“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 as Condition & Instrument
Faith that does Not Work does Not Justify
Certian Inherent Holiness: Necessary to
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
Twofold Justification
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 45+
Books 25+
Quotes 2
Historical 8+
Latin 28+
Causes of 7+
Cross & Justification 3
Justification vs. Sanctification 1
Active vs. Passive 3
Justification without Any Meritorious Works 6
Not Divine Righteousness 1
Faith Counted for Righteousness, Rom. 4:5 5
Faith: Never Alone 6+
Christ’s Righteousness Ours? 5+
God Knows but does Not Charge 2
Fault & Punishment Remitted 1
Forgiveness of Future Sins 7+
Paul & James 10+
Faith Does Not Include Repentance or Obedience 5
Lutheran 2
Romanists Affirming Imputation of Christ’s Merits 4
Ecumenical Descriptions 3
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
Osiander, Andreas – ‘Disputation on Justification: an English Translation’ in Campbell, Espinosa, Kennard et al. Challenging Traditional Interpretations of Justification by Faith, part 2 (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream, 2023), pp. 315–22
Osiander (1498–1552) was a German Lutheran reformer and theologian, who posited that we are justified both on account of God’s divine righteousness and righteousness infused into us (not recommended). Calvin and many others of the reformed argued against him on these points.
The authors of the book are associated with Watchman Nee’s Church and his view of justification, which is apparently very similar to Osiander’s. For an intro to their view and book, see Living Stream Ministry.
Cranmer, Thomas
‘A Sermon of the Salvation of Mankind by Only Christ our Savior from Sin & Death Everlasting [3 parts]’ in The Two Books of Homilies appointed to be Read in Churches (1559; Oxford: 1859), pp. 24–35
“…usually regarded as the work of Thomas Cranmer himself.” – Alistair McGrath
‘Notes on Justification with Authorities from Scripture, the Fathers and the Schoolmen’ in The Works of Thomas Cranmer Parker Society (d. 1556; Cambridge Univ. Press, 1844), pp. 203-11
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
Wotton, Anthony – 4. ‘Touching the Justification of a Sinner’ in A Defence of Mr. Perkins’ book, called, A Reformed Catholic, against the Cavils of a Popish Writer… (London, 1606)
Wotton (c.1561-1626) was an Anglican professor of divinity who has been described as having puritan views, and also “a Modernist and Ramist”. He controverted with George Walker (a Westminster divine) on justification.
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)
Forbes, William – A Fair & Calm Consideration of the Modern Controversy concerning Justification, as it is Explained in the Five Books of Cardinal Bellarmine ToC in Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850) being the whole of vol. 1
This Forbes (1585-1634) was a Scottish, Aberdeen doctor. He takes concilatory views on the subject.
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.
Pagitt, Ephraim – ‘Of the Papists’, 4. ‘Of the Justification of a Sinner’ in Heresiography, or a Description of the Heretics & Sectaries of these Latter Times (London: Wilson, 1645), p. 144
Owen, John – ch. 19, ‘Of Justification’ in The Principles of the Doctrine of Christ: unfolded in two Short Catechisms… (London: Cotes, 1645), pp. 46-47
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)
Martindale, Adam – pp. 31-33 in ch. 9, ‘Of Calling, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Faith, Repentance & Good Works’ in Divinity-Knots Unloosed: or a Clear discovery of truth; by resolving many doubts, according to Scripture, orthodox divines and sound reason… (London: Hancock, 1649)
Martindale, who is orthodox, answers doubts of Antinomians.
Guild, William – The Old Roman Catholic, as at first he was taught by Paul, in opposition to the new Roman Catholic, as of latter he is taught by the Pope… (Aberdeen: Raban, 1649)
ch. 5, sect. 7, ‘That we are not justified before God by works, or any inherent righteousness in us; but of God’s free grace, and by faith only’
The Doctrine of the Primitive bishops of Rome…
Ambrose, Isaac – Media: the Middle Things… (London: Field, 1649)
ch. 1
2. ‘First Privilege: Justification’
ch. 10, sect. 6
§8. ‘What are the signs of a true justifying Faith?’
…
§16. ‘Of what use is Christ to a believer already justified?’
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
A Catechism, or the Grounds & Principles of Christian Religion set Forth… (London: Rothwell, 1650)
24. ‘Of Justification & of Adoption’
25. ‘Of Sanctification & the difference between it and Justification; and of four other benefits of Christ to believers’
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
Bridge, William – ‘The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Opened & Applied from Rom. 3:24-25…’ in Works (London: Tegg, 1845), vol. 5, pp. 363-401
Bridge was a congregationalist puritan and a Westminster divine.
Vincent, Thomas – pp. 66-82 in An Explicatory Catechism: or an Explanation of the [Westminster] Assembly’s Shorter Catechism… (London: Mortlock, 1675) 287 pp. ToC
Vincent (1634–1678) was an English presbyterian minister who was ejected at the Great Ejection (1662). Afterwards he assisted Thomas Doolittle.
The modern Banner of Truth reprint edited much of this section out.
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.
Vitringa, Campegius – ch. 21, ‘Justification of Sinful Man by Faith, Peace, Adoption, Liberty & the Effects’ in The Fundamentals of Sacred Theology Pre (d. 1722; RHB, 2024), pp. 181-91
Vitringa, Sr. (1659-1722) was a Dutch reformed theologian and Hebraist.
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.
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… EEBO (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 Conditions, 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 (1870; Edinburgh, 1872) 620 pp. ToC
Ritschl (1822–1889) was a liberal, German theologian.
“Despite its many weaknesses, this earlier work remains a landmark of scholarship in the field…
At that time, the only serious attempt to document this development was Ritschl’s Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versohnung (1870). The value of that work was rather reduced by the moralist assumptions Ritschl brought to his task, and by his decision to limit his analysis from the eleventh to the nineteenth century, focusing particularly on German-language Protestant contributions to the discussion.
The vast scholarly undertakings which have given the modern period the magnificent critical editions denied to Ritschl (such as the Weimar Luther edition) have also cast new light on the theology of the medieval period, calling into question many of Ritschl’s conclusions. One of the more troubling aspects of my investigation was the realisation that most of Ritschl’s conclusions, particularly his very unsatisfactory account of Luther’s theological formation, could no longer be sustained.” – McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 3rd ed., Preface, vii, ix-x
McGrath, Alister – Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification 3rd ed. rev. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005) 2nd ed.: 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 Early & Medieval Church
Book
Estrada, Erik – Faith Alone: Debates About Justification Before the Reformation Pre (Fortress Press, 2026) 466 pp. ToC
Blurb: “…contrary to the historical outlook of a good number of Catholic and Protestant historians and theologians, there were indeed conflicts within the Great Church (ca. 100-700 CE) over the question ‘After baptism, is faith alone enough to save the orthodox Christian?'”
.
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.
Fesko, John – Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ & Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517-1700) Abstract (V&R, 2012) 416 pp.
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.
van den Brink, G.A. – The Transfer of Sin: The Debate on Imputation in the English Antinomian Controversy (1690–1700) in Its International and Interconfessional Context (Brill, 2024) 490 pp.
This treats of imputation and impartation at large.
“At the end of the 17th century, in the so-called Third Antinomian Controversy English and Dutch Reformed theologians discussed the concept of imputation in its interrelationship with forgiveness, punishment, and justice… these same themes had already been extensively discussed in the preceding century in the context of debates against Socinianism, the Antinomian Controversy is framed within an interconfessional and international context, highlighting the significance of Socinians and Hugo Grotius.”
.
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.
.
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 (d. 1618; Leiden, 1684) 124 pp. ToC
Bradshaw (1571-1618) was an English, congregationalist puritan.
Wotton, Anthony – On the Reconciliation of a Sinner… in which the Doctrine of the Anglican Church on the Justification of the Ungodly is explicated and defended (Basil, 1624) 445 pp. no ToC
Wotton (c.1561-1626) was an Anglican professor of divinity who has been described as having puritan views, and also “a Modernist and Ramist”. He controverted with George Walker (a Westminster divine) on justification.
“Mr. Anthony Wotton, a man, by Mr. Walker’s own confession, of special note for his piety, life and learning, while he lived, which both the University of Cambridge and the City of London are able also to give ample testimony unto;” – Mr. Anthony Wotton’s Defence, Preface, p. 3
Wiki: “In 1611 George Walker (1581?-1651) accused him of Socinianism; this led to a ‘conference’ of learned divines, which ended in Wotton’s vindication. The controversy went on till 1615, and in 1641, long after Wotton’s death, Walker repeated his accusations. This provoked Mr. Anthony Wotton’s Defence (Cambridge, 1641, published under the name of Thomas Gataker, who, however, only wrote the postscript, the Defence being by Wotton’s son, Samuel… Walker replied in A True Relation of the Chief Passages between Mr. Anthony Wotton and Mr. George Walker in … 1611, and in the Years next following … till 1615 (London, 1642, 4to).”
G.A. van den Brink: “A substantial portion of Wotton’s book De
Reconciliatione [cf. pp. 120, 152] is given over to the repudiation of three current opinions on imputation:
1. That the sinner is thought himself to have kept the law, in and
through Christ;
2. That those thought to have kept the law are regarded by the kept law as formally just;
3. That to those formally viewed as just by the kept law, eternal law is owed as a matter of debt due to the covenantal ‘This do and ye shall live.’
It is clear that by enunciating this scheme, Wotton was criticising [Johann] Piscator’s opinion of the acting person [in imputation, being an equivalent exchange, in contrast to receiving certain effects of it].” – van den Brink, G.A. – Transfer of Sin (2024), pp. 222-23
Codurc, Philip – On Justification (before 1645) Codurc (c. 1580 – 1660) was a reformed professor of Hebrew at Nimes. He became Roman Catholic c. 1645.
Baxter: “Philip Codurcus a learned Protestant and professor of divinity in an university of theirs in France, wrote a book purposely to reconcile the Protestants and Papists in the point of justification, and to show how small the difference between them was in his judgment, in comparison of what it is esteemed: I could never get or see the book, but as I find frequent mention of it in others, so I find the scope of it, and many of those theses that are disliked recited by William Rivet in his Vindication of Justification. Wherein he labors to confute him, and shows himself much offended at him: And Codurcus thereby instead of reconciling, incurred the heavy censure of his own party. I mention him not as approving of a book that I have not seen, but to show that other Protestants have gone much further in this than ever I did.” – Richard Baxter’s Confession (1655), ch. 10, sect. 3, p. 339
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… (d. 1673; Arnheim, 1676) 599 pp. ToC Abbreviations Errata
von Diest (1595-1673) was a Dutch, reformed professor of Hebrew.
.
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
.
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
Articles 2
Quotes 3
Historical 2
.
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.
.
2000’s
Corley, Brandon – ‘On the Active-Passive Justification Distinction’ in Reformed Student Journal (Aug. 2023) 15 pp.
.
Quotes
Order of
Maccovius
Spanheim
Mastricht
.
1600’s
Maccovius, John
Scholastic Discourse: The Distinctions & Rules of Theology & Philosophy (1644), ch. 13, ‘On Justification’
p. 231
“1. Active justification differs from passive justification.
In Latin, the nouns ending in –io are generally interpreted in this way [as active and passive]. God justifies and we are justified.
2. Passive justification is later than faith.
Passive justification follows after passive faith, because it is through faith that we receive the remission of sins, Act 26:18.”
.
p. 233
“5. Our justification is not by degrees.
For the sins of all of us are cast upon Christ, at the same time and once and for all. But this only applies to active justification; for passive justification happens so often as man is repenting his sins and seizes the remission of sins by means of faith.”
.
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.”
.
Peter van Mastricht
Theoretical Practical Theology (2nd ed. 1698; RHB), vol. 5, pt. 1, bk. 6, ch. 6, ‘The Justification of those to be Redeemed’, sect. 14, ‘How faith influences justification: How it does not influence’
“XIV… “And so that you may do this, we must distinguish between passive and active justification.
In passive justification, we are persuaded that we are justified by God, or from it we conclude that we are justified by God. In this way it certainly can be said that we are justified by faith as an instrument, insofar as in the practical syllogism, by means of which we conclude that we are infallibly justified, faith stands as the middle term: “The one who believes is justified; I believe; therefore, I am justified.”
In active justification, God justifies us, and this in turn is either immediate, which is accomplished by the living voice of God the Judge at the last judgment—this admits of entirely no instrument—or mediate, by which God in this life justifies a person in his conscience, or absolves him from the guilt of his sins—this certainly allows an instrument, but none other than the gospel, by whose voice God absolves all believers, “That whosoever believes should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
…
Accordingly, how it does influence
In what way then does faith concur with God’s active justification?
I respond, As a prior condition required by God for justification, or as a cause without which God does not will that his Son be our Mediator, nor will to justify us on account of his righteousness alone. So that faith has its entire efficacy in this matter of justification from the most free establishment of God, whereby God chose faith before all other things as the condition of our justification.
For if you should ultimately resolve the efficacy of faith to some intrinsic aptitude to apprehend Christ, or to its instrumentality, such that God was moved by it to justify us, then it would happen less graciously.”
.
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.”
.
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.
.
Justification without any 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?”
.
Believers are Justified by the Imputation of Christ’s Human, Creaturely Righteousness, not his, or God’s, Divine Righteousness
This issue was famously debated between John Calvin and the Lutheran Andreas Osiander. Nearly all the Reformed were against Osiander’s view.
.
Order of
Article 1
Quote 1
.
Article
1500’s
Calvin, John – in Institutes
.
Quote
1500’s
Zacharias Ursinus
The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587), ‘Of Justification’, 7. ‘Why Christ’s satisfaction is made ours by faith only’, ‘Objections against this Doctrine of Justification’, p. 691
“18th Objection [by Osiander]: Christ has brought us eternal justice. This applied justice is not eternal: Therefore this is not our justice, but God Himself is our justice.
Answer: The Lord is our justice, that is, our Justifier. But that our applied justice is eternal, has been showed before; because the imputation thereof is continued to all eternity. That justice also of the Law which is begun in us in this life, shall be continued, and perfected in the life to come. But that justice which is God Himself is not in us: because so God should be an accident to his creature, and become justice in man. For justice and virtue are things created in us, not the essence of God.
Moreover Osiander, who obiects this, does not discern the cause from the effect. As we live not, or are wise by the essence of God (for this is all one, as to say, that we are as wise as God) so also we are not just by the essence of God. Wherefore nothing is more impious than to say that the essential justice of the Creator is the justice of the creatures: for thereof it would follow, that we have the justice of God, yea the very essence of God. The cause must be discerned from the effect, increate iustice from created justice.”
.
On Faith being Counted for Righteousness, Rom. 4:5 & 9
See also Commentaries on Romans.
.
Order of
Bible Verses
WCF
Articles 2
Books 3
.
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.”
.
Articles
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.
Burgess, Anthony – ‘That faith as it is a work, or the [Greek], credere, is not imputed unto us for our righteousness’ on Rom. 4:23-24 in The True Doctrine of Justification… (London: Underhill, 1654), pt. 2, sect. 4, pp. 238-48
.
Books
1600’s
Walker, George
A Defense of the True Sense & Meaning of the Words of the Holy Apostle, Rom. 4:3, 5, 9 in an Answer to Sundry Arguments Gathered from the Forenamed Scriptures by Mr. John Goodwin, together with a Reply to the Former Answer (1641) 56 pp. ToC
Walker was a Westminster divine.
Socinianism in the Fundamental Point of Justification Discovered & Confuted, or an Answer to a written Pamphlet Maintaining that Faith is in a Proper Sense without a Trope Imputed to Believers in Justification, wherein the Socinian Fallacies are Discovered & Confuted & the True Christian Doctrine Maintained, Namely, that the Righteousness by which True Believers are Justified Before God is the Perfect Righteousness & Obedience which the Lord Jesus Christ God & Man did Perform to the Law of God, Both in his Life & Death (London: R.O., 1641) 355 pp. ToC
Roborough, Henry – The Doctrine of Justification Cleared, by Animadversions on Mr. John Goodwin’s Animadversions upon Mr. George Walker’s Defense of the True Sense of the Apostle, Rom. 4:3, 5, etc. together with an Examination of Both Parts of his Treatise of Justification: wherein the Imputation of Faith in a Proper Sense is Denied, & the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness, Active & Passive, Affirmed, Against that Treatise (London: R.C., 1643) 221 pp.
Roborough (d. 1649) was a non-voting scribe at the Westminster Assembly. John Goodwin was a prominent Arminian, though often considered a puritan.
.
Collection of Quotes
Early, Medieval & Reformation Divines
Walker, George – pp. 307-49 in ch. 2, ‘Of Socinianism’ in Socinianism in the Fundamental Point of Justification Discovered… (London: R.O., 1641)
Walker quotes and analyzes on the issue of faith being accounted to Abraham for righteousness (in order):
Tertullian, Origen, Justin, Chrysostom, Augustine, Primasius, Bede, Haymo, Anselm.
Luther, Bucer, Musculus, Bullinger, Gwalter, Aretius, Flacius, Pelican, Junius, Beza, Pareus.
Justin, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Nyssen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, Leo, Bernard, Anselm.
Luther, Melanchthon, Lutherans, Calvin, Beza, Perkins, Polanus, Musculus, Junius.
.
Justifying Faith is Never Alone, Yet We are Justified by Faith Alone
Order of
Articles 2
Quotes 5
.
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
Cameron
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 Cameron
Works… (Geneva: Chovet, 1658), Arguments Proposed in Disputation against the Preceding Theses, with Solutions, To Corollary V, p. 364, trans. ChatGPT-5
“Objection: Faith is never without good works. Therefore, it cannot justify alone.
Response. Faith may be said to justify without good works in two ways: either in such a way that we say the faith which justifies does not have good works joined with it, or in such a way that we say good works are not co-causes of justification. Faith indeed is never without good works; yet it does not follow from this that good works are a co-operating cause concurring with faith unto justification. Thus, the sun never gives light without heat, yet heat is not a co-operating cause which concurs with the sun unto illumination. So faith does not justify as separated from good works, nor yet for that reason are good works a co-operating cause of our justification.”
.
John Ball
A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace… (London: 1645), ch. 3, ‘Of the Covenant of Grace in General’, pp. 19-
“Obedience to all God’s commandments is covenanted (Dt. 7:1• & 10, 12; Jer. 7:23; Lev. 19:17-18; Lk. 10:27; Mk. 12:30), not as the cause of life, but as the qualification and effect of faith, and as the way to life. Faith that embraces life is obedient and fruitful in all good works; but in one sort faith is the cause of obedience and good works, and in another of justification and eternal life. These it seeks in the promises of the covenant; those it works and produces, as the cause does the effect.
Faith was the efficient cause of that precious oblation in Abel (Heb. 11:4, 7, etc.), of reverence and preparing the ark in Noah, of obedience in Abraham; but it was the instrument only of their justification. For it does not justify as it produces good works, but as it receives Christ, though it cannot receive Christ unless it brings forth good works.
A disposition to good works is necessary to justification, being the qualification of an active and lively faith. Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of justification, and so to our final absolution, if God give opportunity; but they are not the cause of, but only a preceding qualification or condition to final forgiveness and eternal bliss.
If then, when we speak of the conditions of the covenant of grace, by “condition” we understand whatsoever is required on our part, as precedent, concomitant, or subsequent to justification, repentance, faith, and obedience are all conditions; but if by “condition” we understand what is required on our part as the cause of the good promised, though only instrumental, faith or belief in the promises of free mercy is the only condition.
Faith and works are opposed in the matter of justification and salvation in the covenant, not that they cannot stand together in the same subject—for they are inseparably united—but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same court to the justification or absolution of man. For in the court of justice, according to the first covenant, either being just he is acquitted, or unjust he is condemned; but in the court of mercy, if you receive the promise of pardon, which is done by a lively faith, you are acquitted and set free, and accepted as just and righteous; but if you do not believe, you are sent over to the court of justice.
Obedience is twofold:
[1] Perfect in measure and degree—this is so far required that, if it be not performed, we must acknowledge our sin in coming short. And this God is pleased to exact at our hands, that we might walk in humility before him, strive after perfection, and freely acknowledge his rich grace and mercy in accepting and rewarding the best service we can render to his Highness, when in the court of justice it deserves to be rejected.
[2] Sincere, uniform, and constant, 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, yet accepts sincerity, God in mercy pardoning the imperfections of our best performances. If perfection were rigidly exacted, no flesh could be saved; if it were not at all commanded, imperfection would not be sin, nor would perfection be something to be labored after.
The faith that is lively to embrace mercy is ever joined with an unfeigned purpose to walk in all well-pleasing, and the sincere performance of all holy obedience, as opportunity is offered, ever attends that faith by which 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 John 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 this doctrine St. John likewise ratifies in terms equivalent in the words immediately following: “And the blood of Christ cleanses us (walking in the light as God is in the light) from all sin.” (1 Jn. 1:7) But of these things more fully in their several degrees, as this covenant has been revealed.
In this covenant man promises to repent of his sins, and, repenting, to cleave to the promise of mercy made in Jesus Christ, and in faith to yield willing, cheerful, and continual obedience. In contracts among men, one may ask more and another bid less, and yet they may come to agreement; but it is altogether fruitless for men to think of entering into covenant with God if they are not resolved to obey in all things. The practice of all God’s people who have ever made covenant with Him expressly declares as much when they solemnly entered into or renewed their covenant.
For thus they promise: “Whatever the Lord says, that we will do” (Exod. 24:3, 7).
The people said to Joshua, “The Lord our God we will serve, and his voice we will obey” (Josh. 24:23).
And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul, so that whoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman (2 Chron. 15:12–13).
And the king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, his testimonies, and his statutes with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book; and all the people stood to the covenant (2 Chron. 34:31; 2 Kings 23:3).
They entered into a curse and into an oath to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the Lord our God, and his judgments and his statutes (Neh. 10:29).
And thus runs the exhortation of Joshua to the two tribes and a half when he sent them home: “Take diligent heed to do the commandments of the law, which Moses the servant of the Lord charged you, to love the Lord your God, and to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and to cleave to him, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul” (Josh. 22:5).
This must not be understood as if one who, through frailty and infirmity, offends in any one jot or tittle should be counted a covenant-breaker; for then no man would be innocent. Rather, the promise must be interpreted according to the rule of obedience given, which calls for perfection but accepts sincerity. In the covenant of mercy we bind ourselves to believe and rest upon God with the whole heart, so that doubting or distrust arising from weakness and infirmity must indeed be acknowledged as sin, yet every such frailty does not prove the person to be a transgressor of the covenant. The same holds true of obedience. But of this more fully when treating the particular manner in which God has been pleased to administer this covenant.”
.
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 3
No 5
Historical 1
.
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 –
Davenant, John –
.
1700’s
Witsius, Herman – 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’ in Concilatory, or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians & Neonomians trans. Thomas Bell (Glasgow, 1807), 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.
.
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
Wotton, Anthony –
Field, John – On the Church, bk. 3, Appendix
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 –
.
Quotes
Order of
Gataker
Manton
.
1600’s
Thomas Gataker
An Antidote Against Error Concerning Justification… (d. 1654; London: Brome, 1670)
p. 34
“2. That which is exhibited whither by doing or suffering, or both in way of satisfaction and so accepted, being such as makes a plenary compensation for an offence formerly committed; because it utterly extinguishes and abolishes the wrong, so takes it away, as if it never had been; it justly procures a guiltlessness, a blamelessness unto the delinqent, in whose behalf it is performed; and makes him therefore to be reputed in the eye of law and justice, as now no delinqent, but as guiltless, faultless and just: there being no medium between these two just and unjust, nor between guiltless and just. See Dt. 25:1.
This guiltlessness therefore is justly termed justice; and the party conseqently by plea thereof upon any emergent occasion may be truly justified, and such guiltlessness achieved by Christ’s satisfaction made to God’s Law and his justice, makes the party unto whom the same is imputed, and who has interest therein, truly named and justly deemed just, and to be in the state of justification, or in a justifiable condition, 2 Cor. 5:21;
and this is that, not the satisfaction itself, but the guiltlessness thereby procured, that is so oft in his argument termed ‘justice’ or ‘righteousness’, called the ‘Justice of God’, Rom. 1:17, and 3:21-22, and 2 Cor. 5:21, not, as some, for that the satisfaction was made by Christ, who is God, but because contrived, prepared, propounded and appointed us by God, for God as the party wronged, and Christ as the party satisfying, for the wrong, are in this argument distinguished, Rom. 3:24-25 and 2 Cor. 5:19, 21.”
.
Thomas Manton
A Second Volume of Sermons… (London: Astwood, 1684), Sermons on Rom. 8, Sermon 43, on Rom. 8:33, p. 333
“2. In accepting us as righteous in Christ, who died for our sins to reconcile us unto God; and therefore sometimes He is said to be made righteousness to us, 1 Cor. 1:30, and we are said to be made the righteousness of God in Him, 2 Cor. 5:21, that is, we have the effect of his sufferings, as if we had suffered in person; for they were undergone in our stead and for our sakes, and the fruit of it given to us by God Himself.”
.
Historical
On the Post-Reformation
Book
van den Brink, G.A. – The Transfer of Sin: The Debate on Imputation in the English Antinomian Controversy (1690–1700) in Its International and Interconfessional Context (Brill, 2024) 490 pp.
This treats of the issue at large.
.
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
Article 1
Quotes 6+
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.”
.
Article
1600’s
Bedford, Thomas – ch. 4, ‘That justification is not transacted all at once, nor [is there] any pre-remission of sin before it be committed’ in An Examination of the Chief Points of Antinomianism… (London: Field, 1647), pp. 33-40
Bedford argues against antinomians who were pushing for justificaton of all sins, ever, at once. Bedford instructively quotes William Ames to his purpose.
.
Quotes
Order of
Ames
Ussher
Ambrose
Warren
Bridge
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.”
.
James Ussher
Eighteen Sermons preached in Oxford, 1640, of conversion, unto God, of redemption & justification, by Christ (London: 1660)
15th Sermon, on Rom. 5:1, pp. 402-3
“But now comes a greater question: If by justification our sins be forgiven us, what sins are forgiven I pray? sins past, or sins to come? We are taught that in the instant of justification all our sins past and to come are remitted; which is in my mind an unsound doctrine: for if we look narrowly into it, we shall find that in propriety of speech, remission of sins has relation to that which is past; it’s said therefore, 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.’
And remission of sins has relation to those that are past, as appears by inevitable reason; for what is remission of sins, but sin covered? Now can a thing be covered before it be? ‘Blot out mine iniquities,’ etc. says David; can a thing be blotted out before it’s written? This is the thing [that] makes the Pope so ridiculous, that he will forgive sins for the time before they are committed; but what, do we get nothing for the time to come? Yes, yes, when the sin is past, by faith we have a new access unto God; and having risen by repentance, we get a new act, not of universal justification, but of a particular justification, from this and that particular sin.
But if there be forgiveness of sins past already, and I know that I am justified, and my sins remitted: may I now pray for forgiveness of sins past? The Papists say it is active infidelity, and as absurd as to pray to God to create the world anew, or incarnate his Son again.
But there is no conversion where there is no praying; and there is need of praying for the remission of sins past, and against sin for the time to come, as I shall show next time; as also consider whether there be any interruption of the act of justification by falling into great sins. There’s no man has a mind more against quirks and quillets than I; yet for the opening of these things, and staying and settling the mind, and clearing the understanding, give me leave the next time to clear these things unto you.”
.
Isaac Ambrose
Media: the Middle Things… (London: Field, 1649), ch. 1, 2. ‘First Privilege: Justification’, pp. 2-3
“It has been commonly said by some of our best divines that justification is transacted in our first union and incorporation into Christ; at which time it is conceived that the pardon of all sin is sealed to the believer at once. But I fear the misunderstanding of this point (not untrue in itself, if not mistaken and misapprehended) has laid the ground upon which some build that unhappy structure which turns the grace of God into wantonness: who knows not that justification in the proper acceptation of the word, according to the Scripture phrase, is the act of a judge pronouncing a judicial sentence, wherein he absolves the person of the sinner from all sin and punishment due to him for sin, and that for the alone righteousness of the surety Christ freely imputed, and by faith received of him. And according to this, I suppose we shall not err from the truth, if we say:
1. That the main work of justification, is even as yet to us future, viz. at the great and last day of Judgment, when we shall receive a final quietus est, and discharge, and when God shall wipe away all tears from our eyes: And yet
2. That in our first union with Christ there is a work of justification, viz. actual imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and actual remission of what sin for the present the soul stands guilty of, at that time when it is first united to Christ. I dare not say that justification, quatenus [so far as] it comprehends imputation and remission of sin, is one individual act; or that all sins, past, present and to come are remitted to the believer at once; but this I say, that in our first union, all our sins past and present are actually pardoned; and this favor received is a pledge of assurance that in future also, by applying ourselves to Christ, we may and shall receive the forgiveness of our daily sins, and that at the Last Day we shall at once be absolved from all accusations and charges laid in against us; and that justification (besides those particular acts of pardon, and imputation of Christ’s righteousness) does connote a state that the subject at his first believing is put into, viz. a state of grace, and favor, and reconciliation with God for the imputed righteousness of Christ, without apostasy from it, either total or final.”
.
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…”
.
William Bridge
‘The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Opened & Applied from Rom. 3:24-25…’ in Works (London: Tegg, 1845), vol. 5, pp. 382-89
“Is a believer’s justification complete at once; are all his sins, past, present and to come, on his first believing, pardoned?
Justification, as has already been shown, changes a person’s state; and a believer’s state being changed, all his legal condemnation is at that time taken from off his person: union with Christ exempts from the same. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus” Rom. 8:1. Here is the high privilege of those in Christ asserted, namely, exemption from God’s condemnation; and the Holy Ghost here tells us, “There is therefore now no condemnation,” not the least condemnation remains to them “in Christ,” but their sins are freely remitted, “for his name’s sake, and all that believe are justified from all things” Acts 13:39. Here is a most complete absolution from all sins, for all those that believe in the Lord Christ. Thus Col. 1:13, “Having forgiven you all trespasses.” God does not, in the justification of his people, forgive some sins only, and leave others standing on the score. “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities,” Ps. 103:3. And not only so, but Christ covers the believer with the robe of righteousness, Isa. 61:10. For no sooner does a man truly believe in Christ, but his righteousness is imputed to him, and in and by that righteousness, he stands righteous before God, as well at the first as at the last; that righteousness of Christ by which we are justified, whether first or last, being most perfect: therefore the righteousness of justification cannot be increased, neither does our justification before God admit degrees, either in one and the same person, or yet in diverse men.—Downame on Justification, page 7.
But God only forgives the sins that are past? Rom. 3:25.
I answer, This looks to the sins of the saints, that were committed before Christ’s coming in the flesh, and holds forth God’s indulgence in pardoning of them, on the account of Christ’s engagement, though the price of their redemption was not actually laid down. To the same thing does the Holy Ghost speak, “And for this cause He is the Mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament,” Heb. 9:15. Here is that most excellent sacrifice, that looked as high as Adam, being the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, from whence all the Old Testament saints had both full and free remission of all sin: and this I take to be the true meaning of this scripture.
And though sin cannot properly be said to be actually forgiven, before it be committed, yet when the elect are, by the Holy Ghost, united to Christ, their persons are completely justified, and Christ having fulness of pardoning grace in his hands, their justification is continued and maintained by his intercession in heaven, 1 John 2:1. And thus the saints’ justification is, and continues to be, one constant and complete act of free grace, never to be reversed again.”
.
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 ‘A Faith that does Not Work does not Justify’ and ‘Commentaries on James’.
.
Order of
Intro
Articles 7
Quotes 5
.
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.
.
Quotes
Order of
Napier
Cameron
Preston
Cotton
Leigh
Manton
.
1500’s
John Napier
A Plain Discovery of the Whole Revelation of St. John… (Edinburgh: Waldegrave, 1593), ch. 20, pp. 242-43 Napier (1550-1617) was a Scottish mathematician (who discovered logariths), physicist and astronomer in the reformed tradition.
“By ‘works’ here [Rev. 20:12-13] are we judged and justified, and not by faith only, as also James 2:24 testifies, meaning hereby that of lively faith and of the good works that follow thereupon man is justified, and not of that dead faith that is by itself alone, without any good works: otherwise were the words of Paul (Rom. 3:28) express contrary to this text, and to James; for, says Paul, ‘We are justified by faith, without the works of the Law,’ that is to say, not without good works whatsoever, but meaning that we are justified by lively faith with such small good works as our weak nature will suffer that faith to produce, although it be without the precise works that the Law requires:
and for confirmation of this interpretation, and union of these texts, ye shall find both James and Paul agree in diverse places, that faith without works is a dead faith, and serves nothing to justification. And again, they agree both that all works (how good soever they seem) that proceed not from faith, are evil. And so it is all one to say with Saint Paul, We are justified by fruitful faith, or faith that produces good works, although not the works that the Law requires, or to say with James, and here with Saint John, we are justified by faithful works, seeing a working faith and faithful works are inseparable, and none can have the one without the other. So for conclusion, these works, by the which here we are judged, are to be esteemed good or evil, not in themselves, or insofar as they satisfy the Law (for so were all works evil and imperfect), but insofar forth as they have or want faith adjoined with them, they are accounted good or evil only.”
.
1600’s
John Cameron
Works… (d. 1625; Geneva: Chovet, 1658), Arguments Proposed in Disputation against the Preceding Theses, with Solutions, To Corollary V, pp. 364-65, trans. ChatGPT-5
“Objection. In the same way as Abraham was justified, so also are we justified, as children of Abraham. But Abraham was not justified by faith alone, but also by works, as the apostle James testifies (Jm. 2:21).
Response. A person is said to be justified either before himself and in his conscience, or before God. Abraham was not justified before himself and in his conscience by faith alone, but also by works—I grant it. He was not justified by faith alone before God—I deny it.
I explain: a godly person sometimes doubts whether he is among those who are justified; that is, he acknowledges indeed that he must be justified by true faith, but doubts whether his faith is true. This, however, he discovers and recognizes from the warmth of faith, namely charity.
James does not treat of that justification which is before the tribunal of God, but of that by which we are justified in our own conscience, when our righteousness is made evident to us. Therefore, we are justified—that is, our righteousness is made manifest to us—not only by faith but also by good works, insofar as they are evidences of sincere faith; but we are not thus justified before God, who regards faith alone.”
.
John Preston
The Breastplate of Faith & Love… (London: for Bourne, 1630), 2nd Sermon, ‘Of Effectual Faith’, p. 68
“If they object that place of James, ‘We are not justified by faith, but by works’:
I answer that there is a double justification, there is a justification of the person: so was Abraham justified by faith, as Paul expresses it, Rom. 4. But then there is a second justification, a justification of the faith that Abraham had: he justified his faith by his works; he showed that he had not a dead faith, a liveless faith, a faith without works, but that he had a lively effectual faith: for he added works to his faith, his works wrought together with his faith.
So that, if the question be, Whether Abraham was an hypocrite? his works justified him that he was none. If the question be, Whether Abraham was a sinner? his faith justifies him, and shows that he was made righteous through faith.
So, there is a justification of the person, and a justification of the faith of the person: as when a man is said to justify such an action or such a cause, the meaning is not that he will make that just which was unjust before, but he will make it appear to be just; so Abraham was declared to have a justifying faith by that power and efficacy it wrought in him, in offering up his son.”
.
John Cotton
A Practical Commentary… upon the First Epistle General of John (d. 1652; London: 1658), on 1 Jn. 1:7, “Doctrine: To walk in the light is a certain mark of true fellowship with God”, p. 31
“We further say that good works justify us in St. James’s sense, Jm. 2:14. There is a double justification:
1. A justification of a man from sin in the sight of God.
2. Of a Christian from hypocrisy in the sight of both God and man; the first way a man is justified only by the blood of Christ; the second way by good works; for we must know a man’s conscience has two burdens.
1. My sins are great and liable to damnation; how shall I be acquit of that? From this our own works cannot justify us; it is done only by the blood of Christ.
2. I: But the blood of Christ cleanses only true Christians that are in Christ and have true grace; but you are an hypocrite; how shall I now be quit from the imputation of hypocrisy?
In that I am justified by my works, let it appear to myself and others that I have lived in all uprightness, 2 Cor. 1:12; so that justification from hypocrisy before God and man is from the witness of my upright and unblameable life, so that I am justified from a double accusation: from the one by one way, from the other by another way. I am a sinner, that I cannot deny; my best works are sinful; therefore from that I am justified only by the blood of Christ.
But Christ’s blood belongs not to you; you are an hypocrite; now how shall I know the sincerity of faith but from the fruits, which is an holy and righteous life, so that if I walk so, I justify myself from that imputation. How does Hezekiah help himself when God spake bitter things? ‘Remember how I have walked before Thee with an upright heart,’ 2 Jn. 3; Isa. 53:11. How do I know that I know Him? Why if I keep his commandments; therefore we say that an holy life is an evident sign of our fellowship with God: it glorifies God; it stops slanders and brings on others; and besides all this, a godly life will justify us from hypocrisy.”
.
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?”
.
Thomas Manton
A Second Volume of Sermons… (London: Astwood, 1684), Sermons on Rom. 8, Sermon 43, on Rom. 8:33, p. 336
“There is a twofold charge commenced against us, [1] as sinners, and breakers of the Law; [2] as hypocrites and unsound believers.
To the first we have nothing but the merits of Christ to plead; to the second, a fruitful obedience; or else, Paul in the opposition between works and faith, means by works, legal observances; by faith true Christianity [inclusive of it working; see Manton’s larger context]. The Jews boasted of their legal observances, to the rejection of the faith of Christ; and James by faith, [meant] a dead faith; and by works, [he meant] Christian duties, or acts of obedience to God; not external observances of the law of man.”
.
Faith Does Not Include Repentance, Obedience or Love
Order of
Articles 6
Quotes 2
Faith does include Love 5
.
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
.
Quotes
Order of
Zanchi
Chamier
Stoughton
Maccovius
Baxter
Le Blanc
.
1600’s
Jerome Zanchi
vol. 1, To. 3, pp. 636 & 368 as trans. Richard Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Confession (1655), ch. 10, sect. 3, p. 363
“Also there are two kinds of acts of faith: One in the understanding, the other in the will.
The understanding endowed with the light of faith, understands things propounded by the Word, assents, believes.
The will being affected with the efficacity of belief, loves, wills and embraces them as good.”
.
Daniel Chamier
Panstratiae, vol. 3, Of Faith, bk. 12, ch. 4, §16, p. 375 as trans. Richard Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Confession (1655), ch. 10, sect. 3, p. 390
“And this is a certain argument: All love is an act of the will. But faith is love: therefore it is an act of the will.
The minor is proved: because true faith is that which credit in Deum, believes on God. But to believe on God is to love God. Augustine, on Ps. 130, This is to believe on Christ, to love Christ. On John, Tract 29, What is it to believe on God? By believing to love, etc.”
.
John Stoughton
in Richard Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Confession (1655), ch. 10, sect. 3, p. 398-99 Stoughton (1593?–1639)
Sermon 7, p. 63
“It is a clear case, that these three [belief, fear and love] are the only means, yea a perfectly sufficient means to make the solder and the union between God and man, and to bring a man to the possession and fruition of God (for this comprehends the whole man), so that the whole man is possessed of God, and inflamed by God, when his understanding knows Him, and sees the excellency that is in Him, and when the affections of his heart cleave to Him, and close with the most sovereign affections of fear and love, and then when all his whole man is at the command of this, etc.”
.
Introduction to Divinity, p. 30
“The parts are, faith apprehensive [apprehending], and love active: those truths are most properly fundamental, without which we cannot be made partakers of Christ, nor be enabled to do that by which we may be made partakers of God in Him, and so the sum of all is faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.”
.
Johann Maccovius
Collection of Disputations, Disputation 14, On Justification, §10-13 as trans. Richard Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Confession (1655), ch. 10, sect. 3, pp. 399-400
“But (says [John] Cameron) thus ‘to believe’ will be ‘to will’, and so faith must be confounded with love.
Answer: The love of complacency is one thing, and the love of benevolence another. Love of complacency is required in faith to its object. Hence [Martin] Chemnitius on Melanchthon’s Common Places, Of Justification, p. 660, says, ‘Faith is such a knowledge in the mind to which follows assent in the will and a motion of the heart apprehending and applying to itself with desire and affiance that object which is manifested to be good, so that it rests in it.”
Objection: But thus faith is confounded with charity, which two the Holy Ghost distinguishes specially, 1 Cor. 13.
Answer: Charity there is considered as it is carried to God and our neighbor, but not as it is carried to Christ as the meritorious cause and the benefits by Him obtained and promised to us in Him, which is the charity or love of faith, and is distinguished from the former.
Because this love respects the merit of Christ and his satisfaction, and also the promises of God, and rests in them; but the other love respects the persons in regard of whom it operates or acts somewhat.
This love is such to the promises made to it as that of a sick man to his medicine; but the other love is as natural love is in putting forth the acts of natural life: so is this in producing the acts of spiritual life, which acts are good works.”
.
Richard Baxter
Richard Baxter’s Confession (1655), ch. 10, sect. 3
p. 363
“So that according to Zanchi, love and faith is one thing, when Christ is the object; therefore that love is not excluded from justification. And often he makes love to God as our end and chief good to go before faith in Christ as the way.”
.
p. 390
“Thus it appears that faith in Christ is love to Christ in Chamier’s judgment: and therefore love justifies: and I showed before that Calvin makes sperare, ‘hoping,’ to be justifying faith (and so do many others) and so love and hope must justify according to them.”
.
p. 400
“I hope hereafter I may (after Chamier and Maccovius) affirm that faith in Christ essentially contains love to Christ, and that love to Christ justifies, as faith does, without the terrible charge of asserting an almost Socinian faith and justification.”
.
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.
.
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. 233-37
.
Article 5
“3. Likewise, it is quite clear that adults do not obtain these blessings of Christ, except by the prevenient movement of the Holy Spirit, by which their mind and will are moved to hate sin. For, as St. Augustine says, it is impossible to begin a new life if we do not repent of the former one. Likewise, in the last chapter of Luke [24:47], Christ commands that repentance and forgiveness of sin should be preached in his name. Also, John the Baptist, sent to prepare the way of the Lord, preached repentance, saying [Matt. 3:2]: ‘Repent [Poenitentiam agite], for the kingdom of heaven is drawing near.’
Next, man’s mind is moved toward God by the Holy Spirit through Christ and this movement is through faith. Through this man’s mind believes with certainty all that God has transmitted [tradita], and also with full certainty and without doubt assents to the promises made to us by God who, as stated in the psalm [144:13], is faithful in all his words. From there he acquires confidence [fiduciam] on account of God’s promise, by which he has pledged that he will remit sins freely and that he will adopt as children those who believe in Christ, those I say who repent of their former life. By this faith, he is lifted up to God by the Holy Spirit and so he receives the Holy Spirit, remission of sins, imputation of righteousness and countless other gifts.
4. So it is a reliable and sound doctrine that the sinner is justified by living and efficacious faith, for through it we are pleasing and acceptable to God on account of Christ. And living faith is what we call the movement of the Holy Spirit, by which those who truly repent of their old life are lifted up to God and truly appropriate the mercy promised in Christ, so that they now truly recognize that they have received the remission of sins and reconciliation on account of the merits of Christ, through the free [gratuita] goodness of God, and cry out to God: Abba Father’.
But this happens to no one unless also at the same time love is infused [infundatur] which heals the will so that the healed will may begin to fulfil the law, just as Saint Augustine said [Of the Spirit & Letter, ch. 9,15]. 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.
5. Although the one who is justified receives righteousness and through Christ also has inherent [righteousness], as the apostle says [1 Cor. 6:11]: ‘you are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified, etc.’ (which is why the holy fathers made use of [the term] ‘to be justified’ even to mean ‘to receive inherent righteousness’), nevertheless, the faithful soul depends not on this, but only on the righteousness of Christ given to us as a gift, without which there is and can be no righteousness at all. And so by faith in Christ we are justified or reckoned to be righteous, that is we are accepted through his merits and not on account of our own worthiness or works. And on account of the righteousness inherent in us we are said to be righteous, because the works which we perform are righteous, according to the saying of John [1 John 3:7]: ‘whoever who does what is right is righteous’.
…
10. Now those who say that we are justified by faith alone should at the same time teach the doctrine of repentance, of the fear of God, of the judgement of God and of good works, so that all the chief points of the preaching may remain firm, as Christ said: ‘preaching repentance and the remission of sins in my name’ [Luke 24:47]. And that is to prevent this way of speaking [i.e. sola fide] from being understood other than has been previously mentioned.”
.
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.”
.
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 Brink, G.A. – The Transfer of Sin: The Debate on Imputation in the English Antinomian Controversy (1690–1700) in Its International and Interconfessional Context (Brill, 2024) 490 pp.
.
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.”
.
Arminian Writings & History on Justification
Order of
Articles 4
Book 1
Historical 1
.
Articles
1600’s
Arminius, James – The Works… ed. James Nichols (d. 1609; Auburn: Derby, Miller & Orton, 1853)
Public Disputations c. 1603 ff.
19. Justification of Man before God 595-601
Private Disputations c. 1603 ff.
48. Justification 116-19
Arminius (1560-1609)
Episcopius et al. – ch. 18, ‘On the Promises of God that are Performed in this Life to those who are Converted & are Believers, that is, Election to Glory, Adoption, Justification, Sanctification and Sealing’ in Remonstrant Confession, trans. Mark A. Ellis (1621)
Taylor, Jeremy – Dublin Sermons (1662) in Works, 8.247–302
.
1700’s
van Limborch, Philip – bk. 6, ch. 3, ‘Of the Promises & Threatenings of the New Covenant’, sect. 2, ‘Of Justification’ in A Complete System, or Body of Divinity... (1702; London: Darby, 1713), vol. 2, pp. 835-43
Limborch (1633-1712). “The first system of divinity according to Arminianism.” – Howard Malcom
.
Book
1600’s
Bull, George – Harmonia Apostolica, or the Mutual Agreement of St. Paul & St. James, comprising a Complete View of Christian Justification… tr. Thomas Wilkinson (1669-1670; London: Rivington, 1801) 320 pp. ToC
Bull (1634–1710) was a learned and influential Anglican bishop. Note that Bull had multiple works after this defending its main theses against critics.
“…that with him [Paul] faith is all the obedience required by the gospel…” ToC, pt. 2, ch. 5
“With respect to the word juftification, we have already shown, I hope, that in the writings of St. Paul it signifies the action of God, as a judge, acquitting man, pronouncing him just, and conferring upon him the reward of eternal life. Concerning this there is no dispute… Faith then, to which justification is attributed by St. Paul, is not to be undertood as one single virtue, but denotes the whole condition of the gospel covenant, that is, comprehends in one word, all the works of Chriftian piety.” – p. 85
“…faith is the beginning and root of all gospel righteousness, without which no virtue contributing to salvation can exist in a man, and which therefore, if it be not impeded, will attract all other virtues to it, so that Paul, when he expresses all the obedience described in the gospel under the name of faith, speaks in the same manner as the Latin writers do when they use hearing for obeying, as in Terence: “Shall I assist Pamphilus, or listen to the old man?” which figure is called the metonymy of the antecedent for the consequent;” – p. 95
“…St. Paul, so far from taking from justification the necessity of good works, actually endeavours to prove that the true righteousness of works is entirely neccesary to justification, and that the gospel is the only efficacious means by which anyone is induced to practice such righteousness…” – ToC, pt. 2, ch. 13
“Some passages pointed out in which the apostle opposes the ritual law principally–he so rejects the observance of the external and ritual law from justification, that in its place he substitutes the internal and spiritual righteousness of the gospel–hence an invincible argument against the soli-fidians.” – ToC, pt. 2, ch. 14
.
Historical
Article
Olson, Roger – ‘Arminius’s Reformed Doctrine of Justification’ (2015)
.
.
.
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