of believing, we look to ourselves and complain, ‘Oh, I am not weary and laden, and therefore not qualified for Christ,’ and so we turn wickedly and proudly wise to shift ourselves of Christ; when we should look to ourselves, we look away from ourselves to a promise of our wages, but our bad deservings, if looked to, would turn our eyes on our abominations that we might eye free grace; and when we should eye free grace, we look to our sinful unfitness to believe and come to Christ.
.
On Faith as an Instrument
Order of
Articles 3
Quotes 4
.
Articles
1600’s
Forbes, William – pp. 33-37 & 55-59 in Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 1, chs. 3-4
“10. Protestants, however, almost universally teach that we are justified by faith alone, and that not after the manner of a disposition (as the Romanists say) but after the manner of an instrument; that is, that justification is received, or as they themselves say, apprehended by no other thing than faith.” – p. 33
Burgess, Anthony – Objection 2, pp. 256-59 in sermon 26 in The True Doctrine of Justification… (London, 1654)
Warren, Thomas – pp. 192-97 in ch. 8, ‘…and the instrumentality of faith is proved’ in Unbelievers No Subjects of Justification, Nor of Mystical Union to Christ… (London, 1654)
This is very good and more detailed than Burgess.
Turretin, Francis – 7. ‘Does faith justify us properly and of itself or only relatively and instrumentally? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Socinians, Remonstrants and Romanists.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 2, 16th Topic, pp. 669-75
.
Quotes
Order of
Spanheim
Leigh
Burgess
Le Blanc
.
1600’s
Friedrich Spanheim
‘Miscellaneous Theological Disputation exhibiting a Theological Compendium’ in Disputationum Theologicarum Miscellaneorum Pars Prima (d. 1649; Geneva: Chouët, 1652), trans. AI by Roman Prestarri at Confessionally Reformed Theology Latin
“36. The instrument of application is faith, not theoretical but practical, nor an act of the mind only but also of the heart, and that not superficial but radical.
37. But this faith is regarded in application neither habitually or qualitatively, but only relatively and organically, whence the benefit of justification is promiscuously ascribed, sometimes to the instrument, sometimes to the object apprehended through the instrument, in an identical sense.
38. The instruments of producing this faith are the Word and sacraments, not by reason of inherent virtue, but by reason of adhering blessing, and that from God’s ordination. Whence both the use of the Word and Sacraments is to be employed, yet to be circumscribed, and neither is to be attributed to the instruments what belongs to Him who acts through instruments, nor is God to be bound to them, but man only, nor is the same latitude to be judged of our duty and of grace.
39. The efficient cause of this faith is God’s Spirit, who through internal calling produces its act, through sanctification its habit, and through this omnimodo-sanctity according to parts, although not according to degrees, both as to the repurgation of faculties corrupted through sin and as to the convenient subordination of them inverted through sin.”
.
Edward Leigh
A System or Body of Divinity... (London, 1654), bk. 7, ch. 10, ‘Whether Faith Alone does Justify?’, pp. 528-29
“The Papists, Socinians and Remonstrants all acknowledge faith to justify, but by it they mean obedience to God’s commandments, and so make it a work, and [do] not consider it as an instrument receiving Christ and his pro∣mise.
A Papist, a Socinian, a Protestant says, ‘We are justified by faith,’ but dispositive [dispositionally, as an inherent disposition], says the Papist, conditionaliter [conditionally, as a condition only], says the Socinian, applicativè [applyingly], says the Protestant.
Faith justifies not as a quality or habit [an inward abiding power] in us, as the Papists teach, Ipsa fides censetur esse justitia [faith itself is considered to be righteousness], for so it is a part of sanctification, but as it is the instrument and hand to receive Christ who is our righteousness, much less as it is an act, as Socinus and his followers teach, as though [Greek] ipsum credere [‘to believe itself’], did properly justify; if we should be justified by it as it is an act, then we should be justified by our works and we should be no longer justified actually then we do actually believe, and so there should be an intercision of justification so oft as there is an intermission of the act of faith; but justification is a continued act.
…
We are said to be justified by faith, to live by it, to be saved by it, to have it imputed unto us for righteousness: all which is to be understood not principally, immediately, meritoriously in regard of any worth or dignity of it, or efficacious∣ly in regard of any power or efficacy in itself, but mediately, subserviently, organically, as it is a means to apprehend Christ his satisfaction and his sufferings, by the price and merit whereof we are justified, saved and stand as righteous in God’s sight, and as it has a special respect and relation thereto. Mr. Gataker against Saltmarsh [an antinomian], Shadows without Substance [1646], p. 56.
In the Covenant of Works, works are considered as in themselves performed by the parties to be justified and in reference unto ought done, or to be done for them by any other; whereas in the Covenant of Grace, faith is required and considered, not as a work barely done by us, but as an instrument or mean whereby Christ is apprehended and received, in whom is found, and by whom that is done, whereby God’s justice is satisfied, and life eternal meritoriously procured for us, that which carries the power and efficacy of all home to Christ.
…
Only faith receives Christ and a promise. Faith justifies by the mere ordination of God, that on the receiving of Christ, or resting on Him we shall be justified. The proper act of faith which justifies is the relying on Christ for pardon of sin.
To justify does not flow from any act of grace, because of the dignity and excellency of that act, but because of the peculiar nature, that it does receive and apply. Therefore to receive Christ and to believe in Him is all one, and faith is always opposed to works.”
.
Anthony Burgess
The True Doctrine of Justification… (London, 1654), sermon 23, pp. 224-25
“…our orthodox divines do say that faith justifies as it’s an instrument, laying hold on Christ, so that Christ received by faith is properly that which justifies, not faith itself, or any dignity in it. This is the hand that receiveth the jewel, which does enrich us.
This doctrine, though so generally received and avowed by all Protestant writers, yet of late is rejected among other reasons, because [it is said] there cannot be any passive instrument. Now I much wonder that Bellarmine, Becanus and other subtil Jesuits that turned every stone to overthrow faith’s instrumentality in justification, should so far forget their logic and metaphysics as not to pitch upon this objection above all, that there cannot be any such thing as a passive instrument.
Truly I think, when a man of godly affections broaches an error, which he takes to be a truth, he himself is a passive instrument to bring others into errors. If we regard natural causes and moral, we may easily mention many passive instruments: In natural things the throat is a passive instrument of drinking. The Conduit-pipe of conveying water, and twenty such instances men may think of. In morality, taking that largely, there are many passive instruments: Nebuchadnezzar and all wicked men are God’s passive instruments. The Serpent by which the Devil deceived Eve, was a passive instrument: and to come nearer to our purpose, who can deny but that miraculous faith was a passive instrument in doing miracles, for the power of working miracles is infinite and could not be communicated to a creature no more than the creation of a world, only they by resting on God’s power, God wrought these wonderful things by them.
But nothing does so fully represent this as the opinion of Aristotle and others following him, that intelligere is pati, and so videre, audire, are pati, ‘to understand is to receive,’ and so ‘to see’ and ‘hear;’ the soul does these by those faculties which are passive instruments therein; and therefore when Bellarmine would prove that credere and apprehendere were actions and works, it’s well answered that to believe or to lay hold on Christ (the Greek word applied often to faith is [Greek].
Though they be grammatical actions, yet they are naturally passions, as intelligere, videre are active verbs according to grammar, but naturally and physically are passions: So that a man in believing is passive, that is, he receives Christ for his righteousness: But of a passive instrument more hereafter.
Justification is not in giving something to God but in receiving from Him; we do not curiously litigate about the word ‘instrument;’ by instrumentum we mean no more than medium, whereby the soul receives the Gospel-righteousness tendered unto it, and those peculiar expressions you heard the Scripture gives to faith, can evince no less.
If therefore faith justify upon a peculiar reason, that that grace only has, viz. because it receives and applies Christ our righteousness, then other graces and holy works, having no such capacity, cannot justify. As the hand only, not the eyes or the feet, are the instrument that take alms given to a poor man. This consideration made that learned man Mr. [John] Ball, say how faith and works should be conjoined as con-causes in justification is impossible to conceive. Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, p. 70.
And it’s a mere sophism to say that if by faith we receive Christ, and faith is the receiving of Christ, then we receive Christ by receiving; for its not the notion of faith that is properly the instrument receiving, but faith as the habit putting itself into act. So that the meaning is, faith acting or laying hold upon Christ, is the instrument receiving Him. Neither is this to give too much to faith, no more than in the faith of miracles, when Christ said to some, ‘Thy faith hath made thee whole,’ that thereby our Savior gave any dignity to faith, as if that were the cause of their health.”
.
Louis Le Blanc
Theological Theses put forth at Various Times at the Academy of Sedan, vol. 2 3rd ed. tr. AI by Colloquia Scholastica (1645; London: Moses Pitt, 1683), On Justifying Faith, pt. 1, pp. 165-66 Le Blanc (1614-1675) was a reformed professor of theology at Sedan, France.
“CXIII. Then, it seems somewhat uncertain when they [some Reformed theologians] distinguish between the act that predisposes one to justification and the act they say is formally justifying. According to the Reformed perspective, faith does not justify as a sort of form through which we are justified but rather as an instrument grasping Christ’s merit, as many say, or as a condition of the covenant of grace, which God counts as righteousness for Christ’s sake, as others prefer to say.
These views, upon closer examination, converge to the same point. No one would say faith is a physical instrument of our justification; it can only intervene as a moral instrument. But faith can’t be a moral instrument of justification unless in the sense that God has promised forgiveness of sins to believers, which cannot be attained without the intervention of a living and effective faith. This is essentially the same as being a condition of the covenant of grace, wherein God offers grace and glory to believers and repentants.”
.
On Faith being Counted for Righteousness, Rom. 4:5 & 9
Order of
Bible Verses
WCF
Article 1
.
Bible Verses
Gen. 15:5-6 “And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”
Rom. 4:5-11
“5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying [Ps. 32], Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:”
.
Westminster Confession of Faith
ch. 11, ‘Of Justification’
“I. Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous: not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.”
.
Article
1600’s
Forbes, William – ch. 2, point 2 in Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, pp. 99-101
Forbes shows the different senses in which faith being imputed for righteousness might be understood, giving light on precisely what sense(s) the later language of the WCF excludes, and what it implicitly allows.
.
Justifying Faith is Never Alone, Yet We are Justified by Faith Alone
Order of
Articles 2
Quotes 4
.
Article
1500’s
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ‘Whether True Faith may be Separated from Charity’ in The Common Places… (London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 3, ch. ‘Of Faith and the Certainty thereof…’, pp. 69-74
.
1600’s
Ward, Samuel – ‘The Faith that Alone Justifies, is not Without Hope & Love’ in Theological Determinations in Works of Samuel Ward, ed. Seth Ward (d. 1643; Gallibrand, 1658), pp. 35-42
Ward (1572–1643) was an English academic and a master at the University of Cambridge. He served as one of the delegates from the Church of England to the Synod of Dort.
.
Quotes
Order of
Bucer
Ball
Spanheim
Leigh
.
1500’s
Martin Bucer
at the 2nd Conference of Ratisbon (1546); Bucer, Acts of the Colloquy of Ratisbon, 2i, pp. 213, 218 ff. in William Forbes, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 1, ch. 5, p. 65
“we are justified by faith alone… [yet] we, in a certain mode, apprehend, embrace and hold fast the grace of God, and the justice of Christ, by hope and love also; but that we are justified by faith alone, because by faith first we apprehend and embrace the justice of Christ.”
.
1600’s
John Ball
A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace… (London: 1645), ch. 3, ‘Of the Covenant of Grace in General’, pp. 20-21
.
Friedrich Spanheim
‘Disputation on the Justification of Man before God’ in Disputationum Theologicarum Miscellaneorum Pars Prima (Geneva: Chouët, 1652), trans. AI by Roman Prestarri at Confessionally Reformed Theology
“16. And indeed, as among the external instrumental causes of justification there is both the Word of the Gospel, Rom. I.16, and the sacraments, Tit. III.5; 1 Pet. III.21: so the internal instrumental cause is not hope, charity, fear, repentance, etc., but faith alone among causes of its own order — and alone indeed not by reason of its existence, but by reason of its apprehension and the faculty of apprehending — inasmuch as it alone is the analogous instrument suited to the apprehension of the righteousness of Christ.
17. Faith, moreover, is considered in the act of justification neither dispositively, nor habitually, nor formally, nor meritoriously, nor in the genus of a work, but partly organically by reason of its own act, and partly correlatively by reason of its object [i.e. Christ]. Whence the apostle wisely says that we are justified πίστει [pistei, by faith], ἐκ πίστεως [ek pisteōs, out of faith], διὰ τῆς πίστεως [dia tēs pisteōs, through faith] — but never διὰ τὴν πίστιν [dia tēn pistin, on account of faith].”
.
Edward Leigh
A System or Body of Divinity… (London, 1654), bk. 7, ch. 10, ‘Whether Faith Alone does Justify?’, pp. 528-29
“When we say, ‘Faith alone does justify,’ we do not mean fidem solitariam, that faith which is alone; neither do we in construction join sola with fides the subject, but with justification the predicate, meaning that true faith though it be not alone, yet it does justify alone, even as the eye, though in respect of being it is not alone, yet in respect of seeing, unto which no other member does concur with it, it being the only instrument of that faculty, it is truly said to see alone, so faith though in respect of the being thereof it is not alone, yet in respect of justifying, unto which act no other grace does concur with it, it being the only instrument of apprehending and receiving Christ, is truly said to justify alone.
When we say by faith only, this opposes all other graces of the same order, but not the merits of Christ or the efficacy of God’s grace; the apostle, Rom. 4, makes it all one to prove a man justified by grace, Christ and by faith. It is to be considered as alone in the act of justification, but not in the subject justified; therefore that is a reproach cast on Protestants to call them Solifidians.”
.
Whether in & by Justification Christ’s Righteousness becomes Our Righteousness
Order of
Intro
Yes 2
No 4
.
Intro
While Scripture in many places speaks of Christ’s righteousness bringing God’s gift of eternal life to us (Rom. 3:21-22, 25-26; 5:17-18, 21; 9:30; 1 Cor. 1:30; Phil. 3:9; 2 Pet. 1:1, etc.), and even speaks of “the Lord our Righteousness” (Jer. 23:6; 33:16; cf. 51:10), there was a debate amongst the Reformed whether (1) Christ’s righteousness becomes our own personal righteousness (and in what way), versus (2) the power and effects of the righteousness of Christ (remaining in Him and solely his) effecting our legal standing as righteous. The issue was not about Christ’s righteousness being imputed or not, but over what imputation exactly is, or entails.
Romanists regularly denied the first sense, and the language of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, although some conceded that language; see on this page: ‘Romanism & Romanists affirming Christ’s Satisfaction & Merits being Freely Imputed to Believers, even Conceding the Language of Christ’s Righteousness being Imputed to Believers’.
.
Yes
Articles
1600’s
Pemble, William –
.
Quote
1600’s
Thomas Taylor
A Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Paul written to Titus… (Cambridge: Greene, 1612), on chapter 3, v. 7, p. 666 Taylor (1576-1632) was partially conforming English puritan.
“For 2. I add, it is by the satisfaction of Christ the Redeemer, wherein are contained both the matter and form of the justification of a sinner.
The matter is Christ’s satisfaction, his obedience in his life, in his death; in fulfilling the law, and in suffering for our not fulfilling it; and the merit of all manifested in his resurrection and glorious ascension.
The form is the imputing of that obedience whereby the righteousness of Christ does now become the believer’s as truly and really by imputation as it was Christ’s own in action.”
.
No
Articles
1600’s
Wotten, Anthony –
Morton, Thomas – Catholic Appeal for Protestants, bk. 5, ch. 11, sect. 2, n. 4
Forbes, William – pp. 115-41 in Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, ch. 2
Forbes’s discussion of the formal cause of justification is important, whether it be strictly the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. He argues “No”. He cites for this view, besides Romanists (such as Albert Pighius), Pareus, Prideaux, Sibrandus and Chamier. He does affirm, with others, that Christ’s righteousness is the meritorious cause of justification.
Baxter, Richard –
.
God Continues to Know All our Sins, but does Not Charge Them to the Justified
Articles
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel – Ch. 25, ‘The Antinomians’ ground, that God sees no sin in the justified, refuted’ in A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist: Opening the Secrets of Familism & Antinomianism… (London: J.D., 1648), pt. 2, pp. 26-27
Witsius, Herman – section 13 of ch. 13, ‘Our Judgment concerning these Paradoxes’ in Concilatory, or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians & Neonomians trans. Thomas Bell (Glasgow, 1807), pp. 137-38
Witsius quotes Chamier at a bit of length.
.
Both the Fault & Punishment of our Sins are Remitted in Justification
Article
1600’s
Pemble, William – section 7, ch. 2, ‘All sin is remitted unto us wholly in the fault and punishment, for the only satisfaction of Jesus Christ’ in Vindiciae fidei, or a Treatise of Justification by Faith… (Oxford: John Lichfield, 1625), pp. 231-39
.
On the Forgiveness of Future Sins
Order of
Bible Verses 3
Quotes 4
Latin 1
.
Bible Verses
Mt. 6:11-12 “Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.”
Rom. 3:25 “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;”
2 Pet. 1:9 “But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.”
.
Quotes
Order of
Ames
Warren
Owen
a Brakel
.
1600’s
William Ames
The Marrow of Theology (Baker, 1997), ch. 27, ‘Justification’, p. 163
“23. Not only are past sins of justified persons remitted but also those to come, Num. 23:25. God sees no iniquity in Jacob or perverseness in Israel. Justification has left no place for condemnation. John 5:24, ‘He who believes has eternal life and shall not come into condemnation’ — justification gives eternal life surely and immediately. It also makes the whole remission obtained for us in Christ actually ours. Neither past or present sins can be altogether fully remitted unless sins to come are in some way remitted.
24. The difference is that past sins are remitted specifically and sins to come potentially. Past sins are remitted in themselves, sins to come in the subject or the person sinning.”
.
Thomas Warren
Unbelievers No Subjects of Justification, Nor of Mystical Union to Christ… (London, 1654), ch. 11, pp. 250-51
“…upon the first moment that a man believes he is justified, and all his sins-past are actually pardoned, his sins to come virtually, so that no following sin shall unjustify him; though it may take away his aptitude for heaven, yet not his right: and though his sin may deserve damnation, and without actual repentance and faith he cannot be saved, yet grace shall be given to enable him to repent and believe, so that though there must be nova remissio [a new remission], yet there is not nova justificatio [a new justification]; though a new remission is needful, yet not a new justification; pardon of sin is a continued act, but our justification quoad statum [as far as the state] is done simul et semel, ‘once and for all’; this you know to be the Orthodox opinion…”
.
John Owen
The Doctrine of Justification by Faith… (London: Boulter, 1677), ch. 5, pp. 202-3
“Hence in the first justification of believing sinners, all future sins are remitted as unto any actual obligation unto the curse of the Law… And although sin cannot be actually pardoned before it be actually committed, yet may the obligation unto the curse of the Law be virtually taken away from such sins in justified persons as are consistent with a justified estate, or the terms of the Covenant of Grace, antecedently unto their actual commission.
God at once in this sense forgives all their iniquities, and heals all their diseases, redeems their life from destruction, and crowns them with loving kindness and mercies, Ps. 103:2-3. Future sins are not so pardoned as that when they are committed they should be no sins, which cannot be, unless the commanding power of the Law be abrogated. But their respect unto the curse of the Law, or their power to oblige the justified person thereunto is taken away.
…
Whereas therefore one essential part of justification consists in the pardon of our sins, and sins cannot be actually pardoned before they are actually committed…
Justification is at once complete in the imputation of a perfect righteousness, the grant of a right and title unto the heavenly inheritance, the actual pardon of all past sins, and the virtual pardon of future sins…”
.
1700’s
Wilhelmus à Brakel
The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vols. 2 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout (1700; RHB, 1992/1999), p. 378
“The justification which occurs upon the first act of faith, and which occurs time and again after that, each time includes the
forgiveness of sins—sins to be committed subsequently virtualiter [‘virtually’], that is, as far as virtue and efficacy are concerned; thus declaring that they would also each time be forgiven actualiter, that is, ‘actually.’ However, sins cannot be forgiven in actuality prior to being committed. We cannot speak of that which does not exist; whatever has not been committed
cannot be forgiven.”
.
Latin Article
1600’s
Tuckney, Anthony – ch. 13, ‘Past & Future Sins are Not Simultaneously Remitted’ in Theological Lectures, even Determinations of Various Momentous Question... (Amsterdam: Swart, 1679), pt. 2, p. 118-23
This section is commended by Witsius, Animadversions, pp. 136-37, section 12.
.
On the Reconciliation of Paul & James about Justification
See also ‘Faith without Works does not Justify’ on the page, ‘The Necessity of Good Works’.
.
Order of
Intro
Articles 7
Quote 1
.
Intro
The traditional Protestant interpretation of Paul and James is that, as their contexts show, when Paul speaks of Justification without works, he is arguing for the *legal*, forensic grounds by which we are justified before God, whereas James, when speaking of Justification by works, is in context showing how a professor is *demonstrated* to be justified, contrary to false professors whose nominal faith is not saving.
See below for why the Protestant interpretation is right and is the natural and necessary reading of the passages.
.
Articles
1500’s
Melanchthon, Philip – ‘Melanchton on Justification in James 2’ trans. Charles Johnson from Loci communes theologici (1562), pp. 299-300
.
1600’s
Pemble, William – Vindiciae fidei, or a Treatise of Justification by Faith… (Oxford: John Lichfield, 1625), section 6
ch. 1, ‘The reconciliation of that seeming opposition, between St. Paul & St. James in this point of Justification’, pp. 185-93
ch. 2, ‘The confirmation of the orthodox reconciliation of St. Paul & St. James by a logical analysis of St. James…’, pp. 194-219
Goodwin, Thomas – bk. 2, ch. 2, ‘How the Apostle Paul & the Apostle James are Consistent in the Account which they give of Abraham’s Justification’ of Gospel Holiness in the Heart & Life in Works (London: James Nichol, 1861), vol. 7, pp. 180-86
Rutherford, Samuel – ch. 19, section ‘5. The place of declarative justification by works, James 2, discussed,’ pp. 158-74 in The Covenant of Life Opened… (Edinburgh, 1655), pt. 1
Owen, John – ch. 20, ‘The Doctrine of the Apostle James concerning Faith & Works, its Agreement with that of St. Paul’ in The Doctrine of Justification by Faith in Works (†1683; Johnstone & Hunter, 1850), 5.384-400
“…in my judgment the usual solution of this appearing difficulty… in the discourse of St. James, ch. 2, v. 14 to the end, has not been in the least impeached, nor has had any new difficulty put upon it in some late discourses to that purpose…
…It is taken for granted on all hands that there is no real repugnancy or contradiction between what is delivered by these two apostles…
…It is taken also for granted on all other occasions that when there is an appearance of repugnancy or contradiction in any places of Scripture, if some or any of them do treat directly, designedly and largely about the matter concerning which there is a seeming repugnancy or contradiction, and others, or any other speak of the same things only obiter, occasionally, transiently, in order unto other ends, the truth is to be learned, stated and fixed from the former places…
According unto this rule, it is unquestionable that the doctrine of justification before God is to be learned from the writings of the apostle Paul, and from them is light to be taken into all other places of Scripture where it is occasionally mentioned…
For it must be acknowledged that he wrote of this subject of our justification before God on purpose to declare it for its own sake, and its use in the Church, and that he does it fully, largely and frequently in a constant harmony of expressions…
As unto what is delivered by the apostle James, so far as our justification is included therein, things are quite otherwise. He does not undertake to declare the doctrine of our justification before God, but having another design in hand as we shall see…” – pp. 384-86
“…I shall manifest: (1) That they have not the same scope, design or end in their discourses; That they do not consider the same question, nor state the same case, nor determine on the same inquiry, and therefore not speaking ad idem, ‘unto the same thing,’ do not contradict one another. (2) That as faith is a word of various signification in the Scripture… they speak not of the same faith, or faith of the same kind… (3) That they do not speak of justification in the same sense, nor with respect unto the same ends. (4) That as unto works they both intend the same, namely, the works of obedience unto the moral Law.
…As to the scope and design of the apostle Paul… is to declare how a guilty, convinced sinner comes through faith in the blood of Christ to have all his sins pardoned, to be accepted with God and obtain a right unto the heavenly inheritance, that is, be acquitted and justified in the sight of God…
The apostle James on the other hand had no such scope or design… But he had in hand a business quite of another nature… there were many in those days who professed the Christian religion or faith in the Gospel, whereon they presumed that as they were already justified, so that there was nothing more needful unto them that they might be saved. A desirable estate they thought they had attained, suited unto all the interest of the flesh, whereby they might live in sin and neglect of all duty of obedience, and yet be eternally saved…
Against this sort of persons, or for their conviction, he designs two things: (1) In general to prove the necessity of works unto all that profess the gospel or faith in Christ thereby; (2) To evidence the vanity and folly of their pretense unto justification, or that they were justified and should be saved by that faith that was indeed so far from being fruitful in good works, as that it was pretended by them only to countenance themselves in sin. Unto these ends are all his arguings designed and no other.
He proves effectually that the faith which is wholly barren and fruitless as unto obedience, and which men pretended to countenance themselves in their sins, is not that faith whereby we are justified and whereby we may be saved, but a dead carcass, of no use nor benefit, as he declares by the conclusion of his whole dispute in the last verse of the chapter. He does not direct any how they may be justified before God, but convinces some that they are not justified by trusting unto such a dead faith, and declares the only way whereby any man may really evidence and manifest that he is so justified indeed. This design of his is so plain, as nothing can be more evident…” – pp. 387-89
Witsius, Herman – sections 15-16 in ch. 8, ‘Concerning the Law of Works, the Works of the Law, & Faith’ in Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain: under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians & Neonomians (Glasgow, 1807), pp. 97-98
.
1700’s
Dixon, Anthony – ‘III. Thing Proposed, viz., to Show in What Sense a Believer is Justified by Works’ being point 3 of 3 of his sermon on James 2:21, Eternal Justification Unmasked, being the Substance of a Sermon (London, 1790)
This sermon is excellent.
.
Quote
1600’s
Edward Leigh
A System or Body of Divinity... (London, 1654), bk. 7, ch. 10, ‘Whether Faith Alone does Justify?’, p. 529
“Paul and James do not contradict one another; Paul shows what is that which justifies, and James shows what kind of faith justifies, viz. a lively effectual faith. James shows that faith justifies quae viva [in the manner of it living], Paul shows that it does not justify qua viva [as it is living], which is a great difference though the Remonstrants [Arminians] scoff at such a nicety: who would give a lemmon-paring for the difference?”
.
Faith Does Not Include Repentance, Obedience or Love
Order of
Articles 6
Quotes 2
Faith does include Love 2
.
Articles
1500’s
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ‘Whether Charity may be called the Form of Faith?’ in The Common Places… (London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 3, ch. 3, ‘Of Faith and the Certainty thereof; and how faith may agree with fear’, pp. 74-75
.
1600’s
Baron, Robert – 22. ‘Whether charity is the form of faith [No]’ in Philosophy, the Handmaiden of Theology: a Pious & Sober Explanation of Philosophical Questions that Frequently occur in Theological Disputations 2nd ed. trans. AI (1621; Robinson & Davis, 1658), 3rd Exercise, Faith, Knowledge & Opinion, pp. 128-29 Latin
Baron (c.1596-1639) was a Scottish minister, theologian and one of the Aberdeen doctors.
Rutherford, Samuel
The Covenant of Life Opened, pp. 172-176
“The Socinian, Arminian and Papists’ faith includes new repentance and new obedience, contrary to the Scripture which differs between faith and new obedience.”
Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself, p. 77
“Not any protestant divine… did ever teach that faith, new obedience, repentance are grounds upon which God justifies a sinner.”
ch. 36, ‘Repentance Mistaken by Antinomians’ in A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist, Pt. 2
Owen, John – pp. 103-4 of ch. 2, ‘The Nature of Justifying Faith’ in Justification by Faith… in Works, vol. 5
Turretin, Francis – 13. ‘Whether the form of justifying faith is love or obedience to God’s commands. We deny against the Romanists and Socinians.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 2, 15th Topic, pp. 580-83
Witsius, Herman – ch. 8, ‘Concerning the Law of Works, the Works of the Law, & Faith’ in Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain: under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians & Neonomians (Glasgow, 1807), pp. 86-99
.
Quotes
Order of
Rutherford
Leigh
.
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself… (London: 1647)
pt. 1, p. 77
[Margin note:] Protestants make mortification and repentance some other thing than faith.
Not any Protestant divine, whom the author calls legal teachers, ignorant of the mystery of the Gospel, did ever teach that faith, new obedience, repentance, are grounds upon which God justifies a sinner. Antinomians, who make repentance and mortification all one with faith; and as Master Den says, they are but a change of the mind, to seek righteousnesse and mortification in Christ, not in ourselves. Thus much [Greek] does signify, must say, as we are justified by faith, so also by repentance, and mortification: if repentance be nothing but faith, as they say.”
.
pt. 3, p. 272
“1. Because this is faith; and the Scripture says we are justified by faith. 2. We receive Christ by faith, Jn. 1:12. (3) We receive and embrace the promise by faith, Heb. 11:11, and were persuaded of them. 4. We are to believe without staggering, Rom. 4:19. (5) We have peace of conscience through faith, Rom. 5:1. (6) By faith we have access into this grace wherein wee stand, Rom. 5:2. And boldness to enter into the holy of holiest, and draw near to our High Priest, with full assurance of faith, Heb. 10:19-22.
Now we are not justified by repentance and mortification; we neither receive Christ, nor embrace the promises by repentance. The apostle requires in repentance, sorrow, carefulness to eschew sin, clearing, indignation, fear, zeal, desire, revenge, 2 Cor. 7:10-11, but no where does the Scripture require this as an ingredient of repentance, that we have boldness and access, and full assurance: nor do Antinomians admit that by repentance we have peace, or pardon, but this they ascribe to faith.”
.
Edward Leigh
A System or Body of Divinity... (London, 1654), bk. 7, ch. 10, ‘Whether Faith Alone does Justify?’, pp. 528-29
“The Papists, Socinians and Remonstrants all acknowledge faith to justify, but by it they mean obedience to God’s commandments, and so make it a work, and [do] not consider it as an instrument receiving Christ and his pro∣mise.
A Papist, a Socinian, a Protestant says, ‘We are justified by faith,’ but dispositive [dispositionally, as an inherent disposition], says the Papist, conditionaliter [conditionally, as a condition only], says the Socinian, applicativè [applyingly], says the Protestant.
Faith justifies not as a quality or habit [an inward abiding power] in us, as the Papists teach, Ipsa fides censetur esse justitia [faith itself is considered to be righteousness], for so it is a part of sanctification, but as it is the instrument and hand to receive Christ who is our righteousness, much less as it is an act, as Socinus and his followers teach, as though [Greek] ipsum credere [‘to believe itself’], did properly justify; if we should be justified by it as it is an act, then we should be justified by our works and we should be no longer justified actually then we do actually believe, and so there should be an intercision of justification so oft as there is an intermission of the act of faith; but justification is a continued act.
…
When we say, ‘Faith alone does justify,’ we do not mean fidem solitariam, that faith which is alone; neither do we in construction join sola with fides the subject, but with justification the predicate, meaning that true faith though it be not alone, yet it does justify alone, even as the eye, though in respect of being it is not alone, yet in respect of seeing, unto which no other member does concur with it, it being the only instrument of that faculty, it is truly said to see alone, so faith though in respect of the being thereof it is not alone, yet in respect of justifying, unto which act no other grace does concur with it, it being the only instrument of apprehending and receiving Christ, is truly said to justify alone.
…
Objection: Faith is a work; therefore if we be justified by faith, then by works.
Answer: With faith we must join the object of it, viz. Christ, Fides justificat non absolutè, sed relativè sc. cum objecto, non efficiendo sed afficiendo et applicando [‘Faith does not justify absolutely, but relatively, even with the object, not efficiently, but affectively and applyingly]. The Scripture says we are justified by faith, and through faith, but never for faith or because of our faith: per fidem, ex fide, non propter fidem. We can only be justified by that righteousness which is universal and complete; faith is a partial righteousness, Phil. 3:9, and as imperfect as other graces.
…
Only faith receives Christ and a promise. Faith justifies by the mere ordination of God, that on the receiving of Christ, or resting on Him we shall be justified. The proper act of faith which justifies is the relying on Christ for pardon of sin.
To justify does not flow from any act of grace, because of the dignity and excellency of that act, but because of the peculiar nature, that it does receive and apply; therefore to receive Christ and to believe in Him is all one, and faith is always opposed to works.
Bellarmine objects that to apply is a work or action. It is true, it is a grammatical action, but a predicamental passion [an Aristotelian category of disposition]. But says Bellarmine, ‘Love lays hold on Christ, and by love we are made one;’ but yet there is a difference: love makes us one with Christ extramittendo [sending out], faith intramittendo [bringing in], and besides love joins us to Christ after we are made one by faith, so that it cannot justify us.”
.
That Faith does, or may be said to, include Love in some Tolerable Sense
Article
1600’s
Forbes, William – point 15, pp. 37-39 in Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 1, ch. 3
.
Quote
1600’s
Louis Le Blanc de Beaulieu
Theological Theses, vol. 2 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica at Discord (1675; London, 1683), ‘On Justifying Faith’, pt. 1, pp. 145, 162 Latin
“XXXVIII… Nor is he [Christopher Wittich] alone in considering sincere love of God and Christ among the essential acts of faith. [Marcus F.] Wendelin shares this sentiment. Although he reduces the parts of faith to three –knowledge, assent, and confidence – he nevertheless teaches that love also pertains to the acts of faith. For he proves that not only the intellect but also the will is the subject of faith, “Because faith is also love, and love is an act of the will,” which he supports with the testimony of Augustine saying, “To believe in Christ is to love Christ.” In Christian Theology, bk. 2, ch. 24, in the explanation of the eighth thesis.
XXXIX. Similar views can be found in [Daniel] Chamier, who also uses the same argument to prove that faith is in the will, not just in the intellect. He says, ‘All love is an act of the will; but faith is love; therefore, it is an act of the will.’ He proves that faith is love because true faith is that which believes in God: But to believe in God is to love God, according to Augustine, ‘What is it to believe in God? To believe is to love.’ (Pancratia, vol. 3, bk. 12, ch. 4, no. 16).
XL. And Wittich himself in the previously cited place brings forward the words of Cocceius, a professor at Leiden University while he was alive. ‘That faith,’ he says:
‘is a kind of love of God, by which I love God as the one who atones for sins and heals from the disease and penalty of sin, that I may be to His glory.’ (On the Last Words of Moses, p. 336).
And in another place:
‘Therefore, faith is inherently connected with charity; since faith itself is nothing but the outpouring of Christ’s charity in our hearts, its sensation, and reciprocal recognition. One loves because they believe; and if they do not love, they do not believe.’ (in Examen Apologiae, p. 209).
But many among the Reformed theologians think differently, like Samuel Maresius, Robert Baronius, Bucanus, and ultimately all who place faith solely in the intellect, like Peter du Moulin and the Professors of Saumur. For all of them indeed teach that the love of God arises from true faith and is an effect inseparable from it, yet they do not want it to be an act elicited by faith, as that would confuse faith with charity.
…
XCVI. Similarly, there is doubt about whether love is a formal and essential act of faith. Esteemed scholars such as Chamier, Wendelin, Wittich, and Cocceius assert it, while others deny it.
For my part, I think some distinction is necessary here. Faith can be taken in two ways:
First, precisely, according to what it has distinct from hope, charity, and other Christian virtues. In this sense, love is not a formal act of faith but pertains to another virtue, namely, charity.
Secondly, faith is taken for a composite of several acts or habits, which are included under the term “faith working through love.” This is how many Reformed authors understand faith in this question, not as a single act or simple habit but as a complex of several acts or habits. From this, it follows that sincere love of God and Christ, without which faith cannot be conceived as living and working through love, undoubtedly belongs to faith as an essential act.
.
That a Certain Inherent Holiness (or Graces) & Repentance is Requisite, by way of Order & Accompaniment, to Faith in Christ & Justification
See also ‘Relation of Repentance to Faith & Justification’ and ‘Faith is a Condition for Justification’.
.
Order of
Bible Verses 4
Westminster
Articles 4
Quotes 18
.
Bible Verses
Rom. 8:30 “Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also [effectually] called: and whom He [effectually] called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.”
[The effectual call encompasses regeneration, repentance and the giving of faith (which things constitute inherent holiness). Those persons are justified by faith. See Pemble and others below.]
Acts 26:18 “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me.”
1 Cor. 6:11 “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
2 Thess. 2:13 “But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:”
.
Westminster Larger Catechism
Q. 73. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it,[q] nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof; were imputed to him for his justification;[r] but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.[s]
[q] Gal. 3:11. Rom. 3:28.
[r] Rom. 4:5 compared with Rom. 10:10.
[s] John 1:12. Phil. 3:9. Gal. 2:16
.
Q. 75. What is sanctification?
A. Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit[b] applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them,[c] renewed in their whole man after the image of God;[d] having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts,[e] and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened,[f] as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.[g]
[b] Eph. 1:4. 1 Cor. 6:11. 2 Thess. 2:13.
[c] Rom. 6:4-6.
[d] Eph. 4:23,24.
[e] Acts 11:18. 1 John 3:9.
[f] Jude 20. Heb. 6:11,12. Eph. 3:16-19. Col. 1:10,11.
[g] Rom. 6:4,6,14. Gal. 5:24.
.
Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?
A. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,[i] and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.[k]
[i] Acts 20:21. Matt. 3:7,8. Luke 13:3,5. Acts 16:30,31. John 3:16,18.
[k] Prov. 2:1-5. Prov. 8:33-36.
.
Articles
1600’s
Davenant, John – section 5 in ch. 31, ‘Of the Necessity of Works to Salvation, or Justification’ in A Treatise on Justification: or The Disputatio de justitia habituali et actuali…, vol. 1 trans. Josiah Allport (d. 1641; London: Hamilton, 1844/1846), pp. 299-300
Note that what Davenant says here is substantially the same as what Owen says below, with a bit of difference of some terminology. Davenant would have done better to, instead of using the term “good works” in this context, to use “a certain inherent righteousness,” similar to Goodwin below.
Davenant here denies that works are efficient or meritorious causes of justification. Yet he affirms that certain inward works, or a certain inherent righteousness, is necessary as concurrent or preliminary conditions to justification, which accompany it, by way of order, not of causality; and these things “He Himself effects in us.”
These inward works he specifies as (1) mourning over sin, (2) hoping in the Mediator, (3) to resolve on a new life, (4) “and other such like things.” Yet the first three of these things are simply the definition of repentance and the fourth can be understood of things that flow out of repentance in a particular person’s experience and life in an appropriate, saving response to the call of the Gospel. Davenant gives as a reason:
“For the divine mercy does not justify dead stocks, that is those doing nothing; nor horses and mules, that is, rebellious and untractable sinners, obstinately cleaving to their own lusts; but men, and those too full of compunction and contrition, and following the leadings of the Word and the Divine Spirit.”
Ball, John – 2nd pt., ch. 5, p. 349 of A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (London, 1645)
“And here the doubt touching the precedency of faith and repentance may be easily determined. For if faith be taken largely or generally for a belief of the promise, if we repent and receive it, then faith is before repentance: for there can be no turning without hope of pardon, nor coming home by hearty sorrow, without some expectation of mercy [see WCF 15.2 & WSC 87]. Thus the exhortations run, ‘Turn unto the Lord, for He is merciful and gracious.’ ‘Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.’
But if faith be taken more strictly, for that faith or belief whereby we receive, embrace, or rest upon the promise of God in Christ Jesus for pardon and forgiveness, then repentance goes before pardon: for no remission is promised to be enjoyed but upon condition of repentance…
If repentance be necessary to justification, of necessity it must go before justifying faith; because faith and justification are immediately coupled together. It is impossible to come unto Christ without repentance… Coming unto Christ is a lively motion of the soul, wherein arising from sin, it draws nigh or approaches unto Christ, that in Him it might be satisfied. The motion is one, but the points are two. For in drawing nigh unto Christ, the soul arises from sin: which may be called repentance.”
Witsius, Herman – ch. 11, ‘Whether Repentance Precedes the Remission of Sins?’ [Yes] in Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain: under the Unhappy names of Antinomians and Neonomians (Glasgow, 1807), pp. 119-21
Witsius speaks of repentance as a ‘disposing condition’ of justification and the remission of sins. That is, it is a non-meritorious, disposition that is an antecedent condition for Justification to take place (it being Scripturally required that for the remission of sins, one must repent).
.
1700’s
Halyburton, Thomas – ‘A Modest Inquiry whether Regeneration or Justification has the Precedency in Order of Nature’ in The Works of the Rev. Thomas Halyburton… (London : Thomas Tegg, 1835), pp. 547-58
Amongst other helpful things, Halyburton argues the traditional reformed paradigm that regeneration is antecedent to justification, and not the other way around.
.
Quotes
Order of
Junius
Zanchi
Pemble
W. Forbes
Davenant
Goodwin
Voet
Ball
Rutherford
A. Burgess
Leigh
Grew
Scrivener
Baxter
Le Blanc
Owen
Turretin
Cunningham
.
1500’s
Francis Junius
Introduction: On Justification by Faith in Theological Theses for Exercises in Public Disputations in the Famous Academy at Leiden (1584) at ReformedOrthodoxy.org The relevance here is Junius defining the issue as one of merit and saying that Justification by faith is a figurative expression.
“1. Justification is an action, by which God makes an ungodly man righteous, according to the good pleasure of his will, and without any merit of his own for salvation…
9. Therefore, although it is said figuratively, yet fittingly and truly, we say that we are justified by faith alone, comparing it with works and merits, and not by the works of the law, but by faith freely in our Lord Jesus Christ.”
.
Jerome Zanchi
Confession of the Christian Religion… (1586; Cambridge, 1599), ch. 18. ’Of Repentance’, pp. 142-45
“…and first of repentance the continual and inseparable companion of faith. For albeit it be daily made more perfect after justification, yet because no man is justified without repentance, and the beginning thereof goes before justification, therefore we have purposed in this first place to declare what our belief is concerning the same.
I. To Justification, and therefore to the communion with Christ, repentance is necessary.
We believe that to the true participation of Christ’s righteousness, and so to the communion with Christ, repentance is very needful: whereby being turned from sin and from the world, by changing our minds and wills, we are turned to God and are joined unto Him, and so obtain forgiveness of our sins in Him and by Him, and be clothed with his righteousness and holiness.
For the first thing that John Baptist, yea that Christ Himself preached, was repentance for the remission of sins. (Mk. 1:4, 15) ‘And, except’ (says Christ) ‘ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.’ (Lk. 13:3, 5)
…
V. A sum of the doctrine of repentance, everywhere and always necessary to all of years of discretion.
…repentance is a changing of the mind and heart, stirred up in us through the Holy Ghost, by the Word both of the Law and the gospel: wherein we grieve from our heart: we detest: we lament: we lothe and bewail: confess before God all our sins, and even the corruption of our nature, as things utterly repugnant (as the law teaches) to the will of God, and to the cleansing whereof, the death of God’s own Son (as the gospel preaches) was needful: and do humbly pray and entreat for pardon and forgiveness of the same: and do earnestly resolve upon amendment of our life, and on a continual study and care of innocency and Christian virtues, and exercise ourselves in the same diligently all the days of our life: to the glory of God and edification of the Church.”
.
1600’s
William Pemble
Vindiciae fidei, or A Treatise of Justification by Faith… (Oxford, 1625)
section 1, ch. 2, pp. 11-12
“The third place is that, Rom. 8:30, ‘Whom God hath predestinated, these He hath called, whom called, justified; whom justified, glorified.’…
That sanctification is here comprised in the word ‘vocation.’ For whereas the links of this golden chain are inseparable, and all those that are called must needs be justified and glorified: by ‘vocation,’ must here be meant that calling which is inward and effectual, not that alone which is outward by the external ministry of the Word. For all that are thus called, be not justified, as is apparent; and again, some, as infants, are justified that are not capable of such a [external] calling.
But now, wherein stands the inward vocation of a sinner? Is it not in the infusion of inherent sanctifying grace, enlightning his eyes, opening his ear, changing his heart, turning him from darkeness to light, from the power of Satan to the obedience of God; in a word, in the renovation of his faculties? Which, what is it else but sanctification? or regeneration? or conversion? Only styled by that tearm of ‘vocation’ in regard of the means whereby it is ordinarily effected (that is) the preaching of the Word. He must needs coin us some new mystery in divinity who will persuade us that some other work of grace is meant by ‘vocation,’ and not that of sanctification.
Therefore we have neither one link snapped out, nor two shuffled together in this chain of our salvation: But four, as distinct, as undividable: Election, Sanctification (whereto we are called by the Gospel preached, 2 Thess. 2:14), Justification by Faith (which is a fruit of sanctification) and Glorification.”
.
section 2, ch. 3, p. 49
“Faith sanctifies not as a cause, but as a part of infused grace: and such a part as goes not alone, but accompanied with all other graces of love, fear, zeal, hope, repentance, etc., inasmuch as man’s regeneration is not the infusion of one, but of the habit of all graces.
Again, tis not the virtue of faith that justifies us; The grace of justification is from God; He works it: but tis our faith applies it and makes it ours. The act of justification is God’s mere work; but our faith only brings us the benefit and assurance of it.”
.
Vindiciæ gratiæ. = A Plea for Grace, More especially the Grace of Faith… (London: 1627), pp. 11-16
“Now to make application of this to our inquiry touching the original of faith, you may perceive by what is spoken, whereof faith is a part, and when faith is wrought in the soule: namely, that faith is a part of our sanctification, that faith is wrought in the soul then when we are regenerate by the infusion of the habit [inward power] of grace into our whole man. This will appear if we distinguish between:
1. The habit of faith, which is in general the renewed quality of the soul, whereby it is made able to discern and yield assent unto, and also willing to put affiance in all divine truth revealed.
2. The act of faith, when the understanding and will do actually know and rely upon God’s truth and goodness. This is a fruit of the former, and follows it in time; the former is a branch of the image of God restored unto us, a stream of the common fountain of sanctification, whence all graces flow, a part of our inherent righteousness, as is most apparant:
It being impossible that the understanding and will of man should be effectually inclined towards their spiritual and supernatural object, to give credence and put confidence in it, until such time as they be first rectified by grace and purged from their habitual inbred blindness and rebellion: Which change when it is wrought in the soul by the Spirit of grace, sanctifying and quickening it in all the powers thereof with spiritual life: then follow those living actions of faith, hope, love, etc. performed by the strength of inherent and assisting grace.
Wherefore we are not to imagine that faith is infused either before or without other graces, or that the soul is not at the same time and as soon disposed to love and fear God as to believe in Him, or to humility, to patience, to charity, to repentance, as for faith. The seed of all these graces is sown at once; and for their habits they are coeval stems of one common root of inherent sanctity: though yet some of them shoot up faster and bear fruit sooner than other.
…
Hence this conclusion is to be observed: 1. That faith properly is not the root of all other graces, nor the first degree of our sanctification and spiritual life.
Take faith in which sense we please, for the act or for the habit: If for the act, the habit [inward power] is before that, and the root of it; If for the habit, that is not before, but a part of our sanctification, nor yet a solitary habit infused alone by itself, but together with the actus primi [first act], or habits of all supernatural graces whatsoever. Tis true in some sense that before faith, there is no life nor sanctity in the soul: because faith is a part of our life of grace and of sanctity. But there are other parts too, hope, charity, etc. and of these it may be said as well as of faith, there’s no grace in the soul till hope and charity be wrought in it. All are parts of our spiritual life wrought together.
For as the corporal, so the spiritual life is not one distinct, but omnes actus primi, of every faculty whereby it can work regularly. And though in the body some part may live alone, and others be dead, yet in our spiritual life tis far otherwise, all powers are quickened and live together: where the habit of one grace is, there are all, and as soon all, as one, every faculty being rectified as well as any: and all the operations of each faculty tending to all its objects, renewed as well as any one operation directed to some one object.
Wherefore I see not, under correction of quick eyes, how faith can be accounted the root whence spring all other fruits of righteousness, the efficient cause of our sanctification, the only pipe through which the waters of life flow into the soul, that firstborn grace in our spiritual regeneration, so much that before its actual operation there is no jot of spiritual life and sanctity in our hearts. Many divine eulogies are given to faith in the Scriptures, but none such as to cause us to make it the fountain of all graces. That the heart is regenerate before the act of believing and other graces wrought therein, together with the habit of faith, may appear by these reasons:
1. It is the true and general doctrine of all divines, that actual faith is never wrought in the soul till, besides the supernatural illumination of the understanding, the will be also changed and freed in part from its natural perversness: For till this be done, tis utterly impossible it should ever embrace the promise. Now the doing away of this ignorance and rebellion, what is it but an effect of the grace of sanctification implanted in the soul, by which it is sweetly and freely inclined to all heavenly things?
2. To believe is an action of a man living by grace, not dead in sin. The soul therefore is first endued with the life of grace before it can perform this living action.
3. There can be no reason given why in our regeneration it should be necessary first to have faith before we can have any other grace of sanctification, no more than that it should be needful to have some other grace before we can have faith; or, why we are more fit being unconverted to receive the grace of faith rather than any other grace, as of repentance, etc. A man unregenerate, having no preparations at all to any grace, is alike disposed to receive every one: and so there is no difference on man’s part.
If any say that the Spirit, which must work other graces, is not received till we do actually believe: in so saying he confutes himself, it being most apparant that the Spirit is given to men incredulous [unbelieving], to the end to make them believers: and no man should ever be converted were not the Holy Ghost given to him whilst he is unconverted, to work his conversion. Now God, that for Christ’s sake gives faith unto us when we had none, without any predisposition in us to receive it, can and does for the same Christ’s sake give us all other graces as well at the same time.
4. It cannot well be shown how faith produces all other virtues in us, seeing that all habits of grace are infused, not acquired; and one habit cannot produce another, nor does one habit bring forth the operations of another. Tis true that faith lends a hand to help forward all gracious actions, and does much in their guidance and direction; but tis like as the understanding guides the actions of the will and inferiour faculties, or as prudence moderates the actions of all other moral virtues; which actions notwithstanding come from their proper faculties and habits as their immediate principia and fountains. But of this point more at large when we come to show the dependance that obedience has upon faith.
Against this may be objected that:
We live by faith, Gal. 2:20, that by faith Christ dwells in our hearts, Eph. 3:17, that through faith we are risen with Christ, Col. 2:12, that by faith we receive the Holy Ghost, Jn. 7:38-39; Eph. 1:13, so that we have no life till we be in Christ, no being in Him till we have faith to believe on Him, no sap from the vine, no virtue from the body till we be united as bran∣ches, as members, which union is by faith only; no Spirit of grace to give us life till we have faith to receive it.
In briefe thus: Christ by his Spirit is the author of all our spiritual life and sanctification. But till we believe we have no participation nor fellowship with Christ and his Spirit. Therefore till we believe we have in us no life at all, and consequently by faith we are made partakers of all life and grace.
To which I answer: We must carefully distinguish between a twofold union and communion we have with Christ:
1. By the Spirit on his part: for Christ as by his death, he is the meritorious cause of life and grace unto the elect, so by his Spirit He is the only efficient of life and grace in the regenerate. To whom, whilst they are yet dead in sin and destitute of all grace, so as they neither do nor possibly can believe, Christ sends his Spirit which breathes life into them, changes and purifies their nature by working all holy and rectified abilities in every part.
Now this first work of the Spirit, creating of grace in the soul, does most apparantly precede not only the act of believing, but the habit also: for the habit itself is infused by this work. And therefore it is also manifest that before all faith we have and must have some participation with Christ, even to this end that we may have faith. But this union with Him is wrought merely by the Holy Spirit, which is that band whereby Christ knits Himself to us, communicating all gracious and quickening virtue from Himself to us, and thereby making us living members of his body.
2. By our faith on our parts: when being quickened by infused grace we actually apply ourselves to embrace the promise and to rely upon Christ only. And here we knit ourselves to Christ, resting upon Him alone for all comfort. By which uniting of ourselves to Christ we receive a greater increase and larger measure of grace from Him. In the first union we were insensible of it, and grace is given to us non petentibus, that asked not after it: in this second union we are most sensible of its comfort and benefit; and here an augmentation of grace is bestowed on us petentes, earnestly suing for it, and by faith expecting the receiving of it.
Wherefore I conclude, all grace and virtue whatsoever in us is given us from the fulness of Christ, the fountain of all supernatural life; but yet all is not wrought by Christ embraced by our faith, but by Christ conveying his grace unto us by his Spirit. This first quickens us: we then with Lazarus after life put into us, can awake, stand up, come forth, and by faith look on Him that raised us, fall down, worship and believe in Him as our Lord and God. The places alleged either touch not our sanctification at all, or speak only of the increase of grace, not of its first infusion, faith being a means of that, but no efficient or instrument of this.”
.
William Forbes
Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 1, ch. 3
“4… More rightly, therefore, do other Protestants, who are more sound and moderate, willingly concede that various disposing and preparing acts, produced in us through the Holy Ghost assisting, and not by the sole powers of our free-will, are required before justification, though most of them deny to these acts any power of justifying. (Pareus contra Bellarmine on Justification, bk. 1, ch. 3, p. 35, sect. secundo tenendum ff.; with many others)
5. Although not everything which has been said and written, and is commonly cited by Romanists and others for each of these disposing acts (e.g. ‘We are saved by hope,’ [Rom. 8:24] ‘Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much,’ [Lk. 7:47] and some others), fully proves the point in question, yet they greatly err who, on that account, deny the thing itself, which is most certain from innumerable other passages of Scripture.
6. All Protestants rightly deny that these disposing acts done by faith and preventing grace, merit justification in any way, even in that of congruity; but very many Romanists also deny this, in opposition to the opinion of Bellarmine…”
.
“And what needs it also that we should speak of the power of prayer, by which we, with the publican, and all other pious persons, do humbly beg from God pardon of our sins, in order to obtain the same, having been so taught by our Savior Himself, ‘Forgive us our sins,’ or of that of other previous acts–since the matter is clearer than the noon-day sun. Nor does this interfere with our being justified gratis, as the Scripture teaches, for in these we put nothing at all of merit, any more than in faith itself…
Amandus Polanus, a writer rigid in other respects, yet compelled by the force of truth, lays down this thesis, as the universal opinion of all Protestants, and very agreeable to the teaching of the Fathers.
‘By repentance, confession, prayers, and tears, proceeding from faith, we obtain forgiveness of sins, but we do not, properly speaking, merit it; and therefore we obtain forgiveness of sins, not by the merit of our penitence and prayer, but by the mercy and benignity of God.’ (Catholic Symphony, ch. 27, On the Remission of Sins, p. 951 ff., thesis 2)
Which thesis, after a sufficiently sound elucidation, he confirms by some very clear testimonies of the Fathers, to which we could add numberless others, were not the thing itself most clear and certain. Would that all Protestants constantly professed this opinion, thus enunciated by Polanus: for there would remain scarce any matter for controversy regarding this article among the more right-thinking of both sides.”
.
John Davenant
A Treatise on Justification: or The Disputatio de justitia habituali et actuali…, vol. 1 trans. Josiah Allport (d. 1641; London: Hamilton, 1844/1846), ch. 22, p. 160
“For we all acknowledge and clearly profess, that God infuses a righteousness of this kind in the very act of justifying; but we deny that the sentence of God in justifying has respectto this as to the cause by which man is constituted justified.”
.
Thomas Goodwin
Man’s Restoration by Grace, ch. 5 in Works (d. 1680; Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1861), vol. 7, p. 537
“Now yet this might stand, if as learned Mr. [William] Pemble and others assert, sanctification does, in order of nature, precede justification, and which to me seems not remote from truth, or prejudicial to the grace of justification at all, and withal consonant to right reason, for if (as all grant) justification be upon an act of faith on Christ for justification, and that not until then we are justified, as all do and must acknowledge that hold justification by faith, according to the Scriptures, and that an act of faith must proceed from a principle of faith habitually wrought, then necessarily sanctification, taking it for the principles of habitual sanctification, must be in order of nature afore justification; for the seed and principle of faith is a part, and a principal part, of regeneration or sanctification, as taken in that sense, for the working the principles of all grace, and so is agreeable to that order and chain, Rom. 8:29, where ‘called’ is put before being ‘justified,’ as predestination is put before being called, understanding calling, of the working [of] the principles of regeneration.”
.
Gisbert Voet
9. ‘Justification’, Of Justification in General in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 3 Abbr.
“Whether the infusion of grace is required for justification? It is distinguished.
“Whether some movement of free choice and faith is required? It is affirmed with a distinction.
Whether a movement of free choice contra sin? It is disintinguished.
Whether the remission of sins is to number the premises and prerequisites of justification? It is denied.
Whether the infusion of grace is by order of nature first amongst those things which are required for justification? It is distinguished.
…
Whether inhering righteousness is the cause of justification? It is denied.
…
Whether the righteousness of the justified is inhering or imputed? The latter is affirmed contra the Papists.
…
Whether we deny all inherent righteousness? It is denied.
…
Whether sanctification or regeneration precedes justification, or the contrary? It is distinguished.
…
Whether it [justification] precedes repentance? It is distinguished.
…
Whether and in what way the law and penitence are able to be said to concur unto our justification? It is explained.”
.
John Ball
A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace… (London: 1645), ch. 3, ‘Of the Covenant of Grace in General’, pp. 20-21
“A disposition to good works is necessary to justification, being the qualification of an active and lively faith…
Sincere, uniform and constant [obedience], though imperfect in measure and degree, and this is so necessary that without it there is no salvation to be expected. The Covenant of Grace calls for perfection, accepts sincerity, God in mercy pardoning the imperfections of our best performances. If perfection was rigidly exacted, no flesh could be saved: if not at all commanded, imperfection should not be sin, nor perfection to be labored after. The faith that is lively to embrace mercy is ever conjoined with an unfeigned purpose to walk in all well-pleasing, and the sincere performance of all holy obedience, as opportunity is offered, does ever attend that faith whereby we continually lay hold upon the promises once embraced.
Actual good works of all sorts (though not perfect in degree) are necessary to the continuance of actual justification, because faith can no longer lay faithful claim to the promises of life, than it does virtually or actually lead us forward in the way to Heaven. For:
‘If we say we have fellowship with God and walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another,’ 1 Jn. 1:6-7.
This walking in the light as He is in the light is that qualification whereby we become immediately capable of Christ’s righteousness, or actual participants of his propitiation, which is the sole immediate cause of our justification, taken for remission of sins, or actual approbation with God. The truth of which doctrine St. John likewise ratifies in terms equivalent, in the words presently following: ‘and the blood of Christ cleanseth us’ (walking in the light as God is in the light) ‘from all sin.’ [v. 7]”
[It appears in the above paragraph that Ball refers to the inherent holiness of regeneration, a disposition to good works and exercised faith, if not also to actual exercises of repentance (these things being the least degree of “walking in the light as He is in the light”) as requisites to becoming “immediately capable of Christ’s righteousness, or actual participants of his propitiation, which is the sole immediate cause of our justification, taken for remission of sins…” (though faith alone be the instrumental cause of justification).
Note that in Ball saying that saving faith virtually leads us forward in the way to heaven in the path of good works does not mean that actual good works or obedience are contained in justifying faith (which position Owen argues against), but only that this saving faith may produce good works, which is what ‘virtually’ entails.]
.
Samuel Rutherford
Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself… (London: 1647), pt. 1, p. 102
“…Libertines, who deny that justification, the Covenant of Grace and salvation have any the most gracious conditions in us; for that should obscure the freedom of Grace (they say)…
But I hope faith is a work of free grace, and must presuppose conversion and a new heart as an essential condition, else with Pelagians they must say that out of the principles of nature all are to believe; and this obscures far more the freedom of the grace of God working faith in us than all the conditions of grace, which we hold to be subservient, not contrary to the freedom of grace.”
.
Anthony Burgess
The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted & Vindicated... (London: Miller, 1651), Lecture 1, pp. 6-8
“First, the word [justificare] does imply an accounting just: And this is acknowledged by the Papists themselves as more frequent though they plead much for such a sense as to make just. Now the truth is there needs not much quarrel even about that signification, though the Scripture does not manifest it: For we confess that he is made just, who is justified, and that not only in respect of the inward renovation of a man, but also in respect of justification; for God does not account him just who is not so, and certainly to esteem a man just without righteousness, is as absurd as to account a man learned without learning, or the wall white without whiteness; only we say this righteousness that does to make a man just, is not inherent in him, but reckoned to him by the satisfaction of another: for a man is accounted righteous two ways, either when he is not guilty of the crime charged upon him, or when he does make satisfaction; and in this latter sense by Christ we become righteous.
2. So that if the word should signify as much as to make righteous, as to sanctify does signify to make holy, still we could grant it, though not in the Popish way; and indeed the apostle, Rom. 5, says many are made righteous by the second Adam, which if not meant of inherent holiness, does imply that the righteousness we have by Christ is not merely declarative, but also constitutive; and indeed one is in order before the other, for a man must be righteous before he can be pronounced or declared so to be. But the Hebrew word does not signify this sense primarily; for whereas the Hebrew word in [the tense] Cal[?] does signify to be righteous by a positive quality; The word in Hiphil, according to that rule in grammar, signifies to attribute and account this righteousness unto a man by some words, or other testimony, even as the word that in Cal signifies to be wicked, does in Hiphil signify to condemn and judge a man as wicked, so that there are these two things in justifying, whereof one is the ground of the other, first to make righteous, and then to pronounce or declare so.”
.
Edward Leigh
A System or Body of Divinity... (London, 1654), bk. 7, ch. 10, ‘Whether Faith Alone does Justify?’, p. 530
“Whether sanctification precede justification.
Bishop [George] Downame in his appendix to the Covenant of Grace, does oppose my worthy tutor Mr. [William] Pemble for holding this opinion, but perhaps a distinction may solve all.
As sanctification is taken for the act of the Holy Ghost working holiness into us, so it goes before faith and justification, so the apostle puts it before justifying, saying 1 Cor. 6:11, ‘But ye are sanctified, justified;’ but as it is taken for the exercise of holiness in regard of amendment of heart and life, so it follows justification in nature, but it is joined with it in time. The apostle Rom. 8:30, places vocation before justification, which vocation is the same thing with the first sanctification or regeneration. See Acts 26:18.”
.
Obadiah Grew
The Lord Jesus Christ the Lord our Righteousness… (London, 1669), pp. 155-56
“Therefore secondly, we say that there are other graces coexistent with faith in the person justified. A solitary faith is not a saving and justifying faith: Faith, if it has not works, is dead, being alone. Faith that is alone saves not, though faith alone save. As the act of seeing is by the eye only, without the ear, or other senses; the eye only sees; the ear sees not, nor the taste, nor the smell, nor the feeling; yet the eye could not see if you should take away the other senses from the body.
So it’s faith only that justifies without other graces or good works; yet faith without them, or separated from them, cannot justify: because indeed it cannot be without them in the person or subject where it is. So that faith is without other graces and works in its office, but not in its existence. And you may as soon part light and heat in the sun, as sanctification from justification in a believer. For faith is not only a fruit of the Spirit with other graces, but also the seed and nursery of other graces, because faith in Christ is the root-grace…
It would be a strange soul that should give a faculty of seeing and no other faculty or sense: as strange a state of grace would that be that should give an act of saving and justifying faith and give no other grace besides.”
.
Matthew Scrivener
A Course of Divinity... (London: Roycroft, 1674), pt. 1, bk. 1
ch. 17, ‘…In what manner Sanctification goes before Justification, and how it follows it’, pp. 62-63
“Justification and Sanctification agree in their foundation, which is at least inchoate, and initial holiness. For, though no man’s inherent holiness arises so high as to denominate him truly just, or holy, for its own sake; yet both to Sanctification and Justificati∣on, is necessarily required some preparatory and imperfect holiness, consisting principally in the conversion of the mind to God, from sin…
But on the other side, they are distinct in some formalities, such as these may be, for first, the immediate cause of our sanctification is in holy Scripture imputed to the operation and influence of the Holy Spirit, as our Justification is more properly attributed to Christ the mediator between God and man: As appears from St. Paul’s words to the Thessalonians, ‘But we are bound to give thanks always for you brethren beloved of the Lord, because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth.’ (2 Thess. 2:13) And St. Peter, ‘Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and Sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience.’ (1 Pet. 1:2)
…
Lastly, to search no farther into this point, before justification there must of necessity go some degree of sanctification, even in the opinion of such as contend most rigorously for freeness of justification:”
.
ch. 20, p. 73
“All this while we have treated of the complex notion of faith; or at least, as it is that first general grace whereby we are inserted into Christ, and justified by it together with its blessed retinue of subordinate evangelical graces, which are reduced to these three, Faith, Hope and Charity: where faith stands by itself, and is a peculiar grace of itself, and has in this acceptation a more than common prerogative attributed unto it in order to our justification, or the bringing us to Christ, and partaking of Christ. For that is it whereby we are only properly justified; and all graces serve for no other end here, than to adapt us for the benefit of justification through Christ, and for Christ’s sake alone.”
.
Richard Baxter
Catholic Theology, Plain, Pure, Peaceable... (London: White, 1675), Preface, n.p.
“I had never read one Socinian, nor much of any Arminians… and I remembered two or three things in Dr. [William] Twisse (whom I most esteemed) which inclined me to moderation in the five Articles [disputed between Arminians and the Reformed]:
…
5. That faith is but causa dispositiva justificationis, and so is repentance.”
.
Louis Le Blanc de Beaulieu
Theological Theses published at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan, vol. 1 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica at Discord (1675; London, 1683), on How Faith Justifies, pp. 228-29, 234 Latin
“XXX. Indeed, when we say that faith alone justifies, we do not even mean by that merely the act of believing taken precisely, as it is opposed to acts of love and hope, and is distinguished from repentance, or penitence, as being the condition demanded by the new covenant, or Gospel, for us to obtain the remission of our sins and to be absolved from them because of Christ. For just as the hope of pardon and the love of God, as well as sorrow for sin and the purpose of leading a new life, and, in a word, all the acts necessary for true and sincere conversion, are also required, so they are necessary and altogether prerequisite so that anyone may be received into favor by God and may be regarded by Him as justified. Indeed, that living and operative faith which we affirm justifies alone includes and involves all these acts.
XXXI. And just as Scripture frequently asserts that we obtain the remission of sins through faith, so, no less frequently and expressly, does it teach that repentance and the entire conversion of the sinner to God are conditions without which the remission of sins cannot be obtained from God, and which, no less than faith, are required beforehand for it, although it neither effects nor merits it. To this belongs Solomon’s saying, already cited before, “He who hides his sins will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.” And what Christ says in Luke, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” Hence it is that Peter thus exhorts the Jews, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins,” Acts 2:38. And, “Repent, therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out,” Acts 3:19.
…
LII. From what has now been explained, it is clear that the doctors of both the Roman and Reformed Schools recognize by common consent:
…
2. That only living faith justifies, while dead faith contributes nothing to justice and salvation.
3. That not only the act of believing taken precisely but many other acts also, which concur to true repentance and serious conversion to God, are conditions required by God for one to obtain from Him the remission of sins and the infusion of new and habitual justice.
4. That the remission of sins and the renewal of the inner man are purely gratuitous gifts of God, which are not due out of justice to faith or any works, however much performed by the grace of God.
5. That it is fitting and suitable to divine goodness and wisdom to remit sins and grant the grace of the Holy Spirit to a sinner who sincerely repents and flees to God’s mercy by faith, but not to the unbelieving and impenitent.
6. That the new justice which the Holy Spirit creates in the faithful consists not only of the habit of faith but also of other Christian virtues.”
.
John Owen
The Doctrine of Justification by Faith… (London: Boulter, 1677),
General Considerations, p. 34
“(6) Works may be considered either as meritorious ex condigno, so as their merit should arise from their own intrinsic worth, or ex congruo only with respect unto the Covenant and promise of God. Those of the first sort are excluded at least from the first justification; the latter may have place both in the first and second.
(7) Moral causes may be of many sorts; preparatory, dispository, meritorious, conditionally efficient, or only sine quibus non. And we must diligently inquire in what sense, under the notion of what cause or causes, our works are excluded from our justification, and under what notions they are necessary thereunto. And there is no one of these distinctions but it needs many more to explain it, which accordingly are made use of by learned men.”
.
p. 104
“Wherefore we say the faith whereby we are justified is such as is not found in any but those who are made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and by Him united unto Christ, whose nature is renewed, and in whom there is a principle of all grace and purpose of obedience.”
.
p. 143
“For a condition does suspend that whereof it is a condition from existence, until it be accomplished…
But it is not yet proved, nor ever will be, that whatever is required in them that are to be justified, is a condition whereon their justification is immediately suspended. We allow that alone to be a condition of justification which has an influence of causality thereunto, though it be but the causality of an instrument. This we ascribe unto faith alone.”
.
Francis Turretin
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 2, 16th Topic, 8. ‘Does faith alone justify? We affirm against the Romanists.’, pp. 677, 680-81
“VI. (3) The question is not whether solitary faith (i.e. separated from the other virtues) justifies (which we grant could not easily be the case, since it is not even true and living faith); but whether it “alone” (sola) concurs to the act of justification (which we assert); as the eye alone sees, but not when torn out of the body.
Thus the particle “alone” (sola) does not determine the subject, but the predicate (i.e., “faith only does not justify [sola fides non justificat], but “faith justifies alone” [fides justificat sola]). The coexistence of love in him who is justified is not denied; but its coefficiency or cooperation in justification is denied. (4) The question is not whether the faith “which justifies” (quae justificat) works by love (for otherwise it would not be living but dead); rather the question is rather faith “by which it justifies” (qua justificat) or in the act itself of justification, is to be considered under such a relation (schesei) (which we deny).
…
XIII. It is one thing for love and works to be required in the person who is justified (which we grant); another in the act itself or causality of justification (which we deny). If works are required as concomitants of faith, they are not on that account determined to be causes of justification with faith or to do the very thing which faith does in the matter.
XIV. Although the whole force of justifying on the part of man is in faith as to the act of apprehension (so that other virtues contribute nothing to it with faith), it does not follow that faith can justify when they are absent as well as when they are present–yea, even wehn the opposite vices are present. It is one thing to justify without virtues (i.e., separated from them–which we deny); another for it to justify alone, but not separated from them.
As it does not follow, the hand alone writes and the eye alone sees–therefore [it does this] as much when torn from the head and the other members as [it does when it is] in the body; the sole force of respiration is in the lungs–therefore the lungs can respire torn out from the liver and other viscera as well as when connected to them (which everyone sees to be absurd).
Natural potencies are connected as to existence, but disjoined as to operation. Light and heat in the sun are most closely connected together, but still the light alone illuminates, the heat alone warms. Therefore, although the other virtues do not justify with faith, still faith cannot justify in their absences, much less the opposite vices being present. For faith cannot be true except in connection with the virtues (which if they do not contribute to justification, still contribute to the existence and life of faith, which the presence of vices would destroy).
…
XX. Although remission of sins is promised to repentance (because it ought to accompany faith and be in him who is justified as a certain condition requisite from him because God cannot pardon sin to an impenitent), it does not follow that it can be said to justify with faith because it contributes nothing (neither meritoriously, nor instrumentally) to the act of justification.”
.
William Cunningham
Historical Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863), vol. 2, ch. 21, ‘Justification’, section 1, ‘Popish & Protestant Views’
“They did not hold that faith was the only thing which invariably accompanies justification, or even that it was the only thing required of men in order to their being justified; for they admitted that repentance was necessary to forgiveness, in accordance with the doctrine of our [Westminster] standards, that, ‘to escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us repentance unto life,’ [WSC #85] as well as ‘faith in Jesus Christ.’”
.
“It still continues equally true, upon the Protestant as upon the Romish doctrine of justification, that God requires of us faith and repentance, and requires them of us as indispensably necessary to our escaping His wrath and curse due to us for our sins, though not as exerting any causality or efficiency in procuring or obtaining for us pardon and acceptance, except instrumentally in the case of faith;”
.
In Lutheranism
Article
1600’s
Calov, Abraham – Thoughts on Objective Justification tr. Souksamay K. Phetsanghane 47 pp. in Biblia Illustrata (1672-1676; 2014), on 2 Cor. 5:18‐19; Rom. 3:23‐24; 4:25; 5:18‐19 with a bibliography Presented for the Southwestern Conference of the Western Wisconsin District of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Winter Conference, Feb. 25, 2014, St. John Lutheran, Baraboo, WI
Calov (1612–1686) was a professor of theology at Konigsberg and Wittenberg and one of the champions of Lutheran orthodoxy in the 17th century.
‘Objective Justification’ refers to the erroneous notion of an objective, universal and conditional justification of all people through the work of Christ.
While this doctrine is largely absent from the historic creeds of Lutheranism and Lutheran orthodoxy (which emphasized an actual, personal justification by faith), yet Phetsanghane seeks to show that this doctrine was taught to some minor extent, and incidentally, in some of the orthodox Lutheran theologians (principally Abraham Calov, 1612-1686) and it may be contained in some implicit form in some early historic Lutheran confessions.
.
Historical
On the Post-Reformation
Article
Fesko, J.V. – ‘Reformed Orthodoxy on Imputation. Active & Passive Justification’ in Perichoresis, vol. 14, issue 3 (2016), pp. 61-80
Abstract: “The doctrine of imputation is common to Early Modern Lutheran and Reformed theology, but Reformed orthodox theologians employed the distinction between the active and passive justification of the believer. Active justification is the objective imputation of Christ’s righteousness and passive justification is the subjective reception of the same. This distinction is a unique contribution in Reformed orthodox dogmatics and was used in polemics against Roman Catholic, Arminian, and Socinian theologians. This essay also compares Reformed orthodox formulations with Lutheran orthodox understandings of how they preserved the extra nos [outside of us] of Christ’s righteousness in justification. The Reformed orthodox employed the active-passive justification distinction in conjunction with the decree and the doctrine of the covenant of redemption, whereas the Lutheran orthodox logically placed justification first in the order of salvation. Both groups maintain the extra nos of Christ’s imputed righteousness but do so in different ways.”
.
Romanism & Romanists affirming Christ’s Satisfaction & Merits being Freely Imputed to Believers, even Conceding the Language of Christ’s Righteousness being Imputed to Believers
Order of
Notes
Article 1
Quotes 4
.
Notes
Louis Le Blanc was a German, Reformed divine, who sought to write theology in a conciliatory manner, as far as possible, emphasizing below where the Reformed and Romanists agree on justification and Christ’s satisfaction and merits being applied to the believer, effecting the forgiveness of sins.
In fully taking Le Blanc’s points in, yet note for the fuller picture that in Romanism (e.g. at the Council of Trent), the remission of sins at first conversion, due to Christ’s sacrifice and merits, only forgives past sins. Many of the Reformed technically agreed with this, as it can be doubted that future sins can be forgiven before they exist.¹ However Romanists yet saw future sins as harming justification when committed, such that justification may be lost and the person eternally damned; and that persons require ongoing applications of remission through the sacrament of penance, etc. These are major differences with Reformed theology.
¹ See ‘On the Forgiveness of Future Sins’ above.
Another major difference included whether legal justification before God, such as Paul describes in Romans, included being justified by any inherent righteousness in us, with Romanists affirming and Protestants dissenting. While this is a difference of exegesis, or textual interpretations, and of how the term “justification” is used, yet note that Protestants agree that all justified persons are also graciously, divinely infused with inherent righteousness through regeneration and sanctification, though, for most Protestants, inherent righteousness is not understood to enter into their initial, legal justification.
Perkins, in his linked chapter, gives a further survey of the agreements and differences between the Reformed and Romanism on the topic, giving a much more negative outlook on the divide between the two. Part of this different assessment, it would appear, likely factors in that Perkins believed in the imputation of Christ’s active obedience to the believer, whereas everything Le Blanc says in his volume (it appears) is consistent with only Christ’s passive obedience being imputed to believers. The latter view makes differences with Romanism in some ways less stark.
Perkins notes Romanists often objected to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer. Though they granted that Christ’s satisfaction and merits remitted believers’ sins, yet Christ’s righteousness remained inherent in Him, and did not become the believer’s, as Protestants often affirmed.
Le Blanc, nonetheless, interprets the sense of Romanists, so far as it goes, as equivelent to what the Reformed mean in speaking of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. This is not without good reason (though Le Blanc does not give the reason): The issue was debated amongst the Reformed. While many of the Reformed did affirm that Christ’s righteousness becomes our personal righteousness, many did not, holding instead that Christ’s personal righteousness, remaining in Him, effects the forgiveness of our sins and righteous standing before the Lord, without his righteousness becoming personally our own.
With regard to Westminster: (1) Westminster Larger Catechism #71 & 77 speak of Christ’s righteousness being imputed to those who are justified, which language can be interpreted variously, (2) WCF 11.1 speaks of God “accounting and accepting their persons as righteous,” and (3) WCF 11.2 speaks of faith “resting on Christ and his righteousness”. Yet neither these places, nor other places in the Westminster standards, speak of Christ’s righteousness becoming the believer’s personal righteousness.
Likewise, the Westminster standards do not determine the debate of whether Christ’s active righteousness is imputed to the believer, as historically many of those who denied such could affirm all of Westminster’s language (despite claims sometimes heard to the contrary).
William Forbes confirms Le Blanc’s sentiments, and that with further citations of Romanists allowing for the language of Christ’s righteousness (or justice) being imputed to believers.
.
Article
1600’s
Forbes, William – point 6, p. 151 in Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, ch. 4
Forbes here lists Romanists who in certain Biblical passages take justification in regard to salvation to have a forensic, judicial sense due in light of textual reasons, namely:
Marinarius the Carmelite on Rom. 8:33-34; Vega, on Rom. 6:7; John Pineda, a Jesuit, Toletus, Estius, Pererius, Ruardus Tapper and Bellarmine on Rom. 8:33.
.
Quotes
Order of
Perkins
Forbes
Spanheim
Le Blanc
.
1600’s
William Perkins
A Reformed Catholic... ([Cambridge] 1598), ch. 4, ‘The Justification of a Sinner’, pp. 926-27
“Consent I. They [Romanists] grant that in justification sin is pardoned by the merits of Christ, and that none can be justified without remission of sins: and that is well.
II. They grant that the righteousness whereby a man is made righteous before God, comes from Christ, and from Christ alone.
III. The most learned among them say that Christ’s satisfaction, and the merit of his death is imputed to every sinner that does believe, for his satisfaction before God: and hitherto we agree.
The very point of difference is this:
We hold that the satisfaction made by Christ in his death, and obedience to the Law, is imputed to us and becomes our righteousness. They say, it is our satisfaction and not our righteousness whereby we stand righteous before God: because it is inherent in the person of Christ as in a subject.
Now the answer of the Papist to the former question is on this manner: The thing (says he) that makes us righteous before God, and causes us to be accepted to life everlasting, is remission of sins and the habit of inward righteousness, or charity with the fruits thereof.
We condescend and grant that the habit of righteousness, which we call sanctification, is an excellent gift of God, and has his reward of God; and is the matter of our justification before man: because it serves to declare us to be reconciled to God, and to be justified; yet we deny it to be the thing, which makes us of sinners to become righteous or just before God.
And this is the first point of our disagreement in the matter of justification: which must be marked; because if there were no more points of difference between us, this one alone were sufficient to keep us from uniting of our religions: for hereby the Church of Rome does raze the very foundation.”
.
William Forbes
Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, ch. 2
“4. Since all of both sides [Reformed and Romanist] allow that forgiveness of sins belongs to the formal cause of our justification, let us now discuss the imputation of the justice of Christ, and whether by that also we are formally justified.
…
6. Christ merited for us by everything which He did or suffered on earth; for all infinitely pleased God the Father, and were of immeasureable and inexhaustible merit, because of the hypostatic union of the Divine Person, for He worked human works in a divine manner, as testify S. Dionysius the Areopagite and S. John Damascene. But amongst all that Christ did and suffered, undertaken for us, his death, with the passion immediately preceding it, has chiefly and most especially merited to us justification; for in it the obedience of Christ to the Father, and his love to the human race, shone forth in a wonderful manner, and his whole obedience was therein consummated, as the apostle clearly teaches. This is testified by innumerable passages of Scripture and the Fathers, and moreover, in this all Protestants and Romanists agree…”
.
“14. Some theologians at the Council of Trent–from being too superstitious, or perhaps too contentious–so disliked, or at least were so suspicious of the word ‘imputation’ (viz., of Christ’s justice), as is related [by Paul Sarpi] in the History of that Council (bk. 2, sect. Franciscani vero gratiam habitualem inde, pp. 219-20, ed. Latin, p. 157), and is known of Dominicus a Soto from his writings (Of Nature and Grace, bk. 2, ch. 20), that they wished it taken away, because the Protestants used it so familiarly, although it is nowhere met with either in Scripture or in the Fathers, and because of the inferences which the Protestants elicit from it…
So also in the Fathers the expressions communication, sharing, gift, diffusion, derivation, application, copulation, and conjunction, are often found, as is well known and allowed by those who most dislike the word ‘imputation,’ although this word signifies precisely the same thing as these others. Wherefore, since the thing itself is sufficiently certain, it is fruitless to contend about words.
Nay, the very word ‘imputation’ occurs in S. Bernard (Epistle 190 to Pope Innocent [or Tract on some Capital Errors of Abelard, ch. 6, sect. 15, vol. 1, p. 652c.]); ‘If one died for all, all therefore are dead, viz., that the satisfaction of one may be imputed to all; as He being one, carried the sins of all.’ (Read diligently, I pray you, the whole of that epistle), and again, ‘Death is put to flight by the death of Christ, and the justice of Christ is imputed to us.’ (Sermo ad milites Templi, ch. 11 [sect. 22, vol. 1, p. 553e.]) and this [namely, that S. Bernard makes use of the word ‘imputation’] is allowed by many Romanists: A. Vega (Of Justification, bk. 15, ch. 2, prop. 2); Bellarmine (who also confesses that ‘the justice and merits of Christ are rightly said to be imputed to us, when they are given and applied to us, as if we had ourselves satisfied God, but not so that we should formally be called and be just through the justice of Christ’; Of Justification, bk. 2, ch. 7, sect. Quarto refellitur, ch. 10, sect. Deinde et ibidem Resp. ad tertium argumentum [sect. Resp. non dicitur] et ch. 11 circa finem sect. Potest tamen.]); Suarez (Of [Divine] Grace, bk. 7, Of the Sanctification of Man, ch. 7, n. 29); Ruardus Tapper (Explicatio articulorum viginti, art. 8, Of Justification, sect. Ad quod bifariam, t. 2, pp. 25-27); Vasquez (in pt. 1 of 2, tome 2, disp. 202, ch. 6, n. 45); Stapleton (Of Justification, bk. 7, ch. 9, sect. Aliquid, and sect. Notandum); Costerus (in Enchiridion, p. 292, anno 1593, pp. 254-56), and many others. And many centuries before S. Bernard, S. Athanasius affirms that ‘it behoves us to believe from the Holy Scriptures… that the fulfillment of the law performed by the first-fruits’ (i.e. Christ) ‘is ascribed or imputed to the whole mass;’ ([Pseudo] Athanasius, Confutationes quarumdam propositionum, sect. 15. Adversus cos. qui damno afficiunt genus nostrum, eo quod negant Servatorem ex natura nostra sump*i**c primitas. Tome 2, edit. Commelini, p. 270 [tome 2, p. 580, B.]) for in the Greek it is the same word which the apostle uses in the fourth chapter of the Romans; see the passage.”
.
Friedrich Spanheim
‘Disputation on the Justification of Man before God’ in Disputationum Theologicarum Miscellaneorum Pars Prima (Geneva: Chouët, 1652), trans. AI by Roman Prestarri at Confessionally Reformed Theology
“18. That imputation of the righteousness of Christ is neither fictitious, nor ideal, nor absurd; nor does it overthrow the δικαιοκρισία [dikaiokrisia, righteous judgment] of God, nor does it clash with human reason or practice.
Nay, it is established by the Pontificals themselves through the trafficking of papal indulgences and the market of satisfactions and pardons, where the λογισμός [logismos, reckoning/imputation] and communication of another’s righteousness — albeit fictitious — is manifestly taught.
It is no wonder, however, that the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is denied and opposed in this matter by those who neither know nor feel the union of ourselves with Christ and the power and efficacy thereof, and who prefer the means of salvation to be profitable to themselves [as independent workers] rather than gratuitous.”
.
Louis Le Blanc
Theological Theses published at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan, vol. 2 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica at Discord (1675; London, 1683), ‘On Imputed Righteousness’, pp. 259-61 Latin
“XXIX. This [preceding] is the true and genuine doctrine of the Reformers concerning our justification through the righteousness of our Lord Christ imputed to us, which they make so clear and evident both by the analogy of faith, the common sense of Christians, and the internal voice of conscience, that not even the doctors of the Roman Church dare openly contradict it, but when it is simply and plainly proposed, they are compelled to acknowledge it and subscribe to its truth.
XXX. Indeed, none of them, as far as I know, dares to say that the faithful, relying on their own righteousness inherent in them, can stand before the severe tribunal of God and not be condemned, even if God judges them without mercy. Or who would protest against Stapleton, who admits that if God were to judge men according to strict judgment, no human righteousness could stand in that judgment? (Book on Justification, ch. 14) And to Vasquez, who acknowledges that each of us, both before justification and after justification, is bound to say with the Psalmist, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant” (Ps. 143:2). For unless God by His mercy prevents us from being justified, we cannot avoid being condemned in the judgment of God. And even after justification from mortal sin, many venial sins remain, which, unless they are erased by God’s mercy before we are summoned to God’s judgment, a man cannot be justified at all, that is, completely escape God’s judgment and vengeance. (vol. 2, in pt. 1 of 2, disp. 202, ch. 6, num. 44).
XXXI. Nor is there any doctor of the Roman Church who does not acknowledge that we all need the remission of sins before God, so that we may avoid eternal death and be adopted as children of God and heirs of eternal life; but that this remission and adoption as children of God are gratuitous with respect to us, and not owed to any of our works. This is expressly taught by the Council of Trent, Session 6, ch. 8, declaring that we are said by the apostle to be justified freely, because nothing of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For under justification, remission of sins is combined with sanctification and the inner renewal of man, as is seen in Session 6, ch. 7. And in chapter 3 of the same Session, it describes the justification of the ungodly as a transfer from that state in which a man is born a son of the first Adam, to the state of grace and adoption of sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior. Hence it is clear from the mind of that Council that the remission of sins, our renewal, and adoption as children of God are benefits granted to us by God freely, and which are not merited by any of our works.
XXXII. Moreover, the same Council, in Session 6, ch. 8, teaches that this justification, which according to it is not only the remission of sins but also sanctification and the inner renewal of man, by which man becomes righteous from unrighteous, and from enemy becomes a friend, so that he becomes an heir according to the hope of eternal life, has as its meritorious cause our Lord Jesus Christ, who merited justification for us by His most holy passion on the cross, and satisfied God the Father for us. And no one can be justified except those to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated. And this is certainly the same as what our theologians intend to signify when they say that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us and we are justified before God through it. For what else do they mean when they speak thus, as has been often emphasized, except the remission of our sins and adoption as children of God and heirs of the heavenly kingdom, not owed to any merits of ours, but solely to the merit and satisfaction of Christ, which are truly given and communicated to us by God?
XXXIII. Indeed, not even our way of speaking is dared to be simply condemned by the Roman School of Theology, for they concede that it can be said in a sound sense that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us and becomes ours. Indeed, that sound sense according to which they interpret that expression is the very one that we intend. This is clearly evident from Bellarmine, bk. 2, On Justification, ch. 7, §4: “Fourth, it is refuted. For,” he says,
“if heretics wanted only the merits of Christ to be imputed to us, because they are given to us, and we can offer them to God the Father for our sins, since Christ undertakes the burden of satisfying for us, and not reconciling us to God the Father, their opinion would be correct.”
XXXIV. To this are added what the same book adds in chapter 10, Response to the first argument:
“It is said, Christ is our righteousness, because He satisfied the Father for us, and that satisfaction, when He justifies us, is given and communicated to us in such a way that it can be said to be our satisfaction and righteousness. For even if we are truly and rightly called and are righteous by inherent righteousness, yet we do not satisfy God for our sins and eternal punishment by it. But that inherent righteousness comes with the remission of sin and eternal punishment, the effect of Christ’s satisfaction, which is conferred and applied to us in justification. And in this way it would not be absurd if someone said that the merits of Christ are imputed to us, when they are given and applied to us, as if we ourselves satisfied God; provided that it is not denied that there is in us also an inherent righteousness, which is true and absolute righteousness, which is not liable to punishment but to glory.”
XXXV. Similar sentiments are also found in Gabriel Vásquez, vol. 2, in pt. 1 of 2, fisp. 222, ch. 1. For the words of the Council of Trent, “Although no one can be just unless the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated to him,” mean entirely the same thing as if it were said that the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are imputed to him. However, in disputation 203, he rightly affirms that it can be said that the merits of Christ are imputed to us when it concerns the meritorious cause of justification. For to have the merits of Christ imputed to us is the same as having those merits applied and communicated to us.
XXXVI. Now, who among us has thought anything else when it was said that we are justified by the sole righteousness of Christ imputed to us, than that Christ Himself satisfied God the Father for us, and that satisfaction is so given and communicated to us by God when He justifies us, that it can be called our own satisfaction and righteousness? Therefore, the remission of guilt and eternal punishment that we obtain from God in our justification is the effect of Christ’s satisfaction alone, not of any righteousness inherent in us. Or who has inferred from this that there is no righteousness produced by the grace of Christ in us, by which we are truly called and are righteous, which is true and absolute in essence and integral parts, although it may fall short in degrees from the highest perfection and may have many flaws and blemishes adhering to it due to the daily failings of the faithful? This is acknowledged by the doctors of the Roman Church, and specifically by Bellarmine himself, as was previously proven in the Theses on Righteousness Inherent through the Grace of Christ. Hence it is evident that the theologians of the Roman School unjustly criticize our doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, since we truly believe nothing in this matter that the force of truth does not compel them to acknowledge.
XXXVII. But whether the glory belongs to the righteousness that is infused into the faithful by the grace of the Holy Spirit, as Bellarmine contends, is another question, which, God willing, we will discuss at another time when we explicitly address the merits of good works…”
.
Ecumenical, & Attempted Ecumenical, Descriptions of Justification
1500’s
On Erasmus & Bucer
Quote
Irene Dingel, ch. 19, ‘Christian Ecumenical Efforts’ in eds. Appold & Minnich, The Cambridge History of Reformation Era Theology (Cambridge University Press, 2023), pp. 374-75
“Humanists such as Erasmus of Rotterdam did strive to surmount religious division and to restore religious peace. But the historical constellations stood in the way of such ideas in the long term. Erasmus’s Liber de sarcienda ecclesiae concordia (1533) spoke of a doctrine of justification that mediated between the parties with the concept of duplex iustitia [a twofold righteousness].
Georg Witzel and the Strasbourg Reformer Martin Bucer attempted to follow this path proposed by Erasmus in a disputation in Leipzig in 1539. The draft of the document, which rests largely on Bucer’s work, prepared for negotiations regarding the doctrine of justification at the religious colloquies in Worms and Regensburg in 1540/1541. But these mediating propositions could not neutralize the continuing concern to disprove the other side in the dialogue and to convince it of one’s own position. Both sides were confident that this could succeed by means of good argumentation. Thus, the differing standpoints often took on sharp contours in the course of the colloquies and tended to set boundaries and back up their own confession of the faith in the process.”
.
Regensburg Agreement of 1541
Intro
This agreement in Bavaria, historically known as the Colloquy of Ratisbon, involved the negotiators and theologians:
Protestants: Bucer, Melanchthon, Pistorius the elder
Romanist: Contarini, Gropper, Pflug, Eck
The colloquy marked the culmination of attempts to restore religious unity in the Holy Roman Empire by means of theological debate between the Protestants and Romanists. The first four articles, on the condition and integrity of man before the fall, on free will, on the cause of sin, and on original sin, passed without difficulty. The article on justification encountered great opposition, especially from Eck, but an agreement was finally arrived at.
With respect to the articles on the doctrinal authority of the Church, the hierarchy, discipline, sacraments, etc., no agreement was possible, and they were all passed over without result. The book, with the changes agreed upon and nine counter-propositions of the Protestants, was returned to the Emperor. In spite of the opposition of Mainz, Bavaria, and the Imperial legate, Charles V still hoped for an agreement on the basis of the articles which had been accepted by both parties, those in which they differed being postponed to a later time. Due to various reasons the sought for union and peace did not happen.
Calvin warmly welcomed this agreement (Letter to Farel, 11.5.1541). Luther demanded that even the articles agreed upon should be rejected.
See Wikipedia: ‘Diet of Regensburg (1541)’.
Source: Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue. An Evangelical Assessment, tr. Anthony N. S. Lane (London: 2002), pp. 234-35
.
Article 5
“But this [justification] happens to no one unless also at the same time love is infused [infundatur] which heals the will so that the healed may begin to fulfil the law, just as Saint Augustine [De spir. et lit., c. 9,15] said. So living faith is that which both appropriates mercy in Christ, believing that the righteousness which is in Christ is freely imputed to it, and at the same time receives the promise of the Holy Spirit and love.
Therefore the faith that truly justifies is that faith which is effectual through love [Gal. 5:6]. Nevertheless it remains true that it is by this faith that we are justified (i.e. accepted and reconciled to God) inasmuch as it appropriates the mercy and righteousness which is imputed to us on account of Christ and his merit, not on account of the worthiness or perfection of the righteousness imparted [communicatae] to us in Christ.”
.
Latin Book
Bucer, Martin – The Disputing of Regensburg, in another Colloquium, 1546, and a responding of the collocutors of the Augsburg Confession, wherein they take up and complete on Justification and all places of evangelical doctrine… (1548) 692 pp. no ToC Indices: Subject, Indices Errata
.
1600’s
Forbes, John –
.
1900’s
Between Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists & Anglican Churches
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification 20th Anniversary edition (1999; 2019)
Preamble
“1… Doctrinal condemnations were put forward both in the Lutheran Confessions and by the Roman Catholic Church’s Council of Trent. These condemnations are still valid today and thus have a church-dividing effect.
…
5. The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ. It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.
…
7… the churches neither take the condemnations lightly
nor do they disavow their own past. On the contrary, this Declaration is shaped by the conviction that in their respective histories our churches have come to new insights…”
.
1. Biblical Message of Justification
“11. Justification is the forgiveness of sins (cf. Rom 3:23-25; Acts 13:39; Lk 18:14), liberation from the dominating power of sin and death (Rom 5:12-21) and from the curse of the law (Gal 3:10-14).”
.
3. The Common Understanding of Justification
“14. The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church have together listened to the good news proclaimed in Holy Scripture… This encompasses a consensus in the basic truths; the differing explications in particular statements are compatible with it.
15…. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.
17… as sinners our new life is solely due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we receive in faith, and never can merit in any way.
18… Lutherans and Catholics share the goal of confessing Christ in all things, who alone is to be trusted above all things as the one Mediator (1 Tim 2:5f) through whom God in the Holy Spirit gives himself and pours out his renewing gifts.”
.
5. The Significance and Scope of the Consensus Reached
“40. The understanding of the doctrine of justification set forth in this Declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics. In light of this consensus the remaining differences of language, theological elaboration, and emphasis in the understanding of justification described in paras. 18 to 39 are acceptable. Therefore the Lutheran and the Catholic explications of justification are in their difference open to one another and do not destroy the consensus regarding the basic truths.
41. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations of the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.
42. Nothing is thereby taken away from the seriousness of the condemnations related to the doctrine of justification. Some were not simply pointless. They remain for us “salutary warnings” to which we must attend in our teaching and practice.
43… The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church will continue to strive together to deepen this common understanding of justification and to make it bear fruit in the life and teaching of the churches.
44. We give thanks to the Lord for this decisive step forward on the way to overcoming the division of the church. We ask the Holy Spirit to lead us further toward that visible unity which is Christ’s will.
.
Official Common Statement
“1… ‘The understanding of the doctrine of justification set forth in this Declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and
Catholics’ (JD 40)…
…
3. The two partners in dialogue are committed to continued and deepened study of the biblical foundations of the doctrine of justification. They will also seek further common understanding of the doctrine of justification, also beyond what is dealt with in the Joint Declaration… continued dialogue is required specifically on the issues mentioned especially in the Joint Declaration itself (JD 43) as requiring further clarification in order to reach full church communion, a unity in diversity, in which remaining differences would be “reconciled” and no longer have a divisive force.
.
Annex to the Official Common Statement
“…
2. ‘Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works’ (JD 15).
A ‘We confess together that God forgives sin by grace and at the same time frees human beings from sin’s enslaving power …’ (JD 22). Justification is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous, through which God ‘imparts the gift of new life in Christ’ (JD 22)… We are truly and inwardly renewed by the action of the Holy Spirit, remaining always dependent on his work in us. “So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” (2 Cor 5:17). The justified do not remain sinners in this sense.
Yet we would be wrong were we to say that we are without sin (1 Jn 1:8-10, cf. JD 28)… To this extent, Lutherans and Catholics can together understand the Christian as simul justus et peccator, despite their different approaches to this subject as expressed in JD 29-30.
…
C Justification takes place ‘by grace alone’ (JD 15 and 16), by faith alone, the person is justified ‘apart from works’ (Rom 3:28; cf. JD 25). ‘Grace creates faith not only when faith begins in a person but as long as faith lasts’ (Thomas Aquinas, S.Th. II/II 4, 4 ad 3)…
…
3. The doctrine of justification is measure or touchstone for the Christian faith. No teaching may contradict this criterion. In this sense, the doctrine of justification is an ‘indispensable criterion that constantly serves to orient all the teaching and practice of our churches to Christ’ (JD 18)… We “share the goal of confessing Christ in all things, who alone is to be trusted above all things as the one Mediator (1 Tim 2:5-6) through whom God in the Holy Spirit gives himself and pours out his renewing gifts” (JD 18).
4. The Response of the Catholic Church does not intend to put in question the authority of Lutheran Synods or of the Lutheran World Federation. The Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation began the dialogue and have taken it forward as partners with equal rights (par cum pari). Notwithstanding different conceptions of authority in the church, each partner respects the other partner’s ordered process of reaching doctrinal decisions.”
.
On a Twofold Justification
This material is here for historical purposes. Some of the persons below simply affirm the word “justification” can mean sanctification in relation to salvation, not that they had a unified paradigm of twofold justification.
.
Order of
Reformed 10
Roman Catholics 5
.
Reformed
Order of
Articles 2
Quotes 8
Latin 1
.
Articles
1600’s
White, Francis – The Orthodox Faith… Explained, pp. 18-19
Forbes, William – bk. 2, Of Justification, chs. 3, 4, 5 & 6 ToC in Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, pp. 121-74
.
Quotes
Order of
Bucer (& Erasmus)
Calvin
Beza
Zanchi
Thysius
de Dieu
A. Burgess
Baxter
.
1500’s
On Martin Bucer (& Erasmus)
Irene Dingel, ch. 19, ‘Christian Ecumenical Efforts’ in eds. Appold & Minnich, The Cambridge History of Reformation Era Theology (Cambridge University Press, 2023), pp. 374-75
“Humanists such as Erasmus of Rotterdam did strive to surmount religious division and to restore religious peace. But the historical constellations stood in the way of such ideas in the long term. Erasmus’s Liber de sarcienda ecclesiae concordia (1533) spoke of a doctrine of justification that mediated between the parties with the concept of duplex iustitia [a twofold righteousness].
Georg Witzel and the Strasbourg Reformer Martin Bucer attempted to follow this path proposed by Erasmus in a disputation in Leipzig in 1539. The draft of the document, which rests largely on Bucer’s work, prepared for negotiations regarding the doctrine of justification at the religious colloquies in Worms and Regensburg in 1540/1541. But these mediating propositions could not neutralize the continuing concern to disprove the other side in the dialogue and to convince it of one’s own position. Both sides were confident that this could succeed by means of good argumentation. Thus, the differing standpoints often took on sharp contours in the course of the colloquies and tended to set boundaries and back up their own confession of the faith in the process.”
.
John Calvin
Commentary on Titus 3, v. 7
“‘That being justified by his grace’
If we understand ‘regeneration’ in its strict and ordinary meaning, it might be thought that the apostle employs the word ‘justified’ instead of ‘regenerated;’ and this is sometimes the meaning of it, but very seldom; yet there is no necessity which constrains us to depart from its strict and more natural [forensic] signification. The design of Paul is to ascribe to the grace of God all that we are, and all that we have, so that we may not exalt ourselves proudly against others. Thus he now extols the mercy of God, by ascribing to it entirely the cause of our salvation. But because he had spoken of the vices of unbelievers, it would have been improper to leave out the grace of regeneration, which is the medicine for curing them.
Still this does not prevent him from returning immediately to praise divine mercy; and he even mingles both blessings together — that our sins have been freely pardoned, and that we have been renewed so as to obey God. This, at least, is evident, that Paul maintains that “justification,” is the free gift of God; and the only question is, what he means by the word justified. The contest seems to demand that its meaning shall be extended further than to the imputation of righteousness; and in this larger sense it is seldom (as I have said) employed by Paul; yet there is nothing that hinders the meaning of it from being limited to the forgiveness of sins.”
.
Theodore Beza
On Titus 3:7, in William Forbes, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, ch. 4, p. 153
“The word ‘justification’ I take in a wide sense, so as to embrace whatever we obtain from Christ, whether by imputation, or by the efficacy of the Spirit in sanctifying us… Thus also the word ‘to justify’ is taken in Rom. 8:30.”
.
A Book of Christian Questions & Answers… (London: How, 1574), p. 57
“Question: But David grounds this redemption and blessing in the release of sins. Why then add you also the imputation of the sanctification that sticks in Christ, and his fulfilling of the law?
Answer: What if I shold encounter thee with these texts: ‘Blessed are the clean in heart,’ ‘blessed are the blameless in the way,’ and such other like? wouldst thou gather here upon that the releasing of sins is excluded? I think not. So now and then sanctification is meant by the term of ‘justification’, because these two go never asunder.
And why may I not make answer thus also? that sometimes there is mention made but only of the releasing of sins, not to the end to exclude all other pates that make men blessed, but because the rest are coverfly comprehended under it? And if thou wilt urge me yet further: I may also fitly answer that as the other are meant by the releasing of sins.”
.
Jerome Zanchi
Tome 6, thesis 13, p. 81 [or 84?] in William Forbes, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, ch. 4, p. 155
“the word ‘justify’ has two meanings, the first signifies to absolve anyone from crimes… and to pronounce him just, and is opposed to the word ‘to condemn;’ and this signification is altogether forensic. The other meaning of the word is, that a man is made just from being unjust, as also to be sanctified is, to be made holy from being profane; in which signication the apostle has said, ‘And such were some of you, etc. [1 Cor. 6:11]’, i.e. you have been made, from being unclean, clean, holy from being profane, just from being unjust, by the Holy Ghost, on account of Christ, in whom you believe.
To which meaning relates that passage also, which we read in the Revelation, ‘He that is just, let him be justified still more,’ i.e. let him become in truth, from being just, still more just, viz., in the same way as from being unjust, he had been made just.
And the Fathers and especially S. Augustine, have interpreted the word in this sense… These are two certain meanings of this word ‘to justify’.”
.
1600’s
Anthony Thysius
Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 2, Disputation 33. ‘On the Justification of Man in the Sight of God’, pp. 305-7
“3. But the word [‘to justify’] is used with that specialized meaning when it concerns the judgment of God as He absolves the sinner who stands before his judgment seat (Ps. 143:2; Rom. 5:16 and 8:33-34). And so this entire act of justification is depicted as a forensic process.
Yet we still grant that justification sometimes appears also to include sanctification as its consequence because of the very strong, close connection between the two (Rom. 8:30; Titus 3:7, etc.).”
.
Ludovicus de Dieu
Animadversions on Romans… to which is added, a Gleaning on the rest of the same Apostle’s, as well as the Catholic Epistles (Leiden: Elzeviers, 1646) de Dieu (1590-1642) was a Dutch reformed minister and a leading orientalist.
on Rom. 8:4, pp. 67-73
“Verse 4. ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν. Beza: “that that right of the law might be fulfilled in us.” The Vulgate and Erasmus, “the justification of the law.” just as above 5:18, δι’ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος Beza himself translated, “by one justification.” and Apoc. 19:8, τὰ δικαιώματα τῶν ἁγίων “the justifications of the saints.” The Syriac, “the justice of the law:” which the Arabic also follows.
The matter comes to almost the same thing. The right, justice, justification of the law consists in this, that through complete conformity with the law we may be held just and blameless before God. This could not be obtained while sin lived and reigned through the law, but with sin condemned in the flesh of Christ, and the law itself approving this condemnation, through the full conformity of Christ our head with the Law, we are held just and blameless in the same head, with the Law confessing it; and not only this, but so that the members may be conformed to the head, from Him flows into us the Spirit of regeneration, who also in us ourselves perfects the justification of the Law. He so regenerates us that with our mind we delight in the law of God, and what sin remains in the flesh, He so gradually abolishes, that at length we are to be acknowledged by the Law itself without any spot or blemish. This entire righteousness therefore, both imputed, which we have by faith in Christ our head, and inherent, which we have by regeneration in ourselves, is indeed the righteousness of the Law, but neither is from the Law, nor through the Law: but both are from the blood and Spirit of Christ.
And the first is indeed that of which Rom. 4:11; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9, by which God, although in ourselves we are still unconformed to the Law, yet fully, by the testimony of the Law itself, justifies us, and holds us as completely conformed to it in Christ our head; about which justification the apostle has disputed at length above in chs. 3-5.
The other is that of which Rom. 6:13; Eph. 4:24; 1 Jn. 3:7, by which God, through regeneration, having conformed us in part to the Law in ourselves, now justifies us in part, and day by day justifies us more and more, as regeneration increases, and will justify fully, when perfection comes; about which justification it is treated in James 2:21, 24; Apoc. 22:11; Mt. 12:37; 1 Kn. 8:32. The works of the Law enter into this justification, indeed, they alone constitute it, just as faith alone constitutes the first, that is the righteousness of Christ imputed by faith, not works: so works, not faith, constitute the other.
Yet it is not therefore from the Law, but from grace. For the Law does not admit it from the authority of its own power, which can praise nothing but what is perfectly holy, but from the authority of the grace of Christ, to which the Law is now a handmaid, and by whose command it praises even the imperfect works of the faithful, approves them, and holds them as conformed to itself; which grace we indeed embrace by faith, and by that faith are made ready and eager to give diligence to the righteousness of the Law; yet not properly faith, but works constitute that second righteousness.
There is therefore a twofold justification. One by which we, sinners in ourselves, are justified before God outside of us. The other, by which, having been justified before God outside of us, we are justified before Him in us. The first of these is the cause of the second; the second is the effect and demonstration of the first. The first is accomplished by faith, the other by works. Both must concur for the justification of the Law to be completed in us.
Will you not then say, is there not a certain justification from the Law, if it is from the works of the Law? There is not, I say. Because the works of which we speak, although they are of the Law with respect to the norm they follow, or that they are prescribed by the Law, yet with respect to their origin and the virtue from which they proceed, they are not of the Law, but of grace and of the Spirit. Most importantly, however, because those are said to be justified by the Law who are justified by works, as from a fulfilled condition of the Covenant, which happens only then, when the works correspond to the Law with complete perfection. For then the Law justifies the man, just as a husband justifies a wife who has never violated her faith to him: for as that justification of the wife proceeds from the conjugal right: so from a similar right, which in the Covenant of Works God established between his Law and man, proceeds the justification of that man who has kept his faith to the Law inviolate. But he who was before a Covenant-breaker towards the Law, and then joined to a new husband, namely Christ, by conjugal right, now lives indeed according to the Law, but yet with many defects; the Law admits his righteousness, not because it owes it from conjugal right, but from its ministerial office, by which, having been made a servant of our husband, it approves what proceeds from his Spirit, even if imperfect.
Let us treat more fully of this second species of justification. It is that by which God, from the regeneration given to us, and the works of sincere faith which we have produced, absolves us from the crime of hypocrisy, profanity and impiety, and no longer holds us as dead in sins, servants of the Devil and sons of the world, but as truly faithful, his sons, restored to his image, endowed with his life and translated into his kingdom; which judgment of God the Law also approves. Not that it considers itself satisfied by our works, but because, deprived of its own dominion and subjected to Christ our Lord, it cannot but praise the works which proceed from faith in Christ and from his Spirit, and, although imperfect, hold them for true righteousness, and those who perform them for truly just and sons pleasing to God.
Let it be inquired here, since Scripture frequently and openly attributes to us both kinds of righteousness of which we have spoken, and therefore for the reason of both we are to be considered just, not only before men, but also before God, whether not, in the sense that we are said to be justified by works in James 2 and to be justified by our words in Mt. 12, our works can be said to be imputed to us for righteousness; not indeed as faith is imputed to us for righteousness, but as the deed of Phinehas is said to have been imputed to him for righteousness, Ps. 106:31.
For the imputation for righteousness, by which the obedience which Christ performed for us is held as ours, and thence we unjust and sinners are absolved from the vengeance of an angry God, is one thing. There, faith alone embracing that obedience is imputed for righteousness. The imputation of righteousness, by which the works of piety which proceed from us, justified by faith and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, although imperfect and deserving of blame and rejection, are yet held by God through grace for Christ’s sake, as good, holy and just, and thence we are absolved from the charge of wickedness and fraud, and compared with the impious and profane, are justified as upright, is another thing. Here works are also imputed for righteousness, just as the deed of Phineas, which otherwise being done without a calling, and therefore seemed blameworthy and to be disapproved, is said to have been imputed to him for righteousness, because it was attributed to him as a good, holy and praiseworthy work.
I am pleased to set these things forth in the very words of the great Calvin, Institutes, bk. 3. ch. 17, sect. 8. “It is one thing,” he says:
“to dispute what works are worth in themselves, another in what place they are to be held after the righteousness of faith has been established. If a price is to be set for works according to their dignity, we say they are unworthy to come into the sight of God: therefore man has nothing of works by which to glory before God. Thence, stripped of all aid of works, he is justified by faith alone. With the remission of sins presupposed, the good works which now follow have a different estimation than from their own merit: because whatever in them is imperfect is covered by the perfection of Christ.
Therefore, with the guilt of all transgressions by which men are hindered from bringing forth anything pleasing to God being obliterated, and the fault of imperfection, which is wont to defile even good works, being buried: the good works which are done by the faithful are judged just: or (which is the same thing) are imputed for righteousness.”
Thus far he.
Hence, furthermore, these distinctions arise: That the imputation of faith is for perfect righteousness, such as is the obedience of Christ. The imputation of works, for imperfect righteousness, such as are the works themselves in this life. In the former, the rigor of the law is satisfied; in the latter, the Law, having become an instrument of grace, condescends and accommodates itself to us. That imputation is the cause of the remission of sins; this is not so, since it would have no place unless sins were first remitted. In the former, the sinner is absolved from guilt; in the latter, the pious is distinguished from the impious. For although the object of both is one and the same man, there, however, he is considered as impious; to whom believing in Christ, God remits sins, Rom. 4:5. Here as pious, whom, living among the impious, and at some time to appear with them before the tribunal of God, he pronounces and will pronounce from works of piety an heir of his kingdom, Mt. 25:34-35. In the former, God passes judgment on the price of his Son’s blood, how much it is worth for us before Him. In the latter, He passes judgment on the gift of regeneration conferred on us, of what sort, namely, He holds us on that account.
Furthermore, the Pontiffs also posit two justifications, a first and a second. The first is that by which we first from unjust become inherently just in ourselves, and therefore dear to God. The second, by which, having been made just in this way, we are advanced more and more in that righteousness, and therefore in the love of God towards us; which both differ from ours by the whole heaven. Both of theirs rest on our merit, and the first indeed on congruent merit, the other on condign. Both of ours rest on the sole merit of Christ and his grace. Both of theirs consist in inherent holiness. The first of ours, in the remission of sins through the imputed obedience of Christ. The other, in the judgment of God, by which, overlooking the defects of our works for Christ’s sake, He holds them as just and conformed to his Law, and thence pronounces us piously just, according to the saying of 1 Jn. 3:7, “He who does righteousness is righteous.”
The foundation of which second justification is indeed the righteousness inherent in us, but not by virtue of its own dignity, or of a holiness proportionate to the just Law of God, but by virtue of the imputed righteousness of Christ, from which it flows and on whose grace it entirely rests. For being stained with not a few defects, it deprecates the judgment of an angry God; having been reconciled, it does not flee him, who holding his faithful as just in Christ, because He has imputed the righteousness of Christ to them, also holds them and wishes them to be held as just in themselves, because He has regenerated them by his Spirit, by whose power they give diligence to righteousness.
The apostle asserts in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 that neither the unjust, nor fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor those who lie with males, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will be heirs of the kingdom of God from these crimes; therefore Christians must be justified, that is, pronounced innocent, if they are to be saved. And the apostle affirms that this has already been done: “You were,” he says, “some of these things: but you have been washed,” that is, cleansed from these filthinesses: “but you have been sanctified,” that is, separated from such impurities: “but you have been justified,” that is, you are held innocent, so that you can no longer be accused of these crimes; and this “in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” I understand this of the second justification, by which those who were previously held by these crimes, now being regenerated in the name of Christ and by the Spirit of God, could no longer be accused of them, but had to be absolved therefrom.
This is the very thing the apostle said above in Rom. 6:7, “He who has died, δεδικαίωται, has been justified from sin,” that is, so freed from it, that he can no longer be accused as a servant of sin since he is to be held not as a friend but as a hater of sin. Where again it is to be noted that the first justification is from sins of which we are guilty: but the second from those of which we are not guilty. When someone has committed a sin, he is guilty, nor is he justified therefrom; that is, he is not absolved from its guilt except through the remission of sins, which is from faith alone. But I give you a regenerate man, who, though before regeneration was a drunkard, a fornicator, etc. from the time of regeneration, has ceased from these sins. He, surely, by the very fact that he has ceased, cannot be accused of them as before, having been justified. Therefore he is justified from them, that is, absolved from things not perpetrated; and this justification is truly from works. Because he has lived soberly and chastely, he must absolutely be justified from drunkenness and fornication.
But you will say, ‘David after his regeneration committed adultery.’ I answer: The guilt of that sin was blotted out by the first justification from faith alone, nor could he in any way have been justified from it by the second, because, since he had perpetrated adultery, God could not pronounce that he had not perpetrated it; but with repentance added, he was justified from hardness and servitude to sin by the second justification from the work of repentance itself. For if you compare Saul with David: both sin. But Saul, being impenitent, is accused and condemned for hardness from the work of impenitence. David, being penitent, is absolved from that fault from the work of repentance, since he is not guilty of it.
To this second species of justification belongs what is usually called in the schools, “justification of the cause,” as when David, from the accusations and criminations of his enemies, appeals to the tribunal of God, he there professes his innocence, probity, the pursuit of faith and piety, and subjecting his heart to the examination of God Himself, he asks that his cause be tried by God, and that he be rewarded according to his justice: not only his cause, of course, but also himself; falsely accused by the impious, he asks to be justified by God.
Thus God justified Job, when, vindicating him from the crimes unjustly imputed to him by his friends, he says that Job spoke more rightly of him than they, nor would he be placated with them except by his intercession, Job 42:8. Especially indeed, when in ch. 1:7, 9-11, the Devil had calumniated Job before God as if he followed God only for the sake of gain, with a mercenary love. God justifies his servant against that calumny in ch. 2:3, saying, “He still holds fast his integrity, although you moved me against him to destroy him without cause.” And there justification is sought for Job from works, because he is still blameless and upright, fearing God and turning away from evil. The matter still stands the same way with all the faithful. For since the Devil is said to be the accuser of the brethren, accusing them before God day and night, Apoc. 12:10, and not only before God, but also often in our own consciences, which He not rarely undermines and shakes with the suspicion of hypocrisy, as if we professed faith and piety with a less than sincere, indeed, a feigned mind, we surely have need to be absolved from this accusation and to be justified from this false testimony before God, which is certainly something other than being absolved and justified from the guilt of all our sins, by which we are bound over to wrath and the just judgment of God. This belongs to the first justification and is accomplished only by faith in Christ. The other belongs to the second, and seeks aid from works.
Let the kind reader, I beseech him, compare this our opinion with that which is extant in the other Colloquy of Ratisbon, where that great light of the Church, Martin Bucer, speaks thus on the passage of James (p. 302):
“To be justified by faith, which is the first and vital justification, James has interpreted as being called a friend of God, that is, with sins forgiven, to be reconciled with God and to be received by Him into grace and friendship, who before was an enemy of God and a son of wrath. But to be justified by works, he taught is the same as to receive from God, on account of good works, which Abraham and Rahab received from Him, that is, approbation, praise and remuneration.”
He adds on p. 308:
“We had said, following the apostle and all Scripture, that there is a twofold righteousness of the saints by which they are just before God and men. One is Christ’s, perfect, on which all their hope of God’s grace and salvation and eternal life entirely rests.
The other is begun in them by the Spirit of Christ, in which they ought not to trust, because it is always imperfect while they live here and cannot be approved by God except out of his liberal and infinite mercy and the merit of Christ. By this righteousness no one is justified before God with the justification of life.”
Then on p. 313:
“We feel that this inchoate righteousness is indeed a true and living righteousness, a splendid and excellent gift of God, and that the new life in Christ consists in this righteousness, and that all saints are just by this very righteousness also, both before God and before men; and on account of it the saints are also justified by God with a justification of works, that is, they are approved by God, praised and rewarded. However, although this righteousness is true and living, and in its own way also justifying, yet it is not of such a kind, not so true, living, and solid, that any of the saints could be justified by it with the justification of life, much less that it be the righteousness or justification of life itself.”
This opinion was both approved and illustrated in theses, publicly edited, which he analytically collected from the 2nd chapter of the Epistle of James, by the most learned and renowned man, my uncle, preceptor and colleague, and therefore to be respected by me for many reasons, D. Daniel Colonius, Regent of the Gallo-Belgic College. So that we may say it in a few words: Justification by works is nothing other than what the renowned Calvin says, explaining the passage in Acts 10:35, where whoever fears God and works righteousness is said to be accepted by God, Institutes, bk. 3, ch. 17, sect. 5:
“that the faithful are approved by God also with respect to their works: because the Lord cannot but love and kiss the good things which He effects in them by his Spirit.;and therefore his sons, in whom He sees the marks and lineaments of his face, are pleasing and lovable to God.”
.
on James 2:24, p. 215
“Verse 24, ‘You see therefore, that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?’ This passage is easily reconciled with those things which Paul seems to argue to the contrary everywhere, if we establish, which is most true, that the apostle James is not dealing here with one single justification, which is accomplished partly by faith, partly by works, but with two distinct ones, of which the former is from faith and from faith only; the latter is from works.
For since a twofold accusation is brought against the faithful, one from God, the law and conscience, by which they are held guilty of many sins; the other from the Devil and the wicked, by whom they are falsely accused of hypocrisy, a mercenary spirit, impiety and heinous crimes, a twofold justification is required:
One by which, though truly sinners in themselves, they are absolved freely for Christ’s sake from the guilt of their sins, which justification is by faith alone without works.
The other, by which, as truly sanctified and regenerated, they are absolved from those false accusations of the Devil and the wicked, which justification is sought from works.
James urges that both must be joined, and therefore that man is not justified by faith only, but also by works. That is, it is not sufficient that he be justified by faith from the sins he has committed, but it is further required that he be justified also by works from the sins of which he is falsely accused, and from which he is immune through regeneration.”
.
Anthony Burgess
The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted & Vindicated... (London: Miller, 1651), Lecture 1, pp. 6-8
“First, the word [justificare] does imply an accounting just: And this is acknowledged by the Papists themselves as more frequent though they plead much for such a sense as to make just. Now the truth is there needs not much quarrel even about that signification, though the Scripture does not manifest it: For we confess that he is made just, who is justified, and that not only in respect of the inward renovation of a man, but also in respect of justification; for God does not account him just who is not so, and certainly to esteem a man just without righteousness, is as absurd as to account a man learned without learning, or the wall white without whiteness; only we say this righteousness that does to make a man just, is not inherent in him, but reckoned to him by the satisfaction of another: for a man is accounted righteous two ways, either when he is not guilty of the crime charged upon him, or when he does make satisfaction; and in this latter sense by Christ we become righteous.
2. So that if the word should signify as much as to make righteous, as to sanctify does signify to make holy, still we could grant it, though not in the Popish way; and indeed the apostle, Rom. 5, says many are made righteous by the second Adam, which if not meant of inherent holiness, does imply that the righteousness we have by Christ is not merely declarative, but also constitutive; and indeed one is in order before the other, for a man must be righteous before he can be pronounced or declared so to be. But the Hebrew word does not signify this sense primarily; for whereas the Hebrew word in [the tense] Cal[?] does signify to be righteous by a positive quality; The word in Hiphil, according to that rule in grammar, signifies to attribute and account this righteousness unto a man by some words, or other testimony, even as the word that in Cal signifies to be wicked, does in Hiphil signify to condemn and judge a man as wicked, so that there are these two things in justifying, whereof one is the ground of the other, first to make righteous, and then to pronounce or declare so.
From these two follows a third, which is to deal with a man so justified as a just man, so that condemnation, crimes, reproach and fear shall be taken away from him. This declares the admirable benefit of being justified before God, for when this is done, Rom. 5:1, we have peace with God, Eph. 3, we come with boldness into his presence, and open face; so that unbelief and slavish fears in the godly are great enemies to this grace of justification; yea, they are a reproach and dishonor to it. Thou thinkest if thy heart were not conscious to sin, if nothing but holiness were in thee, thou wouldest be bold, thou wouldst not fear or be troubled, but thou dost not consider that God walks towards thee as a righteous man, looks upon thee as so, so that if Christ be bold thou mayst, if God will not reject Christ, or thy sins cannot condemn Him, so neither will God reject thee, or shall thy sins overwhelm thee; this is the sweet consolation of the Gospel, to a sinner broken-hearted, who would give a world for a perfect righteousness to make him accepted.”
.
Richard Baxter
Richard Baxter’s Confesssion of his Faith… (London: 1655), ch. 3, pp. 56-57
“The sum of my doctrine which I bring them [Scriptures] to confirm, I contract into these heads.
1. That faith justifies not as an instrumental efficient cause, but as conditio applicans et disponens, the applying and disposing condition: its applicatory nature being the aptitude to the office, and its being the condition of the promise being the formal or nearest reason of its interest.
2. That repentance is conditio disponens, a dispositive condition of our first justification.
3. That Covenant-keeping by sincere love, thankfulness and obedience to God▪ Redeemer is a condition of the continuing, or not-losing our state of justification.
4. That the renewal of our faith and repentance, upon our lapses into discerned wounding sins, is a condition of the particular pardon of those sins, and our discharge or justification from the guilt of them.
5. That all the foresaid conditions, faith, repentance, love, thankfulness, sincere obedience, together with final perseverance, do make up the condition of our final absolution in judgment, and our eternal glorification.
6. That in the Day of Judgement, seeing we must be Judged by the Gospel or New Covenant, and it will be no small part of the work of the day to enquire whether we have performed the conditions of that Covenant which gives us Christ, and life and pardon, or not; we must therefore against the accusation of non-performance (real or supposed) be justified by our own performance as our particular righteousness: and this is the judging or jusiifying us according to our works, which Scripture mentions. And upon this will our universal and final justification depend, as upon its condition. And therefore whoever will be justified at that day, must have a Justitia prolegalis or a righteousness of remission of sin through the blood of Christ, to plead against the Law, and also a personal evangelical righteousness, consisting in a performance of the conditions of the Gospel or new Covenant, which is the condition of our interest in the first; or else he cannot be justified (yet is this latter but subordinate to the former, as to that sentential absolution).
7. Seeing this twofold righteousness is necessary to our justification in judgment, therefore it must needs follow that it is necessary to the making us righteous, or our constitutive justification in this life (in the order before laid down): For the Law is the rule of judgment; and God judges men to be as they are; and therefore He makes them righteous, both by remission of all sin and by giving them to perform the conditions of the New Covenant, before He judge them so.”
.
Latin Article
1500’s
Zanchi, Jerome – ‘On Justification’ in Commentary on Ephesians, on Eph. 2:4
William Forbes: “Zanchi affirms that by justification and sanctification one and the same thing is to be understood;” – Considerationes 1.153
.
History of Roman Catholics on a Twofold Justification
Order of
Article 1
Book 1
Quotes 4
Latin 1
.
Article
Maxcey, Carl E. – ‘Double Justice, Diego Laynez & the Council of Trent’ in Church History, 48 (3) (1979), pp. 269–78
.
Book
Schmitz, Edwin F. – Girolamo Seripando & Justification at the Council of Trent (Baltimore, MD: St. Mary’s Seminary, 1955)
.
Quotes
Order of
On Laynez
On Pighius
On Gropper
On Contarini
On Seripando
.
Wikipedia (3-2026)
‘Diego Laynez’: ‘Involvement with the Council of Trent’
“Pope Paul III sent Laynez to Trent to act as the Pope’s theologian at the [claimed] Ecumenical Council. Laynez arrived at Trent on 18 May 1546, five months after the Council opened, with Alfonso Salmeron. Before long, Laynez was recognized as exceptional – one of the first practical consequences was that he was allowed to preach in Trent when not on Council business, whereas the general rule forbade preaching by conciliar theologians. Another exception was the three-hour time limit accorded to Laynez in the council debates, while the standard allotment was an hour.
Laynez’s famous speech on imputed and inherent justification (Girolamo Seripando‘s “double justice” theory) on 26 October 1546 was subsequently written out and incorporated into the Acta of the Council under the title “Disputatio de justitia imputata”. By the time Laynez spoke, 37 theologians had spoken on the issue, and 28 had rejected duplex justitia.[clarification needed] In his three-hour-long speech, which was widely regarded as the most thorough on the topic, Laynez gave 12 reasons that the proposed “double justice” must be rejected by the Church, including its relatively recent origin and its implied denial of merit. His arguments were consistent with the Council’s 13 January 1547 Decree on Justification, which taught in Chapter 16,
“we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life.”
Laynez did not participate directly in the several months of discussions between his speech and the issuing of the Decree because immediately after his speech on justification, Cardinal Del Monte assigned him – along with Salmeron – to prepare a list of Protestant errors regarding the sacraments, as well as a summary of the relevant Church documents and patristic writings on sacraments.”
.
‘Albert Pighius’: ‘Theologian’
“He [Pighius] originated the doctrine of the double righteousness by which man is justified [this is very disputable], that has been characterized as “semi-Lutheranism”. According to this theory, the imputed righteousness of Christ is the formal cause of the justification of man before God, while the individual righteousness inherent in man is always imperfect and therefore insufficient.
These opinions of Pighius were adopted by Johannes Gropper and Cardinal Contarini; during the discussion at the Council of Trent of the “Decretum de Justificatione” they were maintained by Girolamo Seripando, but the Council rejected the compromise theory.
.
‘Johann Gropper’
“In many matters, especially in the doctrine of justification, he approximated Protestant views, but he did not approve of the doctrine of the Reformers concerning the concept and the organization of the Church.”
“Gropper took a zealous part in the negotiations for church union and in the religious colloquies held in 1540 and 1541 in Hagenau, Worms, and Regensburg. In the latter place he secured agreement on the formulation of the doctrine of justification; but he and his sympathizers could not reach an understanding with the Protestants about the organization of the Church. “
.
‘Gasparo Contarini’: Cardinalate
“In 1541 Cardinal Contarini was papal legate at the Conference of Regensburg, the diet and religious debate marking the culmination of attempts to restore religious unity in Germany by means of conferences. There everything was unfavorable; the Catholic states were bitter, the Evangelicals were distant. Contarini’s instructions though apparently free were in fact full of papal reservations. But the papal party had gladly sent him, thinking that through him a union in doctrine could be brought about, while the interest of Rome could be attended to later. Though the princes stood aloof, the theologians and the emperor were for peace, so the main articles were put forth in a formula, Evangelical in thought and Catholic in expression. The papal legate had revised the Catholic proposal and assented to the formula agreed upon. All gave their approval, even Johann Eck, though he later regretted it.
Contarini’s theological advisor was Tommaso Badia; his own position is shown in a treatise on justification, composed at Regensburg, which in essential points is Evangelical, differing only in the omission of the negative side and in being interwoven with the teaching of Aquinas. Meanwhile, the papal policy had changed, and Contarini chose to follow this. He advised the emperor, after the conference had broken up, not to renew it, but to submit everything to the pope.”
.
‘Girolamo Seripando’: ‘Life’
“In 1546, he attended the sessions of the Council of Trent, where he distinguished himself by his zeal for the purity of biblical texts, and also by his views concerning original sin and justification that some council fathers felt were more in line with Lutheran opinions.”
.
Latin Article
1500’s
Layñez, Diego – 11. Disputatio de Justitia Imputata in ed. Hartmannus Grisar, Jacobi Lainez… Disputationes Tridentiae (Regensburg: Felician Rauch., 1886), vol. 2, pp. 153-92
.
Contra Romanism on Justification
Order of
Articles 3
Books 2
Quote 1
.
Articles
1600’s
Perkins, William – A Golden Chain (Cambridge: Legat, 1600), Errors of the Papists in their distributing of the Causes of Salvation
11. Man’s love of God does in order and time go before his justification and reconciliation with God
13. There is also a second justification obtained by works
Ferne, Henry – An Appeal to Scripture & Antiquity in the Questions of… 3. Justification by and Merit of Good Works… Against the Romanists (London: Royston, 1665)
ch. 4, ‘Of Justification by Works’, pp. 88-110
Section 4, ‘Of Justification’, pp. 316-64
Ferne (1602-1662)
Owen, John – ch. 5, ‘The Distinction of a First & Second Justification Examined’ (†1683) 22 pp. in The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, pp. 189-211
.
Books
1600’s
Burton, Henry – The Christians Bulwark Against Satan’s Battery; or the Doctrine of Justification so Plainly & Pithily laid out in the Several Main Branches of it… (London: Taunton, 1632) 373 pp.
Burton was an Independent puritan. This book is targeted against Romanism. Most of the chapters interchange between an analysis of the Romanist view and then of the true, catholic, reformed view.
Davenant, John – A Treatise on Justification: or The Disputatio de justitia habituali et actuali…, vol. 1, 2 trans. Josiah Allport (d. 1641; London: Hamilton, 1844/1846) ToC 1, 2
This work is principally aimed against Romanism.
.
Quotes
Order of
Spanheim
Durham
.
1600’s
Friedrich Spanheim
‘Disputation on the Justification of Man before God’ in Disputationum Theologicarum Miscellaneorum Pars Prima (Geneva: Chouët, 1652), trans. AI by Roman Prestarri at Confessionally Reformed Theology
“23. This orthodox doctrine of the justification of sinful man before God having been asserted from the Word of God, the following errors are overthrown:
…
2. Of the Pontificals:
1. Who interpret justification as justification [i.e., a making just] rather than justihabition [i.e., a holding just]; who press inherent righteousness and assail imputed righteousness as putative; who confound the righteousness of the cause and of the person, the legal and the evangelical, and weave a patchwork from both; and who thereby divide the business of justification between God and man, grace and free will. Who partition justification into a First and a Second: to the former they build up preparations and merits of congruity; to the latter they lay as foundation merits of condignity.
2. Who confound justifying faith with other species of faith; who deny that fiducial apprehension of Christ; who maintain it to be separable from charity, not only actual but also habitual; who contend that faith justifies only initially and incipiently, but good works completively.
3. Who deny either the perfection, or the stability, or the sense of justification in the justified, and heap up entire cartloads of errors in this place.”
.
James Durham
Commentary on Revelation (Naphtali Press) vol. 3, p. 198
“[The gospel according to Romanism] overturns the nature of justification, and at best it does put in sanctification in the room thereof; and there is never any distinct ground laid, by which a sinner may come to receive a sentence of absolution before God, but this, to wit, justification, is lost by the former doctrine;
and they acknowledge no such thing distinct from regeneration or sanctification, as if no such act as justification were needful or mentioned in Scripture, as distinct from these; and, in effect, it leaves a sinner to a way of salvation that wants [lacks] justification in it: and therefore cannot profit him. For by denying that which is the formal cause of justification, they deny itself, seeing that gives it a being.”
.
Contra Arminianism on Justification
Article
1800’s
Girardeau, John – pt. 2, section 1 in Calvinism & Evangelical Arminianism: Compared as to Election, Reprobation, Justification & Related Doctrines (1890), pp. 417-566
Girardeau (1825-1898) was an American, southern presbyterian minister and professor of theology.
.
Contra Baxter & Neo-Nomianism on Justification
Order of
Books 4
History 6
.
Books
1600’s
Crandon, John – Mr. Baxter’s Aphorisms Exorcized & Anthorized, or an Examination of & Answer to a Book Written by Mr. R. Baxter… entitled, Aphorisms of Justification. Together with a vindication of Justification by Mere Grace, from all the Popish & Arminian Sophisms, by which that author labours to ground it upon man’s works & righteousness (London: M.S., 1654) Index
Crandon (d. 1654)
Eedes, John – The Orthodox Doctrine concerning Justification by Faith Asserted & Vindicated: wherein the Book of Mr. William Eyre, one of the Ministers of New Sarum is Examined: & also the Doctrine of Mr. Baxter concerning Justification is Discussed (London: Henry Cripps, 1654) 62 pp.
Eedes (1609?-1667?). Eyre had written for the justification of infidels.
Danson, Thomas – A Friendly Conference between a Paulist & a Galatian in Defence of the Apostolical Doctrine of Justification by Faith without Works: Against Many Specious Exceptions of the Modern Galatians: wherein the Question whether the Gospel be a New Law is Modestly Discussed & Determined in the Negative (London: Samuel Crouch, 1694)
.
1700’s
Chauncy, Isaac – Alexipharmacon, or, A Fresh Antidote against Neonomian Bane & Poison to the Protestant Religion, being a Reply to the Late Bishop of Worcester’s Discourse of Christ’s Satisfaction, in Answer to the Appeal of the Late Mr. Stephen Lob: & Also a Refutation of the Doctrine of Justification by Man’s Own Works of Obedience, Delivered & Defended by Mr. John Humphrey & Mr. Samuel Clark, contrary to Scripture & the Doctrine of the First Reformers from Popery (London: W. Marshall, 1700) 176 pp.
.
History of Neonomianism
Articles
2000’s
Ramsey, D. Patrick – “Meet Me in the Middle: Herman Witsius & the English Dissenters’ in Mid-America Journal of Theology, 19 (2008), pp. 143-164
Jones, Mark & D. Patrick Ramsey – ch. 1, ‘The Antinomian-Neonomian Controversy in Nonconforming England (c. 1690)’ in eds. Mark Jones & Michael A.G. Haykin, A New Divinity Transatlantic Reformed Evangelical Debates during the Long Eighteenth Century (V&R, 2018), pp. 15-36
Half of the article is here.
van den Brinkch, Gert – ch. 2, ‘The Antinomian Controversy of 1690–1700’ in The Transfer of Sin: the Debate on Imputation in the English Antinomian Controversy (1690–1700) in Its International and Interconfessional Context (Brill, 2024), pp. 41-105
Ramsey, D. Patrick – ‘Lessons from an Old Theological Controversy’ (2024) at Patrick’s Pensees.
.
Books
2000’s
Ramsay, D. Patrick – Anti-Antinomianism: The Polemical Theology of Daniel Williams MTh thesis (Westminster Theological Seminary, 2011)
van den Brinkch, Gert – The Transfer of Sin: the Debate on Imputation in the English Antinomian Controversy (1690–1700) in Its International and Interconfessional Context (Brill, 2024)
.
Writings of Neonomians on Justification
See also, ‘On the Continuation of Justification in Neonomianism’.
.
Order of
Articles 2
Books 3
.
Articles
1600’s
Humfrey, John
Articles
The Middle-Way in One Paper of Justification with Indifferency between Protestant & Papist (London: Parkhurst, 1672) 41 pp.
Humfrey, an English reformed divine, known for arguing mediating positions, here appears to argue for a protestant view of justification by the imputation of Christ’s passive obedience and righteousness only.
‘Of Justification’ in Free Thoughts upon these Heads: Of Predestination… Justification… (London: T. Parkhurst, 1710), pp. 30-37
Humfrey follows Baxter on some key points. He argues in his third point against Christ’s righteousness being the formal cause of our justification (though it be the meritorious cause, as all affirm), arguing that it does not become personally ours (against Davenant), though we partake of its benefit (which appears to have been a distinctive of neonomians).
.
Books
1600’s
Humfrey, John
Clark, Samuel – Scripture-Justification, or a Discourse of Justification, according to the Evidence of Scripture-Light wherein the Nature of Justification is Fully Opened, the Great Point of Justification by Works, both of the Law & Gospel, is Clearly Stated: together with a Thesis concerning the Interest of Christ’s Active Obedience in our Justification (London: S. Bridge, 1698) 114 pp.
Clark (1626-1701)
.
.
Contra Socinianism on Justification
Quote
1600’s
Friedrich Spanheim
‘Disputation on the Justification of Man before God’ in Disputationum Theologicarum Miscellaneorum Pars Prima (Geneva: Chouët, 1652), trans. AI by Roman Prestarri at Confessionally Reformed Theology
“XXIII. This Orthodox doctrine of the justification of sinful man before God having been asserted from the Word of God, the following errors are overthrown:
…
III. Of the Socinians:
1. Who overthrow justification through and on account of Christ the Mediator and His λύτρον [lutron, ransom]; who admit no redemption and satisfaction of Christ except a metaphorical one.
2. Who contend that Christ is our Saviour only on account of His prophetic and kingly office — inasmuch as He vindicated this title to Himself only by announcing salvation, confirming it, and communicating it, but not by meriting it.
These and other portentous errors of this sort are both contrary to sacred Scripture and to the salutary doctrine of justification drawn and derived therefrom.”
.
.
.
In reply to the question: ‘Is there any news today?’: “Oh, yes, this is always news: ‘The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.'”
John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan
.
.
.
Related Pages