“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?… And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
1 Cor. 6:9-11
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
Titus 3:5-7
“Then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore.”
Ps. 106:30-31
.
.
Order of Contents
Intro
Protestants 28+
Romanists 12+
“Justified by Faith Alone”: Not Alone 4
Contra 1
.
Intro
This material is here for historical purposes. A twofold or double justification here refers to views where justification encompasses not only (1) a legal, forensic justification by Christ’s righteousness, but also, (2) in a different respect, some inherent righteousness in the believer by God’s grace (e.g. regeneration and/or faith), and possibly (inward and/or outward) works through life (i.e. sanctification).
The first aspect of justification secures everything Protestants generally desire to secure with justification. The second aspect of justification, for Protestants, is not properly meritorious; only the first is. The second aspect is sometimes considered (A) as flowing out of the legal, forensic aspect, or (B) it is only a necessary concomitant to it, or (C) it may be considered a condition of it. As is evident, there were differing and variant ideas (sometimes significant, sometimes not so much) as to how a twofold justification was nuanced.
Most parties affirm the terms “righteousness” and “justification” in Scripture, amongst other nuanced senses, may mean either (1) a legal, forensic, declaratory justification, or (2) that someone has, or is made to have, inherent righteousness. Protestants often affirm the word “justification” sometimes, though not very often, has the second sense in Scripture in relation to salvation, as is evidenced by prominent Reformed theologians below. (It is not claimed every person below held to a unified, explicit paradigm of a twofold justification; yet their quotes are instructive to the issue.)
The twofold justification view(s) were prominent early in the Reformation, though they had previous precedents (arguably, for example, in Augustine). They continued through the 1600’s. The most prominent and clear, early Protestant proponent of double justification was Martin Bucer, who was Reformed. Melanchthon, a Lutheran, was also widely influential, even amongst the Reformed, but the teaching is less prominent in his published writings that are in English. Note Jerome Zanchi, that benchmark reformed theologian, taught a twofold justification.
The most persuasive case for the twofold view is made by the Dutch Reformed Ludovicus de Dieu (d. 1642) below. The most detailed discussion is given by the Scottish minister and Aberdeen professor, William Forbes (d. 1634), and then the Anglican minister and apologist, Richard Field (d. 1616). The most prominent later proponent was Richard Baxter (d. 1691), who also defends the view in detail, drawing on these previous men and others.
Note that such proponents often affirmed justification by faith alone, that is, in certain very important respects (as Thomas Cranmer, d. 1556, and Field), as the early and Medieval Church had (as documented by the same).¹
Given a consensus view of Westminster (1640’s), proponents of a twofold justification could affirm (and vote for) everything regarding justification in the Westminster standards (WCF ch. 11; WSC 32-36; WLC 70-73, 77).¹ That is, though it be not argued here in detail, the original, historic intention of the Westminster standards did not preclude prominent views of double-justification, which general paradigm the divines were undoubtedly well aware of.²
¹ Instead of reading “is” in WSC 33, “Justification is an act of God’s free grace,” as a complete, exclusive definition, the word “is” can be understood as a descriptive affirmation, i.e. justification is, at least, an act of God’s free grace.
Proponents of double-justification commonly held sanctification to be a part of justification; hence the two things relate to each other as a whole to its part. WLC 77, which delineates how justification and sanctification differ, while saying that justification and sanctification are “inseparably joined,” yet studiously avoids further defining or even describing their relationship beyond that. The proponent of double-justification can affirm the Catechism’s whole answer, affirming that justification is at least the things it says it is, and that sanctification is what the Catechism says it is as well.
Thomas Manton (d. 1677), a friend of Baxter and a proponent of double justification, as below, wrote an “Epistle to the Reader” for an influential edition of the Westminster Confession, which may seem to suggest he would commend its chapter on such an important topic as justification.
Baxter, in his scrupulous review of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, consented to their teaching on justification. While he explained his understanding of what the chapter on justification says about faith, which understanding he thought was Westminster’s own, he does not take issue with Westminster’s articulations with regard to his own view of double justification.¹
¹ See ‘Baxter on ‘Westminster’ at ‘On Subscription to Confessions by Church Officers’, ‘Origins & Examples of Exceptions’.
This is in contrast to Baxter vehemently opposing an addition and further restriction written into the (otherwise mostly verbatim) chapter in the Savoy Confession (1658, ch. 11.1), which impinges on an issue recognized in double justification. See Baxter, Account of the Reasons why the Twelve Arguments, said to be Dr. John Owen’s… (London: 1684), p. 8.
Samuel Clark (d. 1701) was a proponent of double justification who followed in the train of Baxter. When he defined justification, he could affirm everything Westminster affirms, and that in strikingly similar language, for however his position is uniquely nuanced:
“Justification is an act (Rom. 8:33) of God’s (Rom. 3:24) free-grace, whereby for the sake of Christ (1 Cor. 6:11), that is, for the merit of his obedience (Rom. 5:19), or, upon consideration of Christ’s righteousness (Rom. 5:18), or his blood (Rom. 5:9), that is, his suffering the punishment (Isa. 53:11) due to us for our sins, He at present counts (Rom. 4:3) righteous all true believers (Acts 13:39; Rom. 5:1), who are endued with living (Jm. 2:20), working faith (Gal. 5:6; Jm. 2:24), and deals with ’em as such, by discharging (Gal. 3:13) ’em from the curse of the Law, and eternal condemnation (Rom. 5:9; 8:33-34) (which is pardon in the most proper and famous sense) and bestowing upon ’em those privileges and benefits which belong to righteous persons, viz. reconciliation (Rom. 5:1), and adoption (Tit. 3:7), and then at last will solemnly declare and pronounce (Rom. 5:18) ’em righteous at the Day of Judgment, and bestow upon ’em eternal life (Acts 3:19; Mt. 12:36-37).” Scripture-Justification (1698), ch. 14, ‘Concerning Justification by Works’, p. 79
² Anthony Burgess (d. 1664), a Westminster divine, while he gives reasons against a twofold justification (see the Contra section below), yet he also says some things inline with it, in the Quotes section below. He relates: “there are some learned and orthodox writers that do admit of a first and second justification, but not in the Popish sense…”
Only persons who affirmed a double aspect to first justification (i.e. upon faith) have been included here. However, many other reformed theologians, such as the Dutch Peter van Mastricht (d. 1706), after affirming (A) a first justification by a forensic, legal imputation by faith alone, for the elect alone (this securing the perseverance of the saints), then go on to affirm (B) the continuation of justification, and (C) a kind of justification at Judgment Day, as inclusive of works in some respect(s). While such proponents affirm a twofold, or threefold, etc. view of justification, in some respect(s), they have not been included here. For those persons and views, including numerous of the Westminster divines, see ‘On the Oneness & Unity of Justification & its Aspects’, as well as, ‘On the Continuation of Justification’ and ‘On the Justification of Believers at Judgment Day’.
.
Protestants
Order of
Articles 5
Historical 2
Quotes 22+
Latin 1
Articles
1600’s
Field, Richard – bk. 3, appendix, ch. 11 in Of the Church... (Oxford: Turner, 1628), pp. 290-324
Field (1561–1616) was an Anglican theologian associated with Richard Hooker’s work.
“So that it is evident that to be justified has a threefold signification.
For first it imports as much as to be absolved from sin, that is, to be freed from the woeful consequents of that disfavor and dislike, that unrighteousness and sin subjects us unto.
Secondly, to be accepted and respected so as righteous men are wont to be:
And thirdly to be framed to the love and desire of doing righteously.” – p. 291; also p. 312.
“And we all agree, that it is not our conversion to God, nor the change we find in ourselves, that can any way make us stand in judgment without fear, and look for any good from God, otherwise than in that we find ourselves so disposed and fitted, as is necessary for justification, whence we assure ourselves God will in mercy accept us for Christ’s sake.” – pp. 323-34
Forbes, William – Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, Of Justification Detailed ToC
3. ‘The imputation of Christ’s justice is treated of yet more fully’ 121
4. ‘Whether God’s justice, infused and inherent in us, pertains to the formal cause of justification’ 143
5. ‘The doctrine laid down in the preceding chapter more fully confirmed’ 175
Forbes here references or quotes for a twofold justication:
Augustine
Lutherans: Luther, Melanchthon, Brentius, Spangenberg, Aepinus, Himmel, Curaeus
Reformed: Bucer, Colloquies of Ratisbon, Borrhaus, C. Aubery of Tonnerre, Castellio, Zwingli, Field, Montague, F. White,
Romanist: Archbishop of Spalato, Cassander
6. ‘Some objections are obviated…’ 205
Baxter, Richard
ch. 10, sect. 3, pp. 342-52 in Richard Baxter’s Confession of his Faith… (London: 1655) The page numbering is misnumbered. The whole of sect. 3 has more on this topic, as Baxter quotes 80 authors in support of his views on the necessity of works for believers in salvation.
“There is therefore a twofold justification. One whereby, in ourselves being sinners, we are justified before God, from without us: The other whereby being now justified before God from without us, we are justified before Him within ourselves.
The first of these is the cause of the second. The second is the effect and demonstration of the first. The first is done by faith, the other by works. Both must concur that the righteousness of the Law may be fulfilled in us…
Let us speak fullier of the second sort of justification. It is that whereby God, by regeneration given us, and the works of sincere faith which we performed, absolves us from the charge of hypocrisy, profaness and impiety, and no longer takes us for men dead in sin, servants of the Devil and children of the world, but for true believers, his sons restored to his image, endued with his life and translated into his Kingdom: which judgment of God, the Law also approves. Not that it [the Law] takes it self-satisfied by our works, but because being bereaved of its dominion and subjected to Christ our Lord, it cannot choose but [to] commend the works which come from faith in Christ and from his Spirit, and account them for true righteousness, though they are imperfect; and them that perform them, for truly righteous and sons pleasing to God.
Let it be here enquired, seeing Scripture does often and expressly ascribe to us both these righteousnesses we speak of, and therefore we are in respect of them both to be judged righteous, not only with men, but with God, whether in the same sense as we are said to be justified by works, Jam. 2, and to be justified by words, Mt. 12, works may not be said to be imputed to us for righteousness? Not indeed as faith is imputed to righteousness: but as the fact of Phineas is said to be imputed to him for righteousness, Ps. 106:31.” – pp. 344-47
pp. 25-31 in sect. 5 in Richard Baxter’s Admonition to Mr. William Eyre of Salisbury (London, 1654)
One need not agree with everything Baxter says here to profit from his discussion. Nor are all of Baxter’s peculiar delineations on the subject, specifically on covenant theology, essential to a twofold justification.
Manton, Thomas – Sermon 16, on 2 Cor. 5:10 in A Second Volume of Sermons… (London: Astwood, 1684), pp. 97-103 See especially p. 100.
“A double accusation may be brought against man before the tribunal of God: that he is a sinner, and so guilty of the breach of the first covenant [of Works]; or that he is no sound believer, having not fulfilled the condition [i.e. faith] of the second [covenant, i.e. of grace]. As to the first accusation, we are justified by faith; as to the second, by works; and so James and Paul are reconciled (Rom. 3:24; Jm. 2:24): “A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” and “a man is justified by works and not by faith only.”
…According to this double relation, there is a double judgment passed upon us… To this double judgment there answers a double justification: of a sinner, by virtue of the satisfaction of Christ, apprehended by faith, without the works of the law; and of a believer, or one in the state of grace, so justified by works. For here it is not inquired whether he has satisfied the law, that he may have life by it, but whether, professing himself to be a Christian, he is a true believer; and that must be tried by his works. For as God in the covenant of grace gives us two benefits—remission of sins and sanctification by the Spirit—so he requires two duties from us: a thankful acceptance of his grace by faith, and also new obedience as the fruit of love.
Well then, this being so—that Christ’s commission and charge is to give eternal life to true believers, and to them only—the only sound mark of true believers is their works of new obedience. These must be tried in the judgment.” – p. 100
Clark, Samuel – Scripture-Justification, or a Discourse of Justification, according to the Evidence of Scripture-Light (London: S. Bridge, 1698)
14. ‘Concerning Justification by Works’
Clark (1626-1701) was an English nonconformist, puritan minister who wrote a commentary on the Bible. He followed in the trajectory of Baxter. John Humphrey said of Clark’s book that it was “desired to be printed by Mr. Baxter”. (Humphrey, Ultimas manus, 1698, “To Mr. Clark”, p. 1)
“Proposition 2. The faith which Paul speaks of is not the same with that which James speaks of. What kind of faith that is which Paul speaks of appears by the description which he himself gives us of it, Gal. 5. He is there speaking of justification, verse 4, and of the righteousness of faith, verse 5. And then tells us what kind of faith it is, verse 6, a faith working by love, a faith which shows itself to be a living faith by the fruit it brings forth… Faith is never opposed in Scripture to Gospel-works; because it is inclusive of ’em, and they can’t be divided, but always go together. This is faith in Paul’s sense: the tree with it’s fruit hanging on it: a living, working, fruit-bearing faith. But now the faith that James speaks of [in ch. 2], is such a faith as is alone, verse 17, without works, verse 20, and therefore is dead, verse 17.
…
Proposition 4. They both speak of the same justification. This is undeniably evident, because they both produce the same Scripture for the proof of their distinct positions, or assertions. James proves that Abram was justified by works because by his offering up Isaac, that Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness,’ verse 23. And Paul proves that Abram was justified by faith, and not by works, because the Scripture saith, Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, Rom. 4:2-3… But the same Scripture proves that Abram was justified both by faith and by works; and therefore faith, and such works as are the fruit of faith are all one in Scripture-account. They are materially the same, though there may be some formal difference between ’em. And therefore, to be justified by faith, according to Paul, and by works according to James, are all one…
(2) This justification he [James] speaks of was before God: For he produces that passage of Scripture for the proof of what he asserts, which all acknowledge does refer to a man’s justification before God, viz. that Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, verse 23.
…
(1) ‘Tis only the Works of the Law, that the apostle Paul opposes and rejects in this point of justification. This has been fully proved already, ch. 9, §2.
(2) The Hebrew Word [Hebrew] signifies to be righteous, as well as to justify, as was showed at first setting out.
(3) To justify is to account righteous, and treat as such.
(4) The Scripture does expresly define being righteous by doing righteousness, and that with a special remark and observable caution prefixed, 1 Jn. 3:7, ‘Little children, let no man deceive you: He that does righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.’…
(5) Abraham’s obedience, and Phineas’s zeal, were reckoned to them for righteousness, Jm. 2:21, 23; Ps. 106:31, and Abel by his sacrifice obtained witness that he was righteous, Heb. 11:4…
(6) Whatsoever is required to pardon is required to justification; for though the formal, precise notion of justification does not consist in pardon, yet pardon is included in it taken largely, as being the inseparable adjunct and undivided companion thereof (as has been showed, ch. 4, §5). But repentance, confession, forgiveness of others, and the like, are required to pardon…
(7) The Scripture frequently uses the Word [Faith] in a large Sense, so as to comprehend Obedience too, as was show’d, ch. 11. §. 2.
(8) We are expresly said, to be justified by Works. To all which I add by way of Antidote.
§5. (9) The admitting of gospel-works or holiness to have an interest in justification, and to be an ingredient thereof, is not inconsistent with, nor derogatory to free-grace…
(10) And lastly, this doctrine has no bad influence upon practice, but is less subject to abuse in this respect than the other…
…
§9… I shall extract the spirits and quintessence of all in the following description of justification with the Scriptures, that proves every part of it:
Justification is an act (Rom. 8:33) of God’s (Rom. 3:24) free-grace, whereby for the sake of Christ (1 Cor. 6:11), that is, for the merit of his obedience (Rom. 5:19), or, upon consideration of Christ’s righteousness (Rom. 5:18), or his blood (Rom. 5:9), that is, his suffering the punishment (Isa. 53:11) due to us for our sins, He at present counts (Rom. 4:3) righteous all true believers (Acts 13:39; Rom. 5:1), who are endued with living (Jm. 2:20), working faith (Gal. 5:6; Jm. 2:24), and deals with ’em as such, by discharging (Gal. 3:13) ’em from the curse of the Law, and eternal condemnation (Rom. 5:9; 8:33-34) (which is pardon in the most proper and famous sense) and bestowing upon ’em those privileges and benefits which belong to righteous persons, viz. reconciliation (Rom. 5:1), and adoption (Tit. 3:7), and then at last will solemnly declare and pronounce (Rom. 5:18) ’em righteous at the Day of Judgment, and bestow upon ’em eternal life (Acts 3:19; Mt. 12:36-37).”
15. ‘Concerning the Kinds of Justification’
“I find ground to assert a twofold justification. First, a general and first-justification (which most places before-mentioned speak of), when a person passes from an unjustified to a justified estate. This is owned by all, and therefore I shall say no more of it.
Secondly, a particular, renewed, repeated and after-justification, when any particular act is approved by God and a person is accounted righteous in reference unto that.
This kind of justification must needs be understood in that place where this phrase is first used, Gen. 15:6, ‘Abraham believed God, and He counted it to him for righteousness.’ Here it relates to his faith in that particular promise of God, concerning an heir to be born of his own body, and the numerousness of his seed by him, verses 4-5; and so must be meant of God’s approbation of that particular act of faith as a righteous act, or his accounting him righteous in that particular act…
‘Tis but as he [Paul] gathers and infers the general from one particular, that if Abraham were justified by faith and not by such [legal] works, whereof he might glory, then all others are justified so too, he being the father of all that believe, verse 11. i.e. an eminent example or pattern of the justification of believers.
I say, it must needs be understood of a particular justification, with reference to that particular act, and not of his first and general justification; for he [Abraham] was a justified person long before that, as appears in that when he was called out of his own country, Gen. 12:1, 3, he obeyed that call, verse 4, and so became the friend of God [Jm. 2:23], who blessed him, [Gen. 12] verses 2-3, and appeared unto him, verse 7, by which, and all the following story, it is evident, that he was a good, righteous and holy man long before those words were spoken of him, ch. 15:6.” – p. 81
16. ‘Concerning the Order of Justification’
This chapter, amongst other things, argues that sanctification is in nature prior to justification.
.
2000’s
Leithart, Peter J. – ‘Double Justification?’ (2013) at First Things
“Hence, for [Martin] Bucer, iustificatio does not merely designate a forensic declaration. Bucer incorporates an Augustinian notion of “making-just” into his doctrine:
“Paul is accustomed to speaking in this way, denoting by the word ‘justification’ first of course the remission of sins, yet at the same time always indicating in addition that imparting of righteousness which God proceeds to work in us by the Spirit, the same Spirit by whom he grants us assurance of the pardon of our sins and of his goodwill towards us, and whom he has established as the seal” ([Lugioyo] 52).”
Historical
On Melanchthon
Article
Engelland, Hans – ‘The Relation of Justification & Sanctification’ in ‘Introduction’ in Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, Loci Communes, 1555 trans. Clyde L. Manschreck (NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), pp. xxxix-xl
.
On Bucer
Article
Wedgeworth, Steven – ‘Bucer on Double Justification’ (2008) at Wedgewords
.
Book
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.
On Bucer, see also the section above on Ecumenical Descriptions of Justification.
Quotes
Order of
Luther
Melanchthon
Bucer (& Erasmus)
Cranmer
Bullinger
Calvin
Vermigli
Borrhaus
Beza
Hooker
Zanchi
Bradshaw
White
Thysius
Ussher
de Dieu
Forbes
A. Burgess
Baxter
Manton
Mastricht
Vitringa
.
1500’s
Martin Luther
Intro
The Colloquy of Altenburg (1568-1569) was an intra-Lutheran colloquy between two opposing Lutheran parties. The following words of Luther were quoted the divines of the Elector Augustus, Duke of Saxony, to the other side, and printed in the colloquy’s Acts (Leipzig, 1570), p. 374. The opposing side:
“could not deny that he had said it, nor even oppose any thing solid to it… Luther, indeed, in this opinion, as in many others, did not abide any long time;”
All of this is per William Forbes.
.
in William Forbes, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, ch. 4, pp. 179-81
“These are the two parts of justification; the first is grace revealed by Christ, in that by Him we have God appeased, so that sin can no longer accuse us, but our conscience is, through trust in the mercy of God, brought back to security: the other is the gift of the Holy Ghost, with his gifts, who illuminates us against the defilements of the flesh and the spirit.”
.
On Melanchthon
The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon… ed. and trans. Charles L. Hill (1521; Boston: Meador Publishing, 1944), pt. 1, Prolegmona, p. 61
“In his treatment of justification, the forensic notion is not voiced in the Loci of 1521. In fact this theory of justification did not come into definite form until very late in the doctrinal writings of the Lutheran church. It was not formulated until 1549 or the date of the appearance of the third edition of the Loci. Both Reformers [including Luther], it would seem, were solely occupied with merely defining justifying faith and not with what justification in its deepest sense really was. Their sole interest lay in salvaging the doctrine of faith from the Roman Catholic wreckage.”
.
Philip Melanchthon
The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon… 1st ed., ed. and trans. Charles L. Hill (1521; Boston: Meador Publishing, 1944)
Locus 17, On Justification & Faith, pp. 196-97
“Indeed the works that follow our justification although they proceed from the Spirit of God who has taken possession of the hearts of those justified, are nevertheless of themselves unclean, because they are performed in a heart that is still impure. For justification has just begun and is not completed. We have received the first fruits of the Spirit (Rom. 8:23) but not yet the ‘titles’.¹ We are still waiting with groaning as Paul says in Rom. 8:23, for the redemption of our body.
¹ In order to understand this and the following assertions, the reader must bear in mind that Melanchthon understands ‘justificatio’ in the Augustinian sense. In a preliminary draft of the Loci called ‘Theologica Institutio’ he describes it not as a new relation to God but as the actual possession of true ‘justitia’ quae et constans esset et ex animo bearet nos.’ Thus ‘justificatio’ and ‘sanctificatio’ fall in fundamentally together. Later this notion gradually receded into the background. cf. Herrlinger: Theologie Melanchthons S. 6 ff….”
.
Locus 20, Summation: Law, Gospel, Faith
“Hence, we are free insofar as we have been renewed. Insofar as we are flesh and age, we are under the law; although what is left of the old, is condoned in believers for the same of their faith. In a word, as far as we believe, we are free; and as far as we show diffidence, we are under the law…
For here we have just begun our justification and have not entirely completed it. Thus Paul forthwith orders us to be changed by the renewing of our minds.”
.
“…and because the Spirit is the very justification of the heart.”
.
Locus 24, On Baptism, p. 247
“For the beginning of justification is the knowledge of sin and the fear of divine judgment. The consummation of justification is faith and peace of conscience which the Holy Spirit alone has sown in the heart, as I have said above in the section that deals with the law and Gospel.”
.
Locus 25, On Penitence, p. 250
“For penitence is none other than our justification.”
.
Locus 28, On Love, p. 261
“I have taught that man is justified by faith alone, that is, the righteousness of Christ is our righteousness through faith, while our works and our attempts are naught but sin. Who holds these things holds the sum of the Scripture: ‘They are justified who believe in the mercy of God.’
.
Apology of the Augsburg Confession Trans. F. Bente & W. H. T. Dau (1531; Project Gutenberg, 2004), pt. 2
pt. 4, That faith in Christ justifies
“…we maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ’s sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because ‘to be justified’ means that out of unjust men, just men are made, or born again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For Scripture speaks in both ways.
[Margin note:] (The term ‘to be justified’ is used in two ways: to denote being converted or regenerated; again, being accounted righteous.])
Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission of sins.”
.
pt. 5, That we obtain remission of sins by faith alone in Christ
“We think that even the adversaries acknowledge that, in justification, the remission of sins is necessary first. For we all are under sin. Wherefore we reason thus: To attain the remission of sins is to be justified, according to Ps. 32:1, ‘Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven.’
By faith alone in Christ, not through love, not because of love or works, do we acquire the remission of sins, although love follows faith. Therefore by faith alone we are justified, understanding justification as the making of a righteous man out of an unrighteous, or that he be regenerated.”
.
Concordia Triglotta… (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1921), Apology of the Augsburg Confession, pt. 3, sect. 40, p. 166
“Again (in the second place), this fulfilling of the Law, or obedience towards the Law, is indeed righteousness, when it is complete; but in us it is small and impure.
(For, although they have received the first-fruits of the Spirit, and the new, yea, the eternal life has begun in them, there still remains a remnant of sin and evil lust, and the Law still finds much of which it must accuse us.)
Accordingly, it is not pleasing for its own sake, and is not accepted for its own sake. But although from those things which have been said above it is evident that justification signifies not only the beginning of the renewal, but the reconciliation by which also we afterwards are accepted, nevertheless it can now be seen much more clearly that the inchoate fulfilling of the Law does not justify, because it is accepted only on account of faith.”
[The word “only” above is not in many English editions (such as the two above), but it is in the Latin: constet iustificationem non solum initium renovationis significare, sed reconciliationem, qua etiam postea accepti sumus. Concordia Triglotta… (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1921), p. 166; This translation is confirmed in Heinrich Schmid, Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 3rd ed. (Augsburg, 1961), p. 430]
.
Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, Loci Communes, 1555 trans. Clyde L. Manschreck (NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), Locus 13, Of the Word, p. 161
“To speak of complete, perfect justification of the law before God, such as that which angels have and men who are saved will have in eternity, is to speak of justification as conformity with God, which is as much to say, with God’s law; for God is thus as He gives Himself to be known in the law.
This perfect justification in eternity means God Himself is in the saved [seligen]. As St. Paul says, “God will be all in all” [cf. 1 Cor. 15:28; 12:6; Col. 3:11], that is, God Himself is in the saved, and makes them like Himself, so that they are entirely pure, without sin. As John says, ‘We will be like Him’ [1 Jn. 3:2]. St. Paul speaks about this complete and perfect justification in Gal. 5:5, ‘For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness.’
Although in this mortal life believers have a spark, the gospel nevertheless preaches to us the justification of Christ, of the Mediator between God and us, and says that the Mediator’s entire obedience, from his Incarnation until the Resurrection, is the true justification which is pleasing to God, and is the merit for us. God forgives us our sins, and accepted us, in that He imputes righteousness to us for the sake of the Son, although we are still weak and sinful. We must, however, accept this imputed righteousness with faith.”
.
Martin Bucer
Common Places, pp. 162–64 in Steven Wedgeworth, ‘Bucer on Double Justification’ (2008) at Wedgewords
“So in treating of our restoration, Paul intimates in close connection issuing from our very justification before God–provided conviction of it is ours–the immediate presence in believers of the Spirit, the fashioner of all the righteousness we are to display in our lives. Hence he never uses the word ‘justify’ in this way without appearing to speak no less of this imparting of true righteousness than of the round and head of our entire salvation, the forgiveness of sins.
In chapter 3 (verse 25) [of Romans] after saying that righteousness is revealed in the era of the unveiling of the gospel, that is to say, is so clearly manifested in the lives of believers that the world now acknowledges these alone to be capable of true righteousness, and after saying secondly, that Christ came to introduce to the world an endeixis, a demonstration of divine righteousness unmistakable to all, he then added, ‘that God himself might be righteous, and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus Christ’.
Here without a doubt he includes at the same time in the word ‘justify’ that righteousness which God produces by his Spirit in those who believe in Christ, and which he intends to be his attestation to the effect that he has now forgiven their sins and counts them among those he resolved to justify, that is, to count among the righteous not only by pardoning their sin but also by conforming them to the image of his Son. The apostle always speaks about our justification in this fashion, never failing to comprehend the summit of our salvation, for which he prayed for the Philippians as follows:
‘It is my prayer that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and all aesthesis (that is, a quality of discernment) whereby you may be able to approve with certainty what is excellent, and to this end, that you may be pure and give offence to no one, thus being equipped for the day of Christ, and filled with the fruits of righteousness which are produced through Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God.’ [1:9-11]
Consequently, since Paul is accustomed to speaking in this way, denoting by the word ‘justification’ first of course the remission of sins, yet at the same time always indicating in addition that imparting of righteousness which God proceeds to work in us by the Spirit, the same Spirit by whom he grants us assurance of the pardon of our sins and of his goodwill towards us, and whom he has established the seal (sphragis) of that pardon–because, I say, Paul customarily speaks in these terms, the majority of the holy Fathers, bearing in mind no doubt the more visible aspect of justification, have taken dikaiousthai, ‘to be justified’, in the sense of ‘to be made righteous…
It goes without saying that however great a degree of righteousness the Spirit of Christ might effect in us when we believe, it will nonetheless [not?] be sufficient to merit our being regarded as righteous in God’s sight, for we remain unprofitable servants even when we have fulfilled all his bidding.
It was with this in mind that Philip Melanchthon in his highly erudite and devout Commentary on this Epistle rightly condemns those who want to make, “We are justified by faith,’ mean, “Faith is the source or cause that produces other virtues for whose sake we are pronounced righteous,’ or ‘Faith itself is in us a virtue, deserving of God’s approval.’ And he subjoins these godly words: ‘“We are justified by faith,” should be transposed in[to] this sentence: “We are reckoned righteous by mercy.” Similarly, “we are justified by faith alone” means, “We are pronounced righteous by trusting in mercy alone”–so it is only for us to add, ‘as we are given the assurance that we are so pronounced, and thus know by experience this merciful favour of God.’
Surely no godly soul can doubt for a moment that it is through God’s mercy alone and for the sake of Christ’s merit alone that we are justified, pronounced righteous before God, and not because of anything in us at all, however many works of holiness, however genuine our fruits of the Spirit. For who is ignorant of the Scripture, ‘Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for no man living will be justified before thee’? [Ps. 143:2] And in Isaiah, ‘In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified and praised’. [Isa. 45:25]”
.
in William Forbes, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, ch. 4, pp. 157-59
On Rom. 4, observation 4, sect. Credentibus, p. 252
“[On Rom. 4:25, which speaks of justification:] Since we are born in sins, and are able to do nothing of ourselves but offend God, we cannot be restored unless there be some one to make satisfaction for our sins, and also to breathe into us the Spirit of justice: both for these Christ has thoroughly accomplished… Let us always think… that, in the death of Christ, our sins have been expiated by his blood; in his resurrection, whereby He has entered on a heavenly life, and now lives to God… let us recognize that we are called to a life new and well-pleasing to God, and that He Himself will bestow that upon us.”
.
On Rom. 5:16, Observation 3
“When the world was lost by the one sin of Adam, the grace of Christ has not only abolished this sin and the death which it introduced, but also has at the same time taken away those endless sins… and brought as many as are of Christ into full justification; so that God has now not only forgiven them the sins both of Adam and of themselves, etc., but has at the same time given his Spirit of solid and perfect justice, to conform us to the image of the First-begotten.
‘Justification’ here occurs, which, as it is opposed to ‘condemnation,’ so it signifies properly that justification by which God absolves from all sins those that are Christ’s… and because he means a full justification, the perfect bestowal of justice is also contained in this justification; for it [justification] will then at length be consummated when along with sin, the last enemy, death, shall also have been destroyed, and the saints shall have been filled with every fruit of justice.”
“[On the words ‘through Jesus Christ’] This also let us always remember, that the whole benefit conferred by Christ pertains to this, that we abound in the gift of justice, living uprightly and orderly, adorned with every virtue, i.e., restored to the image of God.”
.
On Martin Bucer (& Erasmus)
Irene Dingel, ch. 19, ‘Christian Ecumenical Efforts’ in eds. Appold & Minnich, The Cambridge History of Reformation Era Theology (Cambridge University Press, 2023), pp. 374-75
“Humanists such as Erasmus of Rotterdam did strive to surmount religious division and to restore religious peace. But the historical constellations stood in the way of such ideas in the long term. Erasmus’s Liber de sarcienda ecclesiae concordia (1533) spoke of a doctrine of justification that mediated between the parties with the concept of duplex iustitia [a twofold righteousness].
Georg Witzel and the Strasbourg Reformer Martin Bucer attempted to follow this path proposed by Erasmus in a disputation in Leipzig in 1539. The draft of the document, which rests largely on Bucer’s work, prepared for negotiations regarding the doctrine of justification at the religious colloquies in Worms and Regensburg in 1540/1541. But these mediating propositions could not neutralize the continuing concern to disprove the other side in the dialogue and to convince it of one’s own position. Both sides were confident that this could succeed by means of good argumentation. Thus, the differing standpoints often took on sharp contours in the course of the colloquies and tended to set boundaries and back up their own confession of the faith in the process.”
.
Thomas Cranmer
The Works of Thomas Cranmer Parker Society (d. 1556; Cambridge Univ. Press, 1844), ‘Notes on Justification’, p. 208 See also the patristic quotes Cranmer provides, which confirm this reading of his.
“St. James meant of justification in another sense, when he said, ‘A man is justified by works, and not by faith only.’ For he spake of such a justification which is a declaration, continuation and increase of that justification which St. Paul spake of before.”
.
Henry Bullinger
The Decades (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1849), vol. 1, 1st Decade, Sermon 6
“The term of justifying, very usual and common among the Hebrews, and of a large signification, is not at this day so well understood of all men as it ought to be. To justify is as much to say as to quit from judgment and from the denounced and uttered sentence of condemnation. It signifies to remit offences, to cleanse, to sanctify, and to give inheritance of life everlasting.
For it is a law term belonging to courts where judgment is exercised. Imagine therefore, that man is set before the judgment-seat of God, and that there he is pleaded guilty; to wit, that he is accused and convinced of heinous offences, and therefore sued to punishment or to the sentence of condemnation. Imagine also, that the Son of God makes intercession, and comes in as a mean, desiring that upon him may be laid the whole fault and punishment due unto us men, that he by his death may cleanse them and take them away, setting us free from death, and giving us life everlasting. Imagine too, that God, the most high and just judge, receives the offer, and translates the punishment together with the fault from us unto the neck of his Son; making therewithal a statute, that whosoever believes that the Son of God suffered for the sins of the world, brake the power of death, and delivered us from damnation, should be cleansed from his sins and made heir of life everlasting. Who therefore can be so dull of understanding, but may perceive that mankind is justified by faith?
…
And first, I will show unto you, that this term of justification is taken in this present treatise for the absolution and remission of sins, for sanctification, and adoption into the number of the sons of God… Hereunto also belong those words of his [Paul’s]: “Even as by the sin of one condemnation came on all men; so by the righteousness of one good came upon all men to the justification of life. Here again is the justification of life made the contrary of condemnation unto death set as a pain upon our heads because of the transgression: justification of life therefore is an absolution from sins, a delivery from death, a quickening or translating from death to life.
For in the fourth to the Romans [verse 7] the same apostle expounds justification by sanctification [beatificationem], and sanctification by the remission of sins. For in treating of faith, whereby we are justified, or which God imputes to us for righteousness without works, he says:
“Even as David also does expound the blessedness of that man, to whom the Lord imputes righteousness without works, saying: ‘Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered’.” [Rom. 4:7]
What could be more plainly spoken than this? For he does evidently expound justification by sanctification, and sanctification by remission of sins.
Furthermore, what else is sanctification but the adoption whereby we are received into the grace and number of the sons of God? What is he therefore that sees not, that in this treatise of St. Paul justification is taken for adoption? especially, since in the very same fourth chapter to the Romans he goes about to prove that an inheritance is due to faith, whereunto also he does attribute justification. By all this it is made manifest that the question of justification contains nothing else but the manner and reason of sanctification; that is to say, whereby and how men have their sins forgiven, and are received into the grace and number of the sons of God, and, being justified, are made heirs of the kingdom of God.”
.
“Ye have heard, dearly beloved, that true faith is the justification of the church or faithful of God; that it is, I say, the forgiveness of all sins, a receiving into the grace of God, a taking by adoption into the number of the sons of God, an assured and blessed sanctification [beatificationem],¹ and finally, the well-spring of all good works.”
¹ [This term beatificationem means literally, ‘having been made blessed’. While the idea is in Rom. 4:7 and Ps. 32:1, and can be taken in a forensic sense, yet it is also possible, even with the context of imputing, to take that in the sense of also imparting real righteousness and holiness.
While Bullinger disclaims the “works of the law” through his sermon, this by no means necessarily implied he was excluding a certain, gracious, inherent holiness, possibly bound up in faith itself, which idea was not uncommonly held in his era and before it.
Beatificationem, in previous centuries, and even in his own era, had a significant association with glorification, that is, with a real inherent holiness. See in relation the early (and continuing) protestant use of ‘deification’.]
.
On 1 Cor,. 6:11 in William Forbes, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, ch. 4, p. 155
“The apostle signifies the same thing by different words when he says, ‘Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified:’ he has said, ‘ye are washed,’ on account of holy baptism; ‘ye are sanctified,’ on account of the Holy Ghost; but ‘ye are justified,’ on account of justifying faith, etc.”
.
John Calvin
Commentary on Titus 3, v. 7
“‘That being justified by his grace’
If we understand ‘regeneration’ in its strict and ordinary meaning, it might be thought that the apostle employs the word ‘justified’ instead of ‘regenerated;’ and this is sometimes the meaning of it, but very seldom; yet there is no necessity which constrains us to depart from its strict and more natural [forensic] signification. The design of Paul is to ascribe to the grace of God all that we are, and all that we have, so that we may not exalt ourselves proudly against others. Thus he now extols the mercy of God, by ascribing to it entirely the cause of our salvation. But because he had spoken of the vices of unbelievers, it would have been improper to leave out the grace of regeneration, which is the medicine for curing them.
Still this does not prevent him from returning immediately to praise divine mercy; and he even mingles both blessings together — that our sins have been freely pardoned, and that we have been renewed so as to obey God. This, at least, is evident, that Paul maintains that “justification,” is the free gift of God; and the only question is, what he means by the word justified. The contest seems to demand that its meaning shall be extended further than to the imputation of righteousness; and in this larger sense it is seldom (as I have said) employed by Paul; yet there is nothing that hinders the meaning of it from being limited to the forgiveness of sins.”
.
Peter Martyr Vermigli
A Most Learned & Fruitful Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans... (d. 1562; London: 1568), on ch. 4, verse 25, p. 97
“‘Which believe in Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our sins, and is risen again for our justification.’
…But here arises a doubt, by what means the apostle may seem to seioine and to put asunder these things one from the other: namely, the forgiveness of sin, and justification: and one the other side, the faith of the death, from the faith of the resurrection, when as it seems that by the faith of each part, of his death (I say) and of his resurrection is given not only remission of sins but also justification.
…
…wherefore there are yet behind two other very likely interpretations:
Of which the first is, that in very deed, by the death of Christ was paid the price of our redemption. But, that it might be applied unto us, there needs the Holy Ghost, to move us to believe, and Christ to give unto us this Holy Ghost, rose again from death, sent abroad his apostles to preach into all parts of the world, and now also before the Father, executes the office of an intercessor and high priest: therefore is He said to have risen again to help us that we might obtain justification. Chrysostom seems to lean unto this sentence.
The second exposition [as pertaining to inherent righteousness] is that the faith of the death and of the resurrection brings justification: but Paul seioyned them aptly to declare the analogy and proportion between them. Unto the death of Christ answers very well the forgiveness of sins, for by reason of them, death was due unto us. And as Christ, as touching this corruptible life, died, so also ought we, when we are justified to die unto sin. Again because justification seems herein to be declared in that we begin a new life, therefore is it referred unto the resurrection of Christ: for that he then seemed to have begun a celestial and happy life.
Paul used in a maner the self-same form of words in this same epistle, when he says [Rom. 10]: ‘with the heart we believe unto righteousness: and with the mouth is confession made to salvation.’ For the faith of the heart both works righteousness and also brings salvation: but because salvation and instauration are chiefly declared in action, therefore he ascribed it to confession.
But whither of these expositions is the truer, neither will I contend, nor also now declare. Of those things which have now been spoken, we gather a most sweet consolation: for thereby we do not only know the weight of sin, but also we understand that God bare a singular good love towards us: as one which gave his only begotten Son, and that unto the death to deliver us from sins. Farther, seeing Christ is said to have risen from the dead for our justification, we easily see that we are by Him called back to a new life: unto which yet we cannot aspire, except we be of Him elected.”
.
Martin Borrhaus
in William Forbes, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, ch. 4, pp. 157-59 Borrhaus (1499–1564) was a professor of philosophy and Old Testament at Basel in the reformed tradition.
On Gen. 15:4, pp. 161-62
“Two things are seen in Christ which are necessary to our justification: the one is death; the other, resurrection from the dead, etc. [Rom. 4:25] It was fitting that by his death the sins of the world should be expiated, etc. while by his resurrection from the dead, it pleased the same goodness of God to grant the Holy Ghost, through whom the gospel might be believed, and the justice that was lost by the sin of the first Adam might be restored.
The apostle has expressed both parts in these words, ‘Who was delivered on account of our sins, etc. [and was raised again for our justification]’ [Rom. 4:25] In his death therefore is found satisfaction for sin; in his resurrection the gift of the Holy Ghost, by which our justification to life is effected…”
“[On Rom. 5:17, 19] And here some one may enquire what this gift of justice is which flows to us from Christ our head?… Of this gift the apostle thus speaks; ‘For if by the offence of one man, etc.’ by which words St. Paul declares that, through the merit and good work of the second Adam, many receive the gift of justice and life, as through the sin of the first Adam his posterity had contracted hurt and death. But what other thing could this gift have been but the gift of the Holy Ghost, who should bring both justice and life to those who are endowed with Him.”
.
On 1 Kings 9:4, p. 681
“Both kinds therefore of justice are contained in justification, and neither is separated from the other; and thus in the definition of justification, the merit of the blood of Christ is included with forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Justifier and Regenerator. Concerning which gift of justice the apostle speaks in these words, ‘For if by the offence of one, etc.'”
.
Theodore Beza
‘Theses Written Out in Full with the Unanimous Consent of the Pastors of the Swiss Churches by the Authority of the Very Distinguished Senate of Bern in the General Synod on AD April 23, 1588’ in Justification by Faith Alone: Selected Writings from Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Amandus Polanus (1561-1610), Francis Turretin (1623-1687), trans. Casey Carmichael in Classic Reformed Theology (RHB, 2023), pp. 113-14
“Thesis 10. And it also follows from this that the word ‘to be justified’ in this argument in no way should be thus understood as if that righteousness of Christ were infused into us. Rather, it is thus declared that, having seized Christ Himself together with His righteousness by faith, we are absolved from all our sins and death, and through the one same Christ Himself we are declared worthy of eternal life in the one same Christ.
But one also speaks of a wider meaning of the term ‘righteousness’, as about that most perfect, which is subjectively in Christ alone according to the flesh and which alone, imputed to us by faith, pacifies our consciences before the tribunal of God. This concerning holiness within us is applied and inchoate in another gift of God.
Thus, if ‘justification’ is taken as the free application of the latter rather than the former benefit, Christ having been seized by faith, we do not deny that the term ‘justification’ is comprehended as much as that benefit of that imputed and most perfect righteousness as the benefit of sanctification inchoate in us is. Yet we say that careful and painstaking care must be applied in order that one may not be confounded with the other and that we may know that the part first in order pleases and is accepted by God on account of Christ and in Christ alone is seized by faith, and that second gift of regeneration follows later.”
.
On Titus 3:7, in William Forbes, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, ch. 4, p. 153
“The word ‘justification’ I take in a wide sense, so as to embrace whatever we obtain from Christ, whether by imputation, or by the efficacy of the Spirit in sanctifying us… Thus also the word ‘to justify’ is taken in Rom. 8:30.”
.
A Book of Christian Questions & Answers… (London: How, 1574), p. 57
“Question: But David grounds this redemption and blessing in the release of sins. Why then add you also the imputation of the sanctification that sticks in Christ, and his fulfilling of the law?
Answer: What if I shold encounter thee with these texts: ‘Blessed are the clean in heart,’ ‘blessed are the blameless in the way,’ and such other like? wouldst thou gather here upon that the releasing of sins is excluded? I think not. So now and then sanctification is meant by the term of ‘justification’, because these two go never asunder.
And why may I not make answer thus also? that sometimes there is mention made but only of the releasing of sins, not to the end to exclude all other pates that make men blessed, but because the rest are coverfly comprehended under it? And if thou wilt urge me yet further: I may also fitly answer that as the other are meant by the releasing of sins.”
.
Richard Hooker
A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works & how the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown (d. 1600; Oxford: Barnes, 1612), pp. 26-27 The statement at the end regarding double justification appears to be a concession with respect to England’s Christian predecessors under Popery, not the proper view of Hooker, as made evident by the rest of Hooker’s book.
“Which being attentively marked, shows plainly how the faith of true believers cannot be divorced from hope and love; how faith is a part of sanctification, and yet unto justification necessary; how faith is perfected by good works, and no work of ours without faith; finally, how our fathers might hold that we are justified by faith alone, and yet hold truly, that without works we are not justified.”
.
Jerome Zanchi
as given and trans. in Richard Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Confession of his Faith… (London: 1655), ch. 10, sect. 3, pp. 360-62
vol. 8, Locus on the Justification of Faith
p. 787
“Works are necessary:
1. To justify faith before God, etc.
2. They are necessary to the obtaining eternal Life, not as meritorious causes, but as necessary ways by which God ordinarily brings his elect to possess life, etc. Mt. 25, ‘Come ye blessed, etc.’ The works of piety, which you have done, did not indeed effect that life eternal was prepared for you, and given, etc. but they did effect and were causes that you now may enter to possess the Kingdom before prepared for you.
3. They are necessary to inherent justification as causes. For a man is justified by works with inherent righteousness: that is, he is sanctified, renewed, made righteous: After which sense the Schoolmen speak, and before them the Fathers, and before them the apostle John, Rev. 22, ‘He that is righteous, let him be justified yet.’
4. They are profitable to conserve and increase faith: also to promerit [promerenda; be worthy of] of God and obtain many good things both spiritual and corporal, both in this life and in another, as shall be afterwards showed.”
.
p. 79•
“Works are considered: 1. In their own dignity and merit: 2. In the acceptation of God’s goodness, or as they are done by a Christian, pleasing to God, pardoned and beloved in Christ. And in this wise God accepts them as righteous, and imputes them to man for righteousness, etc.”
.
vol. 3, p. 207
“The Scriptures deliver a twofold righteousness, by which the elect, being freely endowed, are said to be righteous and justified: One most perfect and in all points absolute: the other imperfect and begun in us, and to be perfected in another world:
One, which as it depends not on our works, so can it not be perfected by our works: The other, which though it be given of grace and not for works, yet is it increased and perfected by works:
One, with which we being endowed, are so justified before God that in the sight and judgment of God Himself we are reputed for altogether blameless and most just: Another, which does not only make us righteous before men, but also makes us more and more acceptable to God, and has the promise of the life that now is and that which is to come.
To conclude, one without us, really placed in Christ Himself only our head, and imputed to us, and so made ours by imputation: The other really existing and inherent in ourselves.”
.
vol. 6, thesis 13, p. 81 [or 84?] in William Forbes, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, ch. 4, p. 155
“the word ‘justify’ has two meanings, the first signifies to absolve anyone from crimes… and to pronounce him just, and is opposed to the word ‘to condemn;’ and this signification is altogether forensic. The other meaning of the word is, that a man is made just from being unjust, as also to be sanctified is, to be made holy from being profane; in which signication the apostle has said, ‘And such were some of you, etc. [1 Cor. 6:11]’, i.e. you have been made, from being unclean, clean, holy from being profane, just from being unjust, by the Holy Ghost, on account of Christ, in whom you believe.
To which meaning relates that passage also, which we read in the Revelation, ‘He that is just, let him be justified still more,’ i.e. let him become in truth, from being just, still more just, viz., in the same way as from being unjust, he had been made just.
And the Fathers and especially S. Augustine, have interpreted the word in this sense… These are two certain meanings of this word ‘to justify’.”
.
1600’s
William Bradshaw
A Treatise of Justification… (London: Creede, 1615), ch. 16, sect. 7-8, pp. 92-93 Bradshaw (1571-1618) was an English, congregationalist puritan.
“7. Man may be justified before man, not by man only, but by God also.
8. God also may justify us before man by our formal and inherent righteousness. Thus by sundry means here upon earth He sometimes justifies his children against the sundry calumniations and slanders of wicked men: But more specially He will do it at the Day of Judgment, in the face of the whole world, manifesting not only that righteousness of theirs, which they have in and by Christ; but the inherent innocency, integrity and sincerity of their hearts and ways, so much belied and traduced by the wicked enemies of sanctity and religion.”
.
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), trans. ChatGPT-5
ch. 24, ‘Of the Effects of Justification’
sect. 22, p. 112
“22. This new obedience of ours, by which, so far as lies in us, we henceforth conduct ourselves in conformity to the divine law—since it is required by God himself and performed by us—according to its degree and measure is also called our righteousness; by which also, formally, inherently, habitually, or from works, we (according to our measure) are even truly said to be righteous before God, inasmuch as on its account we are regarded by God himself as righteous in part. And with respect to it, in the divine forum, we may in some way be justified (if there were need of it). (Lk. 1:6; Isa. 38:3; 1 Thess. 5:23)”
.
sect. 24, pp. 113-14
“24. And although that obedience is no part of that righteousness by which we are justified, or by the merit of which our sins are forgiven; yet it is no less than faith itself (from which it arises) necessary for us unto eternal salvation, since without it there is no hope that the imputed righteousness of Christ can profit us. (Rom. 6:2-3, 22; Heb. 12:14)”
.
sect. 26, pp. 114-15
“26. Therefore, every true Christian who has actually returned into the grace of God, being now constituted in a state of grace, has a twofold righteousness—not acquired by his own free will or the powers of nature, but given to him by God through Christ—and both are necessary for his salvation: one imputed, the other inherent. The imputed is that which Christ has performed for him, to satisfy for all sins committed by him throughout his whole life; the inherent is that by which, through divine grace in Christ, he begins inwardly more and more to cease from sins to be committed hereafter, and strives most diligently to observe the divine law exactly. For by that imputed righteousness of Christ he is not freed from the keeping of the law, but rather bound to it more closely.”
.
ch. 25, ‘Of Particular Justification’, pp. 117-18
“3. To whomsoever the guilt of any particular sin is charged, he has either committed that sin or not committed it.
4. If he has committed it, he can in no other way be truly justified before God than by pleading the satisfaction of Christ, performed for him in general.
5. If he has not committed it, then his own innocence or righteousness may be pleaded for his justification; which is to be justified from his own works, or from a formal and inherent righteousness in himself, insofar as this is concerned.”
.
Francis White
The Orthodox Faith & Way to the Church Explaned & Justified in Answer to a Popish Treatise... (London: Field, 1617), pt. 1, ch. 1, Observation 1, ‘Touching remission of sins in justification’, pp. 18-19 White (c. 1564 – 1638) was an Anglican bishop.
“Proposition 3: Many of our learned [Romish] adversaries destroy that which is principal and most essential in remission of sinnes, to wit, condonation.
Vasques the Jesuit says [denying condonation]…
The said author confirms his opinion by these two arguments especially:
…
Argument 2: If a condonation be admitted for the merit of Christ, then the merit of Christ imputed is the formal cause of that condonation: and granting this, the justification of a sinner must have two forms: one of remission of sins; the other of inward cleansing and sancti∣fication. But this is contrary to the Trident Council affirming that justification has but one form. (Bellarmine, On Justification, bk. 2, ch. 2; Concil of Trent, sess. 6, ch. 7)
And it differs very little from the doctrine of the Protestants. For in the principal, it is one with it, to wit, in that it holds that a justified person does next and immediatly receive the remission of sins for the merit of Christ imputed. And the smaller difference between the sides, to wit, whether inherent justice may be admitted a part of justification, might be qualified by some such modification as Vega propounds to Calvin (For the Council of Trent, bk. 15, ch. 5), saying,
‘If at all times when one is iustified, he is also sanctified, what offence is it to allow one common word (namely ‘justification’ [citing Beza on Tit. 3:7 & Rom. 8:30]) to express and contain both these parts?’
I am not ignorant that many other Papists admit condonation; but Vasquez charges that opinion with having affinity with ours, and affirms and proves that it is repugnant to the Trident Councel.”
.
Anthony Thysius
Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 2, Disputation 33. ‘On the Justification of Man in the Sight of God’, pp. 305-7
“3. But the word [‘to justify’] is used with that specialized meaning when it concerns the judgment of God as He absolves the sinner who stands before his judgment seat (Ps. 143:2; Rom. 5:16 and 8:33-34). And so this entire act of justification is depicted as a forensic process.
Yet we still grant that justification sometimes appears also to include sanctification as its consequence because of the very strong, close connection between the two (Rom. 8:30; Titus 3:7, etc.).”
.
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. 396-99
“For justification, see what it is: the Scripture in St. Paul’s epistles speaks of justification by faith; and in St. James, of justification by works. Now it will be useful for us in this point to know whence justification comes. It comes from justice, tsedeck as the original [Hebrew] has it, and ‘to justify’; so that justification and righteousness depend one upon the other.
For what is justification but the manifestation of the righteousness that is in a man? and therefore in Gal. 3:21, they are put for one and the same thing: ‘For if there had been a Law given which could have given life, verily righteousness had been by the Law;’ that is, justification had been by the Law. Again, ‘If righteousness be by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain,’ Gal. 2. That is also: If justification had been by the Law, etc. justification is a manifestation of righteousness.
And as many ways as righteousness is taken, so many ways is justification, which is a declaration of righteousness; so that if there be a double righteousness, there must be also a double justification.
Beloved, I bring you no new doctrine; be not afraid of that; but I show you how to reconcile places of Scripture against the Church of Rome and those things which the Papists bring against us in this point. It stands by reason, seeing justification is a declaration of righteousness, that there must be so many sorts of justification as there be of righteousness.
Now there is a double sort of righteousness, Rom. 8:4, ‘That the righteousness of the Law may be fulfilled in us.’ See then there is a double righteousness: there is a righteousness fulfilled in us, and a righteousness fulfilled by us; that is walking in the Spirit. The righteousness fulfilled in us is fulfilled by another and is made ours by imputation; so we have a righteousness without us and a righteousness inherent in us; the righteousness without us is forgiveness of sins and pardon of them, which is a gracious act of God, letting fall all actions against me, and accounting of me as if I had never sinned against Him all my lifetime; then there is a righteousness within me, an inherent righteousness. And if a righteousness, then justification; for that is but a declaration of righteousness.
And so that which the Fathers call “justification” is taken generally for sanctification; that which we call “justification”, they call forgiveness of sins; that which we call “sanctification”, they call “justification”; so that the difference is only in the terms.
Justification we must know, is not taken only as opposed to condemnation, which is the first kind of righteousness: Rom. 6:7, ‘He that is dead, is freed from sin.’ If you look to the Greek or to the margin, it is, ‘He that is dead is justified from sin;’ this is not taken in the first sense as opposed to condemnation, but in the other sense as it has relation to final grace; The perfection of sanctification is wrought in me; for where there is final grace, there is a supersedeas from all sin; so Rev. 22:11, ‘Let him that is righteous, be righteous still;’ the Greek is, ‘Let him that is righteous, be justified still.’
See then the difference between Saint Paul and Saint James. Saint Paul speaks of that which consists in remission of sins, as in comparing the apostle with David will appear, ‘Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven.’ [Ps. 32:1] Saint James speaks of justification in the second acception.
You need not fly to that distinction of justification before God and justification before men; think not that Saint James speaks only of justification before men. Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac on the altar? [Gen. 22] What, justified by killing his son? this was a proper work indeed to justify him before man, to be a parricide; to kill his son, though it were not so before God. So Ps. 106, we read how God accounted the act of Phineas as for righteousness.
Thus you see how works are accounted righteousness in the second kind of righteousness. In the former righteousness we are justified by faith; for in righteousness inherent there is a goodly chain of virtues: ‘Add to your faith virtue,’ etc. Add one grace to another; add to virtue knowledge. Faith is but one part of the crown.
Now this justification in the first sense whereby my sins are forgiven is called the righteousness of God because of Christ which is God, because it is wrought by Christ, Dan. 9; He is called an everlasting righteousness, which continues forever world without end; for do not think the saints in Heaven have only the second kind of righteousness; for they have the same covering by justification by Christ in Heaven that they had before; God covers their sins not here only, but there also; justification follows them forever.”
.
16th Sermon, on Rom. 5:1
pp. 409-12
“Consider now what that justification is, that is obtained by this true lively faith; I showed unto you that justification is ordinarily taken for an acquittance from a debt. It is derived from “justice” or “righteousness”; therefore I showed that justification and righteousness are taken for one and the self-same thing; ‘For if there had been a Law given which could,’ etc. that is: justification had been by the Law.
Now as there is a double righteousness, so there is also a double justification. Not that I hold there is any other justification as it comprehends remission of sins, but only one, but otherways, as many righteousnesses as there are, so many justifications there are. Now there is a double kind of righteousness, the one imputed, and the other inherent; the one is the righteousness of Christ, an act transient from another, which cannot be made mine but by imputation. Besides this there is another which is inherent, a righteousness in us. St. James speaks of the one, and Saint John of the other. One is opposed to condemnation, and the other to hypocrisy. The soundness of the heart is respected of God for righteousness, in respect of the graces inherent in us.
Now to give you a touch of the difference between the one and the other, and therein to declare the difference between us and Rome: Know then that the question between us and Rome is not whether justification be by faith or no? But whether there be any such thing as justification or no? The doctrine of the Church of Rome is that there is no such grace as this.
But concerning the first of these, that justification which is by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, I showed unto you that imputation in this case is, as when a man comes to hold up his hand at God’s bar, as it were, and it’s demanded of him what he has to say for himself why he should not die, and then this justification by Christ’s righteousness is opposed to condemnation. Then justification by faith is that when I come to stand before God, though conscience say I am guilty of a thousand sins, yet I may go boldly and plead my pardon, which will acquit me as if I had never sinned at anytime.
God was thus in Christ reconciling us (the world) unto Himself, not imputing their sins unto them. Now sin is a thing past, which being done, cannot be made undone, the sin remains still; murder is murder still, and adultery is a∣dultery still; it cannot be undone again. Now how shall this man that is guilty of murder and adultery be made just? It cannot possibly be but by not imputing his sin unto him, so that God should account it to him as if it had not been done at all by him; He puts it upon Christ’s account;
‘Account’: The word is used in the epistle to Philemon, where St. Paul says, ‘If he has wronged thee, or owes thee ought, put that on mine account.’ A man’s sins being thus put upon Christ’s account, he is accepted of God as freely as if he had never owed him anything, or as if he had never offended Him. Now this is done by transferring the debt from one person to another; so that we see this imputation of sin to Christ, and of Christ’s righteousness to us is most necessary. It must be so: And if there were no testimony for it in Scripture, yet reason sheweth that there can be no righteousness but by God’s acceptation of us in Christ as if we had never sinned; there is the difference then. ‘To him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is accounted to him for righteousness.’
But does God justify the ungodly? That’s a hard speech; we read in the Proverbs:
‘He that justifieth the wicked, and condemneth the just, even they both are abo∣mination to the Lord.’
But here we must understand this as we do some other Scriptures; we read in John that the blind see, the lame walk, the dumb speak. It’s impossible for a man to be blind and see, to be dumb and speak all at once; yet take the chief of sinners, suppose Paul, and he was so in his own account; but the act of justification alters him. God justifies the ungodly, that is, him that was even now so; but by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness he is made righteous, that is, righteous in God’s account.”
.
pp. 421-23
“You may remember that I said (a word perhaps that some think much of) that the question betwixt us and Rome is not whether we be justified by faith or no? But whether we be justified at all; I will make it good. There are two graces, righteousness imputed, which implies forgiveness of sins; and righteousness inherent, which is that grace of sanctification begun.
They utterly deny that there is any righteousness but righteousness inherent. They say forgiveness of sins is nothing but sanctification. A new doctrine never heard of in the Church of God, till these last days, till the spawn of the Jesuits devised it.
Forgiveness of sin is this, that God will never charge me with it again. They say that forgiveness of sin is an abolishing of sin in the subject, where is true remission; as much as to say, There is no justification distinct from sanctification: whereas the apostle distinguishes them, when as he says, ‘The Son of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption’: ‘He is made unto us’ (of God). By the way let me expound it unto you. Christ has three offi∣ces; A Prophetical, Regal and Sacerdotical office…
The work of Christ’s priestly office is to be a propitiation for our sins; sanctification proceeds from the scepter of his kingdom: The one is without me, the other within me. The one receives degrees, the other not. As a man that is holy may be more holy; but imputed righteousness does not more forgive one man than another. Imputation is without augmentation or diminution. Those things which have diverse contraries, cannot be one and the same thing. Justification and sanctification have diverse contraries. The contrary to justification is condemnation; but the contrary to sanctifica∣tion is wickedness, and false-dealing, etc. Aristotle distinguishes homonymous words and bids you consider their contraries; thus you see the difference between these two.”
.
17th Sermon, on Rom. 5:1, pp. 427-34
“Then for the second thing concerning that justification that is obtained by faith. I showed you that the word ‘justification’ was derived from ‘justice’ or ‘righteousness’; and as many ways as justice and righteousness may be taken, so many ways may justification be taken: sometimes for justification of righteousness in a man, and sometimes it is opposed to condemnation; so it is taken in Saint Paul, and it signifies an acquittal; sometimes it is opposed to hypocrisy and pollution in a man’s soul; so it signifies sanctification, whereby God not only covers our sins past, but heals our natures.
The first is perfect, but imputed; the second inherent, but imperfect. When the time comes that God will finish his cure, He will then make a perfect cure; when final grace comes, we shall not need to think of a Popish purgatory. Death is the Lord’s refining pot; then there is not a jot of sin shall be left in a Christian. Now when God has taken away our dross, then to think we shall be put in a refining fire; that an entire soul that has no blot, that one that has no spot, should be purged after final grace has made him clear and whole, this is against reason and common sense. They might have learned better of their own Thomas; all the fire in the world will never put away sin without the infusion of grace. This by the way concerning them.
I showed besides, that these two being both righteousnesses, the Church of Rome confounds them both together: saint James’s justification with saint Paul’s. They confound inherent righteousness which is begun, and shall be perfected in final grace, with the other; so that the point is not between us and Rome whether faith justifies by works or no, but whether it justifies at all. In truth that is the state of it. The question is this, whether there be another justification that is distinguished from sanctification, or whether there be another grace besides justification.
Do not think that we are such blockheads as to deny faith and sanctification; yet faith is but a piece or part of that train of virtues. There justification is taken for sanctification. We acknowledge a man is justified by faith and works; but the question is between us and them, whether there be any justification besides sanctification (i.e., whether there be any justification at all or no). We say sanctification is wrought by the kingly office of Christ; He is a king that rules in our hearts, subdues our corruptions, governs us by the scepter of his Word and Spirit; but it is the fruit of his priestly office which the Church of Rome strikes at: (i.e.) Whether Christ has reserved another righteousness for us, besides that which as a king He works in our hearts; whether He has wrought forgiveness of sins for us?
We say He has, and so says all the Church, till the new spawn of Jesuits arose. They do not distinguish remission of sins from sanctification. Bellarmine says remission of sins is the extinguishing of sin in the soul; as water, though it is cold, yet the bringing in of heat extinguishes the cold; and so remission of sins is the bringing in of inherent righteousness which extinguishes all sin which was before. A strange thing, and were it not that the Scripture speaks of a cup in the hand of the Harlot of Rome, whereby she makes drunk the inhabitants of the earth with the wine of her fornications—except men were drunk, it were impossible that a learned man should thus set forth an article of their creed which has ever been believed by all the churches.
When the Scripture speaks of forgiveness of sins, see how it expresses it, Eph. 4:32: “Be ye kind one to another, brethren, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake has forgiven you.” Observe, in the Lord’s Prayer, we pray that the Lord would forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us. Let him that has common understanding judge: do we forgive our neighbors by extinguishing sin in the subject? I forgive you; (i.e.) I take away the ill office you did me—does He forgive thus? Alas, no! Forgiveness is without a man. I have an action against you, perhaps an action at law; I will let fall my suit, my charges I will forgive—this is forgiveness. God justifies, who shall condemn? Though God has just cause to proceed against me as a rebel, yet He is content to let fall his action, to fasten it upon the cross of his Son, there to fix the chirographum, the handwriting against us. He will let fall that which was the ground of a suit against us, all that he could say against us.
That you may understand the matter better, there are two things, two kinds of righteousness: the one of justification, the other of sanctification. The Holy Ghost distinguishes them by several terms (1 Cor. 1:30): “Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.” You see here are two distinct graces, righteousness and sanctification; they make them but one—sanctification and remission of sins. Moreover:
“whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.”
Here sanctification is nothing else but inchoate glorification; for Saint Paul speaks of a thing past, not of the glory to come. For what is the glory we shall have in heaven but the enlargement of those inherent graces God begins in this world? Here is the seed, there is the crop; here you have a little knowledge, but there it shall be enlarged; now you have a little joy, there you shall enter into your Master’s joy; here some knowledge, but there you shall have a full knowledge, and a full measure. Here glory dwells in our land, but there we shall with open face behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and be changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord (2 Cor. 3:18); that is, we are more and more conformed to the image of Almighty God by obedience and holy qualities infused into us, so that we grow from one degree of sanctification to another. And so you see how these are distinguished by their terms: justification and glorification, justification and sanctification.
There is another place in Saint John, a difficult one; but yet, as I take it, these two righteousnesses, though bearing the same name, are distinct in their terms. It is said (Jn. 16:8) that ‘when the Spirit shall come, He shall convince the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment.’ Thus I say it should be translated, for it makes no sense to say that God shall reprove the world of righteousness. As for the occasion of these words, we need not now speak; but “righteousness and judgment” signify justification and sanctification. The meaning is this: when the Spirit shall come—not upon me or you, but that Spirit which should come upon the apostles, beginning at the day of Pentecost—they should go forth like twelve champions to conquer the world and bring it under the scepter of Christ. He shall convince the world; that is, when the Spirit comes upon you, and your tongues are touched with that spiritual fire, which shall be active, it shall convince the world concerning three things: sin, righteousness, and judgment—of the humiliation for sin, of justification by imputed righteousness, and of the glory of sanctification in judgment, that is, inherent righteousness. This method Saint Paul uses in the Romans to stop every man’s mouth.
First he convinces the gentile, which was easy to do; afterward he convinces the Jew, that there is righteousness to be had in another, though none in myself. To be shut up under unbelief is to be convinced of all sins. Consider the nature of unbelief: it fastens all sins upon a man; and when I have faith, all my sins are put out of possession—they are as if they were not; but if we are shut up under unbelief, we are dead.
The second work of God’s Spirit is, by the ministry of the Word, to convince the world that there is righteousness to be had by communion with another; though we are guilty in ourselves, yet He will set us free; and the reason is, “because I go to my Father.” That is, though you are convinced of your sins, that you are wholly dead in trespasses and sins and have no means to remove them, yet the second work of God’s Spirit is to convince of righteousness—that there is a righteousness to be had in Christ, because He was our surety, arrested for our debt, and committed to prison where He could not come out until He had paid the utmost farthing. There is a justification to be had in me: I go to the creditor; I have made no escape—not like one who broke prison and fled—but I am now a free man. I have not escaped before the debt was paid, for then I might be brought back again; but the debt is discharged, and therefore I go to my Father to maintain my place and standing. I was delivered unto death for your sins, but I am risen again for your justification, and now sit at my Father’s right hand.
But is there not a third thing which the ministry must accomplish? Yes, to convince the world that there is judgment, that is, inherent righteousness. Scripture often joins righteousness and judgment together. “The words of the Lord are righteousness and judgment.” And the integrity of a man’s heart, opposed to hypocrisy, is called judgment; as in Job 27:2: “As God lives, who has taken away my judgment.” How did God take away his judgment? Not that he took away his reason, but that he allowed his friends to conceive him a hypocrite. Therefore he says (v. 6), “My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go; my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.” His “judgment” was taken away—that is, the reputation of his integrity.
This also explains Mt. 12:20: “A bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, until He bring forth judgment unto victory.” This “judgment” signifies those inherent graces, those infused qualities God places in the heart of a Christian. In a man’s first conversion there are but beginnings of grace: faith, hope, patience, and fear are like smoking flax—like the smoking wick of a candle, now burning, now dim, so that you cannot tell whether it lives or dies. So in early conversion faith and unbelief, hope and despair, rise and fall together; there is conflict. But He will not cease until He brings forth judgment, until He gives victory over the flesh. And why? Because the god of this world is judged. He shall convince the world of inherent righteousness, in spite of the Devil, because he is condemned. He that once worked in the children of disobedience is cast down; the strong man is cast out. Therefore, besides the grace of justification following upon Christ’s death, there is another: the Devil shall be dispossessed; though strong in working evil, he shall be disarmed; he shall not touch you; the wicked one shall not harm you.”
.
Ludovicus de Dieu
Animadversions on Romans… to which is added, a Gleaning on the rest of the same Apostle’s, as well as the Catholic Epistles (Leiden: Elzeviers, 1646) de Dieu (1590-1642) was a Dutch reformed minister and a leading orientalist.
on Rom. 8:4, pp. 67-73
“Verse 4. ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν. Beza: “that that right of the law might be fulfilled in us.” The Vulgate and Erasmus, “the justification of the law.” just as above 5:18, δι’ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος Beza himself translated, “by one justification.” and Apoc. 19:8, τὰ δικαιώματα τῶν ἁγίων “the justifications of the saints.” The Syriac, “the justice of the law:” which the Arabic also follows.
The matter comes to almost the same thing. The right, justice, justification of the law consists in this, that through complete conformity with the law we may be held just and blameless before God. This could not be obtained while sin lived and reigned through the law, but with sin condemned in the flesh of Christ, and the law itself approving this condemnation, through the full conformity of Christ our head with the Law, we are held just and blameless in the same head, with the Law confessing it; and not only this, but so that the members may be conformed to the head, from Him flows into us the Spirit of regeneration, who also in us ourselves perfects the justification of the Law. He so regenerates us that with our mind we delight in the law of God, and what sin remains in the flesh, He so gradually abolishes, that at length we are to be acknowledged by the Law itself without any spot or blemish. This entire righteousness therefore, both imputed, which we have by faith in Christ our head, and inherent, which we have by regeneration in ourselves, is indeed the righteousness of the Law, but neither is from the Law, nor through the Law: but both are from the blood and Spirit of Christ.
And the first is indeed that of which Rom. 4:11; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9, by which God, although in ourselves we are still unconformed to the Law, yet fully, by the testimony of the Law itself, justifies us, and holds us as completely conformed to it in Christ our head; about which justification the apostle has disputed at length above in chs. 3-5.
The other is that of which Rom. 6:13; Eph. 4:24; 1 Jn. 3:7, by which God, through regeneration, having conformed us in part to the Law in ourselves, now justifies us in part, and day by day justifies us more and more, as regeneration increases, and will justify fully, when perfection comes; about which justification it is treated in James 2:21, 24; Apoc. 22:11; Mt. 12:37; 1 Kn. 8:32. The works of the Law enter into this justification, indeed, they alone constitute it, just as faith alone constitutes the first, that is the righteousness of Christ imputed by faith, not works: so works, not faith, constitute the other.
Yet it is not therefore from the Law, but from grace. For the Law does not admit it from the authority of its own power, which can praise nothing but what is perfectly holy, but from the authority of the grace of Christ, to which the Law is now a handmaid, and by whose command it praises even the imperfect works of the faithful, approves them, and holds them as conformed to itself; which grace we indeed embrace by faith, and by that faith are made ready and eager to give diligence to the righteousness of the Law; yet not properly faith, but works constitute that second righteousness.
There is therefore a twofold justification. One by which we, sinners in ourselves, are justified before God outside of us. The other, by which, having been justified before God outside of us, we are justified before Him in us. The first of these is the cause of the second; the second is the effect and demonstration of the first. The first is accomplished by faith, the other by works. Both must concur for the justification of the Law to be completed in us.
Will you not then say, is there not a certain justification from the Law, if it is from the works of the Law? There is not, I say. Because the works of which we speak, although they are of the Law with respect to the norm they follow, or that they are prescribed by the Law, yet with respect to their origin and the virtue from which they proceed, they are not of the Law, but of grace and of the Spirit. Most importantly, however, because those are said to be justified by the Law who are justified by works, as from a fulfilled condition of the Covenant, which happens only then, when the works correspond to the Law with complete perfection. For then the Law justifies the man, just as a husband justifies a wife who has never violated her faith to him: for as that justification of the wife proceeds from the conjugal right: so from a similar right, which in the Covenant of Works God established between his Law and man, proceeds the justification of that man who has kept his faith to the Law inviolate. But he who was before a Covenant-breaker towards the Law, and then joined to a new husband, namely Christ, by conjugal right, now lives indeed according to the Law, but yet with many defects; the Law admits his righteousness, not because it owes it from conjugal right, but from its ministerial office, by which, having been made a servant of our husband, it approves what proceeds from his Spirit, even if imperfect.
Let us treat more fully of this second species of justification. It is that by which God, from the regeneration given to us, and the works of sincere faith which we have produced, absolves us from the crime of hypocrisy, profanity and impiety, and no longer holds us as dead in sins, servants of the Devil and sons of the world, but as truly faithful, his sons, restored to his image, endowed with his life and translated into his kingdom; which judgment of God the Law also approves. Not that it considers itself satisfied by our works, but because, deprived of its own dominion and subjected to Christ our Lord, it cannot but praise the works which proceed from faith in Christ and from his Spirit, and, although imperfect, hold them for true righteousness, and those who perform them for truly just and sons pleasing to God.
Let it be inquired here, since Scripture frequently and openly attributes to us both kinds of righteousness of which we have spoken, and therefore for the reason of both we are to be considered just, not only before men, but also before God, whether not, in the sense that we are said to be justified by works in James 2 and to be justified by our words in Mt. 12, our works can be said to be imputed to us for righteousness; not indeed as faith is imputed to us for righteousness, but as the deed of Phinehas is said to have been imputed to him for righteousness, Ps. 106:31.
For the imputation for righteousness, by which the obedience which Christ performed for us is held as ours, and thence we unjust and sinners are absolved from the vengeance of an angry God, is one thing. There, faith alone embracing that obedience is imputed for righteousness. The imputation of righteousness, by which the works of piety which proceed from us, justified by faith and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, although imperfect and deserving of blame and rejection, are yet held by God through grace for Christ’s sake, as good, holy and just, and thence we are absolved from the charge of wickedness and fraud, and compared with the impious and profane, are justified as upright, is another thing. Here works are also imputed for righteousness, just as the deed of Phineas, which otherwise being done without a calling, and therefore seemed blameworthy and to be disapproved, is said to have been imputed to him for righteousness, because it was attributed to him as a good, holy and praiseworthy work.
I am pleased to set these things forth in the very words of the great Calvin, Institutes, bk. 3. ch. 17, sect. 8. “It is one thing,” he says:
“to dispute what works are worth in themselves, another in what place they are to be held after the righteousness of faith has been established. If a price is to be set for works according to their dignity, we say they are unworthy to come into the sight of God: therefore man has nothing of works by which to glory before God. Thence, stripped of all aid of works, he is justified by faith alone. With the remission of sins presupposed, the good works which now follow have a different estimation than from their own merit: because whatever in them is imperfect is covered by the perfection of Christ.
Therefore, with the guilt of all transgressions by which men are hindered from bringing forth anything pleasing to God being obliterated, and the fault of imperfection, which is wont to defile even good works, being buried: the good works which are done by the faithful are judged just: or (which is the same thing) are imputed for righteousness.”
Thus far he.
Hence, furthermore, these distinctions arise: That the imputation of faith is for perfect righteousness, such as is the obedience of Christ. The imputation of works, for imperfect righteousness, such as are the works themselves in this life. In the former, the rigor of the law is satisfied; in the latter, the Law, having become an instrument of grace, condescends and accommodates itself to us. That imputation is the cause of the remission of sins; this is not so, since it would have no place unless sins were first remitted. In the former, the sinner is absolved from guilt; in the latter, the pious is distinguished from the impious. For although the object of both is one and the same man, there, however, he is considered as impious; to whom believing in Christ, God remits sins, Rom. 4:5. Here as pious, whom, living among the impious, and at some time to appear with them before the tribunal of God, he pronounces and will pronounce from works of piety an heir of his kingdom, Mt. 25:34-35. In the former, God passes judgment on the price of his Son’s blood, how much it is worth for us before Him. In the latter, He passes judgment on the gift of regeneration conferred on us, of what sort, namely, He holds us on that account.
Furthermore, the Papists also posit two justifications, a first and a second. The first is that by which we first from unjust become inherently just in ourselves, and therefore dear to God. The second, by which, having been made just in this way, we are advanced more and more in that righteousness, and therefore in the love of God towards us; which both differ from ours by the whole heaven. Both of theirs rest on our merit, and the first indeed on congruent merit, the other on condign. Both of ours rest on the sole merit of Christ and his grace. Both of theirs consist in inherent holiness. The first of ours, in the remission of sins through the imputed obedience of Christ. The other, in the judgment of God, by which, overlooking the defects of our works for Christ’s sake, He holds them as just and conformed to his Law, and thence pronounces us piously just, according to the saying of 1 Jn. 3:7, “He who does righteousness is righteous.”
The foundation of which second justification is indeed the righteousness inherent in us, but not by virtue of its own dignity, or of a holiness proportionate to the just Law of God, but by virtue of the imputed righteousness of Christ, from which it flows and on whose grace it entirely rests. For being stained with not a few defects, it deprecates the judgment of an angry God; having been reconciled, it does not flee him, who holding his faithful as just in Christ, because He has imputed the righteousness of Christ to them, also holds them and wishes them to be held as just in themselves, because He has regenerated them by his Spirit, by whose power they give diligence to righteousness.
The apostle asserts in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 that neither the unjust, nor fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor those who lie with males, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will be heirs of the kingdom of God from these crimes; therefore Christians must be justified, that is, pronounced innocent, if they are to be saved. And the apostle affirms that this has already been done: “You were,” he says, “some of these things: but you have been washed,” that is, cleansed from these filthinesses: “but you have been sanctified,” that is, separated from such impurities: “but you have been justified,” that is, you are held innocent, so that you can no longer be accused of these crimes; and this “in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” I understand this of the second justification, by which those who were previously held by these crimes, now being regenerated in the name of Christ and by the Spirit of God, could no longer be accused of them, but had to be absolved therefrom.
This is the very thing the apostle said above in Rom. 6:7, “He who has died, δεδικαίωται, has been justified from sin,” that is, so freed from it, that he can no longer be accused as a servant of sin since he is to be held not as a friend but as a hater of sin. Where again it is to be noted that the first justification is from sins of which we are guilty: but the second from those of which we are not guilty. When someone has committed a sin, he is guilty, nor is he justified therefrom; that is, he is not absolved from its guilt except through the remission of sins, which is from faith alone. But I give you a regenerate man, who, though before regeneration was a drunkard, a fornicator, etc. from the time of regeneration, has ceased from these sins. He, surely, by the very fact that he has ceased, cannot be accused of them as before, having been justified. Therefore he is justified from them, that is, absolved from things not perpetrated; and this justification is truly from works. Because he has lived soberly and chastely, he must absolutely be justified from drunkenness and fornication.
But you will say, ‘David after his regeneration committed adultery.’ I answer: The guilt of that sin was blotted out by the first justification from faith alone, nor could he in any way have been justified from it by the second, because, since he had perpetrated adultery, God could not pronounce that he had not perpetrated it; but with repentance added, he was justified from hardness and servitude to sin by the second justification from the work of repentance itself. For if you compare Saul with David: both sin. But Saul, being impenitent, is accused and condemned for hardness from the work of impenitence. David, being penitent, is absolved from that fault from the work of repentance, since he is not guilty of it.
To this second species of justification belongs what is usually called in the schools, “justification of the cause,” as when David, from the accusations and criminations of his enemies, appeals to the tribunal of God, he there professes his innocence, probity, the pursuit of faith and piety, and subjecting his heart to the examination of God Himself, he asks that his cause be tried by God, and that he be rewarded according to his justice: not only his cause, of course, but also himself; falsely accused by the impious, he asks to be justified by God.
Thus God justified Job, when, vindicating him from the crimes unjustly imputed to him by his friends, he says that Job spoke more rightly of him than they, nor would he be placated with them except by his intercession, Job 42:8. Especially indeed, when in ch. 1:7, 9-11, the Devil had calumniated Job before God as if he followed God only for the sake of gain, with a mercenary love. God justifies his servant against that calumny in ch. 2:3, saying, “He still holds fast his integrity, although you moved me against him to destroy him without cause.” And there justification is sought for Job from works, because he is still blameless and upright, fearing God and turning away from evil. The matter still stands the same way with all the faithful. For since the Devil is said to be the accuser of the brethren, accusing them before God day and night, Apoc. 12:10, and not only before God, but also often in our own consciences, which He not rarely undermines and shakes with the suspicion of hypocrisy, as if we professed faith and piety with a less than sincere, indeed, a feigned mind, we surely have need to be absolved from this accusation and to be justified from this false testimony before God, which is certainly something other than being absolved and justified from the guilt of all our sins, by which we are bound over to wrath and the just judgment of God. This belongs to the first justification and is accomplished only by faith in Christ. The other belongs to the second, and seeks aid from works.
Let the kind reader, I beseech him, compare this our opinion with that which is extant in the other Colloquy of Ratisbon, where that great light of the Church, Martin Bucer, speaks thus on the passage of James (p. 302):
“To be justified by faith, which is the first and vital justification, James has interpreted as being called a friend of God, that is, with sins forgiven, to be reconciled with God and to be received by Him into grace and friendship, who before was an enemy of God and a son of wrath. But to be justified by works, he taught is the same as to receive from God, on account of good works, which Abraham and Rahab received from Him, that is, approbation, praise and remuneration.”
He adds on p. 308:
“We had said, following the apostle and all Scripture, that there is a twofold righteousness of the saints by which they are just before God and men. One is Christ’s, perfect, on which all their hope of God’s grace and salvation and eternal life entirely rests.
The other is begun in them by the Spirit of Christ, in which they ought not to trust, because it is always imperfect while they live here and cannot be approved by God except out of his liberal and infinite mercy and the merit of Christ. By this righteousness no one is justified before God with the justification of life.”
Then on p. 313:
“We feel that this inchoate righteousness is indeed a true and living righteousness, a splendid and excellent gift of God, and that the new life in Christ consists in this righteousness, and that all saints are just by this very righteousness also, both before God and before men; and on account of it the saints are also justified by God with a justification of works, that is, they are approved by God, praised and rewarded. However, although this righteousness is true and living, and in its own way also justifying, yet it is not of such a kind, not so true, living, and solid, that any of the saints could be justified by it with the justification of life, much less that it be the righteousness or justification of life itself.”
This opinion was both approved and illustrated in theses, publicly edited, which he analytically collected from the 2nd chapter of the Epistle of James, by the most learned and renowned man, my uncle, preceptor and colleague, and therefore to be respected by me for many reasons, D. Daniel Colonius, Regent of the Gallo-Belgic College. So that we may say it in a few words: Justification by works is nothing other than what the renowned Calvin says, explaining the passage in Acts 10:35, where whoever fears God and works righteousness is said to be accepted by God, Institutes, bk. 3, ch. 17, sect. 5:
“that the faithful are approved by God also with respect to their works: because the Lord cannot but love and kiss the good things which He effects in them by his Spirit.;and therefore his sons, in whom He sees the marks and lineaments of his face, are pleasing and lovable to God.”
.
on James 2:24, p. 215
“Verse 24, ‘You see therefore, that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?’ This passage is easily reconciled with those things which Paul seems to argue to the contrary everywhere, if we establish, which is most true, that the apostle James is not dealing here with one single justification, which is accomplished partly by faith, partly by works, but with two distinct ones, of which the former is from faith and from faith only; the latter is from works.
For since a twofold accusation is brought against the faithful, one from God, the law and conscience, by which they are held guilty of many sins; the other from the Devil and the wicked, by whom they are falsely accused of hypocrisy, a mercenary spirit, impiety and heinous crimes, a twofold justification is required:
One by which, though truly sinners in themselves, they are absolved freely for Christ’s sake from the guilt of their sins, which justification is by faith alone without works.
The other, by which, as truly sanctified and regenerated, they are absolved from those false accusations of the Devil and the wicked, which justification is sought from works.
James urges that both must be joined, and therefore that man is not justified by faith only, but also by works. That is, it is not sufficient that he be justified by faith from the sins he has committed, but it is further required that he be justified also by works from the sins of which he is falsely accused, and from which he is immune through regeneration.”
.
William Forbes
Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), vol. 1, bk. 2, ch. 4
“…for through the merit of Christ we are both in this world not only forgiven our sins (which in their opinion [the ‘more rigid’ protestants] is the whole of our justification) but also in an inchoate degree made just (which in truth is the other part of our justification); and moreover, in the future life, the solemn sentence of our absolution from sins will be pronounced, and we shall be constituted and made perfectly just.
The apostle, therefore, has used the verb not in the present, but in the future tense [Rom. 5:19], that he might signify both the beginning, and the summit and perfection, of the work. Nay, Chamier affirms (Panstratia, Of Justification, bk. 21, ch. 2, no. 5) that ‘there is nothing to prevent us from understanding the proposition that ‘through the obedience of Christ they will be made just,’ so as to mean, they will be just before God, not by their own, but by Christ’s imputed justice.’ It is in vain, therefore, that this word ‘they will be made’ [καθίστημι] is so wretchedly urged and twisted by those who think differently, in order altogether to exclude our sanctification, begun in this life, from the benefit and essence of justification.
Piscator thinks (On Rom. 5:19, p. 462, col. 2), that ‘the apostle purposely used the verb in the future tense for the sake of those who then were (and even now are) yet to believe.’ the apostle in the same chapter uses the verb ‘we shall be saved’ in the future tense, ‘Much more, then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved, etc.,’ (5:9-10) ‘Much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved, etc.,’ although as many as believe in Christ with a living faith, are in this world saved (i.e. preserved) from the hostile and exterminating wrath of God, when they sin from human infirmity, and in the future will be entirely freed from all his wrath.
…
8. Nay, that whenever the Scripture makes mention of the justification of the sinner before God (as the blessed Paul speaks, and after him St. Augustine very often, besides others), the word ‘to justify’ necessarily signifies not only to pronounce just, after the forensic manner, but also truly and inherently to make just, appears from this, that God justifies the sinner in [an] other wise [way] than do earthly judges. For He, when He justifies the man who is a sinner and unjust, pronounces him just indeed, as do they; but by pronouncing him just, He at the same time (inasmuch as his judgment is according to truth) makes him, from unjust, truly just, which they cannot do. Wherefore ‘men who justify the wicked are abominable to God’ (Prov. 17:15); but God, when He justifies the sinner, is worthy of all praise.
The more rigid Protestants here answer that ‘God indeed both justifies us and makes us just, but that He does not justify us in that He makes us just, nay, that He first justifies us, and then makes us just,’ as Chamier says (Panstratia, Of Justification, bk. 21, ch. 5, n. 25): this is the opinion of others also. But let them take care, lest by this excessive, nay, idle subtlety, wholly unknown to the Scriptures and Fathers, they diminish and take away the importance and dignity of a divine benefit so great and so highly celebrated in the Scripture; I mean, the justification of the wicked. For if justi-faction (so to speak), or the making just, does not at all pertain to the formal cause of the justification of the wicked; then in the justification in the sinner, although he be justified, I say, the stain of sin is not taken away, but still inheres in his soul, as it did before justification; and thus, notwithstanding the gracious gift of justification, he remains as before, unjust and a sinner; and nothing is removed but the liability or obligation to punishment and the offendedness and enmity of God, by the non-imputation of his sins.
The Scriptures, however, as also the Fathers, affirm that in the justification of the sinner not only are his sins forgiven, pardoned, covered, not imputed; but also that they are taken away, blotted out, cleansed, washed away, purged, removed very far from us, etc., as is certain from very many passages in Holy Scripture: so that, after justification, no stain whatever of mortal or heinous sin remains in the soul of the sinner; which never ordinarily happens without the infusion of inherent grace.
‘The liability to punishment and the offendedness of God might indeed be taken away without the infusion of justice,’
as Bellarmine rightly lays down (Of Justification, bk. 2, ch. 16, sect. Reatus poenae, etc.),
‘for nothing seems to hinder but that God should be able to will to non-ordain to punishment, and to pardon the offense, and to not account him an enemy to whom He has not granted the gift of habitual justice; nevertheless… without this gift ordinarily they are not taken away, etc.’
Nay, ‘it is probable,’ as Fr. Sylvius a Brania rightly determines (3rd part of Thomas, quest. 86, art. 2, concl. 3-4, n. 2, p. 146),
“that by the absolute power of God,’ even ‘such a stain could be taken away without the infusion of justifying grace, because the state of grace and the state of sin, simply speaking, are mediated contraries. For whoever should be put in a state of pure nature would be in a middle state; and as God can create any one in that state (i.e. that of nature), so also He can place in it one who was not created in it. But if sin were so taken away from any one, he would be neither the friend of God, not acceptabel to Him to the end of obtaining life eternal, nor an enemy, but mediate between them; and the stain itself would be blotted out not by the introduction of a contrary positive, but by a simple abolition,’ as he says; yet ‘ordinarily the forgiveness of sins, and the bestowal of grace through which the stain of sin is blotted out, are always joined together.'”
.
“10. What all the more rigid Protestants affirm for certain, that God, though not in time, yet in the order of nature, first justifies the sinner, or forgives his sins, and afterwards makes him just, or sanctifies him, let them look well to it, I pray, lest perchance they too audaciously and rashly define the order of the divine actions, which has not been manifestly revealed in the Scriptures.
In the [Romanist] schools themselves there has been no small contention on this subject, nor is it yet decided: ‘Whether the infusion of grace,’ says [Thomas] Stapleton (Of Justification, bk. 5, ch. 8, sect. Rursum),
‘precedes the forgiveness of sins in the order of nature, as St. Thomas lays down… or whether the contrary be true, as others most strenuously maintain, is rather a scholastic question than one now-a-days controverted, and is one on which neither formerly nor now has the Church defined anything on either side.’
The moderation of Theodore Beza in this matter, in other respects sufficiently rigid, is much to be approved of. He thus writes (Demonstrations against Flacius Illyricus and his Apology, sect. 22, Rursum quaero, tome 2, p. 218 (or p. 171)):
‘If you take justification in a general sense, as it is sometimes used by the apostle, sanctification will not be an effect, but a part or species of it; but if merely for the gift of imputed justice, or the gratuitous forgiveness of sins, than sanctification will be another gift, which always follows that first gift, since whoever is justified gratis in Christ is also sanctified by His Spirit… Nor need we here contend much which of the two precedes in order, since in one and the same moment Christ… justifies us, and by his Spirit begins to sanctify us.’
and (p. 237, sect. 23, Praeterea quum (or p. 185)):
‘When I had said what is quite true, that, provided it is allowed that we must first of all be made partakers of Christ Himself, that in Him we may be justified and sanctified, we need not labor much to find which of these two precedes in order.
lIllyricus brings forward against me Calvin, who says (Antidote to the Council of Trent, sess. 6, sect. Neque tamen interea, tome 8, p. 241) that, ‘as soon as any one is justified, renewal also necessarily follows.’ But Calvin here refuting the decisions of the Council of Trent, by which justification is confounded with the gift of sanctification, is not disputing about the order or series of these two, but of their connection; and therefore says, that ‘if anyone is justified renewal also follows, i.e., that it is necessarily concluded that, if any one be justified, he may also be said to be sanctified.
But, I pray you, if I say, ‘If anyone lives, it follows that he is endowed with a soul,’ will it be rightly concluded from thence that I make the being endowed with a soul something posterior to life?’
and (p. 238 (or p. 186) around the end, sect. Ego vero inhabitationem)
‘I say that we are simultaneously justified and renewed in Christ, united and applied to us by faith; and I think that we need not trouble ourselves in anyway to determine whether this one or that precedes in order, since we never receive the one without the other, etc.’
Would that this moderation were religiously followed, not only by the more rigid Protestants, but also by very many other theologians of both parties, who now-a-days excite so many and so great disturbanees in the Church about the mode and order of the divine operations.
11. There are also many other arguments taken from Scripture by which it may be proved that sanctification, and not merely the forgiveness of sins, pertains to justification; for instance, that by justification we are not only freed from the punishment due to our sins, but also obtain eternal glory (‘Whom He justified, them He also glorified, etc.’), that we are made friends of God, sons by adoption, beloved, heirs of the Heavenly kingdom, etc., as the Scriptures everywhere testify.
All which are not given, nor indeed while the common principles of law stand, could be given by forgiveness of sins alone, without sanctifying grace. Romanists strongly urge these reasons, and some others also; nor is anything solidly answered by those who think otherwise (Pareus (on Bellarmine, Justification, bk. 2, ch. 6, pp. 446-53), Chamier (Panstratia, On Justification, bk. 21, ch. 15, n. 47 ff.) and others), of which let the candid reader who is skilled in these matters judge.”
.
Anthony Burgess
The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted & Vindicated... (London: Miller, 1651), Lecture 1, pp. 6-8
“First, the word [justificare] does imply an accounting just: And this is acknowledged by the Papists themselves as more frequent though they plead much for such a sense as to make just. Now the truth is there needs not much quarrel even about that signification, though the Scripture does not manifest it: For we confess that he is made just, who is justified, and that not only in respect of the inward renovation of a man, but also in respect of justification; for God does not account him just who is not so, and certainly to esteem a man just without righteousness, is as absurd as to account a man learned without learning, or the wall white without whiteness; only we say this righteousness that does to make a man just, is not inherent in him, but reckoned to him by the satisfaction of another: for a man is accounted righteous two ways, either when he is not guilty of the crime charged upon him, or when he does make satisfaction; and in this latter sense by Christ we become righteous.
2. So that if the word should signify as much as to make righteous, as to sanctify does signify to make holy, still we could grant it, though not in the Popish way; and indeed the apostle, Rom. 5, says many are made righteous by the second Adam, which if not meant of inherent holiness, does imply that the righteousness we have by Christ is not merely declarative, but also constitutive; and indeed one is in order before the other, for a man must be righteous before he can be pronounced or declared so to be. But the Hebrew word does not signify this sense primarily; for whereas the Hebrew word in [the tense] qal does signify to be righteous by a positive quality; The word in hiphil, according to that rule in grammar, signifies to attribute and account this righteousness unto a man by some words, or other testimony, even as the word that in qal signifies to be wicked, does in hiphil signify to condemn and judge a man as wicked, so that there are these two things in justifying, whereof one is the ground of the other, first to make righteous, and then to pronounce or declare so.
From these two follows a third, which is to deal with a man so justified as a just man, so that condemnation, crimes, reproach and fear shall be taken away from him. This declares the admirable benefit of being justified before God, for when this is done, Rom. 5:1, we have peace with God, Eph. 3, we come with boldness into his presence, and open face; so that unbelief and slavish fears in the godly are great enemies to this grace of justification; yea, they are a reproach and dishonor to it. Thou thinkest if thy heart were not conscious to sin, if nothing but holiness were in thee, thou wouldest be bold, thou wouldst not fear or be troubled, but thou dost not consider that God walks towards thee as a righteous man, looks upon thee as so, so that if Christ be bold thou mayst, if God will not reject Christ, or thy sins cannot condemn Him, so neither will God reject thee, or shall thy sins overwhelm thee; this is the sweet consolation of the Gospel, to a sinner broken-hearted, who would give a world for a perfect righteousness to make him accepted.”
.
Edward Leigh
A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 7, ch. 6, Of Justification, pp. 517-18 Leigh, though he says what he says below, nor Davenant, who is referenced, evidences a twofold justification as such.
“We do not deny (as the Papists falsely slander us) all inherent righteousness, 2 Cor. 5:17, nor all justification before God by inherent righteousness, 1 Kn. 8:32 [“Then hear thou in heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness.”].
But this we teach, that this inherent righteousness is not that righteousness whereby any poor sinner in this life can be justified before God’s Tribunal, for which he is pronounced to be innocent, absolved from death and condemnation, and adjudged unto eternal life.
…
Whether inherent justice be actual or habitual?
Bishop Davenant, ch. 3, Of Habitual Righteousness, says a certain habitual or inherent justice is infused into all that are justified, Jn. 1:13; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; 1 Cor. 6:11, 19; 2 Pet. 1:4.
All those that are justified do supernatural works; Therefore, it is certain that they are endued with supernatural grace and holiness. We are said to be righteous, from this inherent justice we are said to be just, and that by God Himself, Gen. 6:9; Heb. 11:4; Lk. 1:61 & 2:25; 1 Pet. 4:18.”
.
Richard Baxter
R. Baxter’s Sense of the Subscribed [Anglican, 39] Articles of Religion (London: Cox, 1689), 11th Article, Of the Justification of Man, pp. 7-8
“Article 11, ‘We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and not for our own works or deservings: wherefore that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, etc.’
Exposition: Though he that does righteousness is righteous, and the Scripture throughout and frequently mentions an inherent personal righteousness necessary to salvation, yet this is no universal righteousness, nor such as will justify us according to the Law of Innocency or Works; but is merely subordinate to the merit and efficacy of the sacrifice and righteousness of Christ, which only merits for us as a price, our faith being only the requisite (yet given) moral qualification for the reception of the free gift of pardon, justification and adoption, and has not the least part of the office or honor of Christ;
yet are Christ’s words true, that by men’s words they shall be justified or condemned: And all men shall be judged according to their works: And James truly says that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only: Not by works of perfection or of Moses’s Law, nor any that as a price or commutation do make the reward to be of debt, and not of grace; but by a practical faith or Christianity: such acts as faith it self is, and prove our belief to be such as Christ has promised justification and salvation to; such as by justifying belief to be sincere, do justify the person against the charge of infidelity, hypocrisy, impenitence and ungodliness, Christianity is that faith which Paul opposes to works.”
.
Richard Baxter’s Confession of his Faith… (London: 1655), ch. 3, pp. 56-57
“The sum of my doctrine which I bring them [Scriptures] to confirm, I contract into these heads.
1. That faith justifies not as an instrumental efficient cause, but as conditio applicans et disponens, the applying and disposing condition: its applicatory nature being the aptitude to the office, and its being the condition of the promise being the formal or nearest reason of its interest.
2. That repentance is conditio disponens, a dispositive condition of our first justification.
3. That Covenant-keeping by sincere love, thankfulness and obedience to God▪ Redeemer is a condition of the continuing, or not-losing our state of justification.
4. That the renewal of our faith and repentance, upon our lapses into discerned wounding sins, is a condition of the particular pardon of those sins, and our discharge or justification from the guilt of them.
5. That all the foresaid conditions, faith, repentance, love, thankfulness, sincere obedience, together with final perseverance, do make up the condition of our final absolution in judgment, and our eternal glorification.
6. That in the Day of Judgement, seeing we must be Judged by the Gospel or New Covenant, and it will be no small part of the work of the day to enquire whether we have performed the conditions of that Covenant which gives us Christ, and life and pardon, or not; we must therefore against the accusation of non-performance (real or supposed) be justified by our own performance as our particular righteousness: and this is the judging or jusiifying us according to our works, which Scripture mentions. And upon this will our universal and final justification depend, as upon its condition. And therefore whoever will be justified at that day, must have a Justitia prolegalis or a righteousness of remission of sin through the blood of Christ, to plead against the Law, and also a personal evangelical righteousness, consisting in a performance of the conditions of the Gospel or new Covenant, which is the condition of our interest in the first; or else he cannot be justified (yet is this latter but subordinate to the former, as to that sentential absolution).
7. Seeing this twofold righteousness is necessary to our justification in judgment, therefore it must needs follow that it is necessary to the making us righteous, or our constitutive justification in this life (in the order before laid down): For the Law is the rule of judgment; and God judges men to be as they are; and therefore He makes them righteous, both by remission of all sin and by giving them to perform the conditions of the New Covenant, before He judge them so.”
.
Richard Baxter’s Farewell Sermon prepared to have been preached to his hearers at Kidderminster at his Departure, but Forbidden (1660; London: 1683), pp. 3-4
“How have we used the mercies which are taken from us? Yea God Himself will judge us according to our works! He will not justify us, if we have been unfaithful in our little, and have been such as Satan and his instruments, the accusers of the brethren, do report us.
But if we have been faithful we may expect his double justification: 1 By pardon He will justify us from our sins. 2. By plea and righteous sentence He will justify us against the false accusations of our enemies. And that’s enough. How small a thing should it seem to us, to be judged of man, who must stand or fall to the final sentence of the Almighty God?”
.
Thomas Manton
A Second Volume of Sermons… (London: Astwood, 1684)
Sermons on Rom. 6, Sermon 6, pp. 36-41 on Rom. 6:7, “For he that is dead is freed [δεδικαιωται, justified] from sin.”
“2. The predicate [of the verse Rom. 6:7 is], ‘is freed from sin.’ The word [for “freed”] δεδικαιωται, the Vulgar [Vulgate] has, justificatus est a peccato [is justified from sin]: Beza, with many of the ancients, liberatus est [is liberated]. Our translation has both in the text, “freed,” in the margin, “justified”.
Whether you take one or the other word, it imports deliverance from the yoke and dominion of sin, so as not to obey its motions and commands. For the apostle does not speak here of the forgiveness of sin, but the abolition of its power and dominion; for it is brought as a reason why those whose old man is crucified with Christ should not serve sin; and the word “justified” is the rather used, because one justified and absolved by his judge, is also released and set free from his bonds; so are we.
…
I. The nature of this freedom from sin. I told you before, it is an exemption from the dominion and reign of sin.
1. We quit the evil disposition and temper of our souls…
2. We renounce our former course of living, after the habits we are free from the acts, we do not, and durst not to live in sin, the former conversation [conduct] is cast off as well as the former lusts…
Now this freedom is expressed by a word that signifies justification, and fitly:
1. Because of the nature of justification, in which there are two branches; liberatio a poena [liberation from punishment], and acceptatio ad vitam [acceptance to life]. The punishment incurred by the Fall is poena damni and poena sensus, the loss and the pain: Both may be considered as in this life, or the life to come…
But in this life we must also consider the loss and pain. The pains are all those miseries and afflictive evils, which came into the world by reason of sin. The loss is loss of God’s image: that threatening, ‘Thou shalt die the death,’ Gen. 2:17, implied spiritual death as well as temporal and eternal.
Now we are justified when we are freed from punishment, and among other punishments from the punishment of loss, when God giveth us the blessing, which sin had deprived us of: As for instance, when He gives us the sanctifying Spirit [Rom. 5:5], this is called a receiving the atonement, Rom. 5:11. We had forfeited it by sin, and God being pacified in Christ, does restore it to us. Man brought upon himself spiritual death by sin, and the gift of the sanctifying Spirit is the great and first act of God’s pardoning mercy, and a means to qualify us for other parts of pardon. Though the thing be plain of itself, yet to make it more clear to us:
2. Let us distinguish of the kinds of justification. There is a twofold justification, it is either constitutive or executive.
First, constitutive justification is by the new Covenant, when those who submit to the terms are constituted or made righteous: Jn. 5:24, ‘He that hears my word, and believes in Him that sent Me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death to life.’ There is God’s grant, and whosoever can make good his claim, has a right to justification by God’s own grant, according to the law of grace, he is one freed from sin.
Secondly, executive, when God accordingly takes off all penalties and evils, and gives us all the good which belongs to the righteous or justified: as in the case in hand, when God gives us the Spirit to break the power and reign of sin: And therefore so often in Scripture is God said to sanctify us as a God of peace, or as a God pacified and reconciled to us in Jesus Christ: Heb. 13:20-21, ‘Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight.’ 1 Thess. 5:23, ‘And the very God of peace sanctify ye wholly, etc.’ 2 Cor. 5:18, ‘And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ.’ This God does as a Judge, acting according to the rules of government constituted in the new Covenant, upon the account of the merit of Christ, and our actual interest in Him.
II. As to the degree, how far we are freed from sin.
1. All the justified and converted to God are freed from the Reign of it. The flesh, though it remaineth, is made subject to the Spirit, which by degrees doth destroy the reliques of sin: For it is said of the justified, Rom. 8.1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2. The more obedient we are to the motions of the sanctifying Spirit, the more pow∣er we have against sin: Gal. 5.18. If ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the Law, under the irritating Power and Curse of it. Many sins are in a great measure left un∣cured as a part of our punishment.
…
4. Where the work is really begun and duly submitted unto, we have hopes of a better estate, it still increases towards that perfect blessedness, when we shall be without spot and blemish, or any such thing, Eph. 5:27. What a life do God’s holy ones live in Heaven, who are wholly freed from sin?… There is none in Heaven by the first Covenant [of Words]; all that are there come thither as sanctified and justified by Jesus Christ, and in the way of his pardoning grace. Surely since we have the same Redeemer, depend upon the merit of the same sacrifice, and wait for the same Spirit in the use of all holy means and endeavours, He will not be strange to us…
…
IV. How is it a consequent of our dying with Christ?…
…
2. It is his privilege, being crucified with Christ; he has a right, and not a right only, but his justification is executed and applied to him by the gift of the sanctifying Spirit, which is the surest token of God’s love, and the true effect of his approbation…
…
Use 1. To inform us of the intimate connection between all the parts and branches of the grace of the Gospel. We are absolved and discharged from the power of sin as well as from the guilt of it. All will grant that justification respects the guilt of sin; but the apostle tells us here that justification respects the power of sin also. The penalty was the loss of God’s image as well as of his favor: so that pardon is executed and applied when our natures are sanctified and healed. The privation of the Spirit being the great punishment, the gift of the Spirit is a great branch of our absolution, and so Christ’s reconciling and renewing grace fairly accord and agree.”
.
Sermons on Rom. 8, Sermon 43, on Rom. 8:33, pp. 333-36
“2. How many ways does God justify? Four ways especially: (1) By way of Constitution. (2) Estimation. (3) Sentence, and (4) Execution.
1. Constitutively, by his Gospel-grant, or the New Covenant in the blood of Christ. The Covenant of grace is God’s pardoning act, and instrument by which we know whom, and upon what Terms God will pardon and justify; namely, all such as repent and believe the Gospel. We are constituted just and righteous, and exempted from the curse and penalties of the law. We may know the true way of justification by its opposition to the false or pretended way, Acts 13:38-39:
‘Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him all that believe are justified from all those things from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses.’
The Jews expected to be justified by the law of Moses; but we are justified by the law of Christ, that is, this constitutes our right; and herein justification and sanctification differ: God sanctifies by his Spirit, but justifies by the sentence of his word, or promise of the Gospel. Our right immediately results thence, as by an act of indemnity we are freed from all the penalties which otherwise we might incur without any further act of the magistrate. We are constituted righteous by his deed of gift in the Gospel, but made holy by his Spirit;
but if any quarrel at this term, and say that God by the New Covenant does declare who are justifiable, but does not justify, I answer further, we are justified:
2. By way of Estimation, whereby God does determine our right, accept or deem, and account them righteous, who fulfil the terms of the Gospel, and actually convey to them the fruits of Christ’s death: This is spoken of, 1 Cor. 6:11, ‘And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified;’ once vile sinners, now washed, sanctified and justified: as soon as they believe, they are put into a state of acceptation [Greek], that is, justifying, He continues to justify them unto the death, and He keeps them in that estate wherein they have exemption from the punishment of sin and a right to eternal life.
3. By way of Sentence. This is in part done here, when God interprets our righteousness and sincerity, Job 33:23-24:
‘If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to show unto man his uprightness; then he is gracious unto him, and says, Deliver him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom.’
And does by the Spirit of adoption assure us more and more of the pardon of our sins: but more solemnly at the Last Day, when the Judge does, sitting upon the throne, pronounce and declare us righteous before all the world, and as those who are accepted unto life, Acts 3:19, ‘That your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.’ Then the sentence is solemnly pronounced by the Judge sitting on the throne; and we are justified before God, men and angels. There are two parts of judgment, to condemn, and to absolve or justify: Mt. 12:36-37:
‘But I say unto you that for every idle word that a man shall speak, he shall give account thereof at the Day of Judgment; for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned;’
then every man’s doom [verdict] shall be pronounced.
4. By way of Execution, when the sentence is executed. This is in part done here, as God takes off the penalties and fruits of sin, either in the way of his internal or external government, and gives us many blessings, as the pledge of his love, and above all, the gift of the Holy Spirit, whereby He sanctifies us more thoroughly, and works in us that which is pleasing in his sight: This He gives as the God of peace, as reconciled to us in Christ, Heb. 13:20-21:
‘Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting Covenant, make you perfect in every good work, to do his will, working in you that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ.’
1 Thess. 5:23:
‘And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ;’
Faithful is he that calls you, who will do it: but more fully at the Last Day, when we enter into everlasting glory; and the wicked are turned into Hell with the Devil and his angels, Mt. 25:46, ‘And these shall go into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal’: then is the full and final execution, a perfect freedom from all misery, and a possession of all happiness.
3. How it can stand with the wisdom, justice and holiness of God to justify a sinner? ‘Tis a great crime to take the unrighteous to be righteous; and to pronounce the wicked justified, seems to be against the Word of God, Prov. 24:24, ‘He that saith unto the wicked, ‘Thou art righteous,’ him shall the people curse; nations shall abhor him.’ Prov. 17:15, ‘He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination unto the Lord.’ Now what is an abomination unto the Lord is surely contrary to his nature, Ex. 34:7, ‘He will by no means clear the guilty.’ Answer:
…
3. Effectual calling, or the conversion of man, reconciles it with his holiness; for a sinner, as a sinner, is not justified, but a penitent believer [is]: ’tis true ’tis said, ‘God justifieth the ungodly,’ Rom. 4:5: those that were once so, but not those that continue so; certainly He sanctifies before he justifies, Acts 26:18:
‘To open their eyes, and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified, by faith that is in Me;’
and in many other places. No man is freed from the guilt of sin, which renders us obnoxious to God’s wrath, who is not freed from the filth of sin, which taints our faculties; for Christ is made to us both righteousness and sanctification, 1 Cor. 1:30.
By losing God’s image, we lost his favor; and in the order wherein we lost it, we recover it. God regenerates that He may pardon and justify, and restores first our holiness and then our happiness: ’tis not consistent with God’s holiness to give us pardon and let us alone in our sins. A man would not put a toad in his bosom.
But more fully to give you a prospect into this matter, let us take notice of the several things which are mentioned in Scripture, as belonging to our justification: as for instance:
Sometimes we are said to be justified by grace, as Rom. 3:24, ‘Being justified freely by his grace’: sometimes by the blood of Christ, as Rom. 5:9, ‘Being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him’: sometimes by faith, as Rom. 5:1, ‘Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ’: sometimes by works, James 2:24, ‘Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.’
All these things concur to our justification and do not contradict, but imply one another: The first moving cause of all is grace; the meritorious cause, is Christ’s blood: the means of applying, or the condition on our part upon which we are capable at first of receiving so great a privilege, is faith: and the means of continuing in our justified estate is by good works, or new obedience. I say, our first actual pardon, justification and right to life is given upon condition of our first faith and repentance; but this estate is continued to us both by faith, Rom. 1:17, and new obedience; these fairly accord.
The grace of God will do nothing without the intervention of Christ’s merits; and Christ’s merits do not profit us ’till it be applied by faith; and sound believers will live in a course of new obedience. Let us consider them severally:
1. The first moving cause that inclined God to shew us mercy, in our undone and lost estate, was meerly his grace…
2. We are justified by the blood of Christ…
3. We are justified by faith, Acts 13:39, ‘And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses’: certainly none are justified in a state of impenitency and unbelief; ’tis not enough to look to the first moving cause, the grace of God, or the impetration of it by the blood of Christ, but how it is applied to ourselves and what right we have. For the righteousness of Christ is none of ours, till we do repent and believe: let us see how our title does arise, when we thankfully, seriously and broken-heartedly accept Christ as our Lord and Savior, then we are found in Him not having our own righteousness.
4. We are justified by works, and not by faith only; by which are meant the fruits of sanctification: for true faith and true holiness will show itself by good works; faith gives us the first right, but works continue it, for otherwise a course of sin would put us into a state of damnation again: therefore at the Last Judgment these are considered, Rev. 20:12, ‘And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.’ Mt. 25:35-36:
‘For I was an hungry, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye cloathed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.’
Faith is our consent, but obedience verifies it, or is our performance of what we consented unto; the one as covenant-making, the other as covenant-keeping; we are admitted by covenant-making, but continued in our privileges by covenant-keeping, Ps. 25:10, ‘All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his Covenant.’
But yet a little more must be said to reconcile the two apostles. Paul says, ‘A man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law,’ Rom. 3:28, and James says, ch. 2:24, ‘Ye see then how by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.’
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]. 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.”
.
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’, p. 128
“XXII… Fourth, it is asked whether good works are prerequisite for justification.
…
(5) Indeed, there are not lacking among recent theologians those who teach a justification of the justified that happens with works going before it, whereby the one justified justifies himself from hypocrisy, which depends upon an inherent holiness, albeit imperfect, yet sincere.
…
(7) Protestants in common, in agreement with Augustine, think that good works do not precede the one to be justified, but follow the one who is justified, yet with the differences of stages observed…”
.
1700’s
Campegius Vitringa
The Fundamentals of Sacred Theology Pre (d. 1722; RHB, 2024), ch. 21, ‘Justification…’, p. 186 Note Vitringa does not clearly join these two justifications as one, and it is said by the editor in a footnote that he later dropped the language of a “second” justification.
“779. Now besides this justification of the sinner which has its place in the first conversion of the sinner to God and which is renewed so long as he repents (for the faithful life is the continual exercise of faith), he is also given a justification of the just which is by works, which James discusses.
780. By this we understand the declaration of God with respect to the accusation of Satan, since in the regenerated sinner are true, colored, and indubitable signs and proofs of true faith which are pleasing to Him, and which are required among the heirs of the goods of grace.
781. This second justification is necessarily connected with the first (it is necessary to distinguish this from the variation of the Papists) so that it cannot be separated from it for any reason.”
Latin Article
1500’s
Zanchi, Jerome – ‘On Justification’ in Commentary on Ephesians, on Eph. 2:4
William Forbes: “Zanchi affirms that by justification and sanctification one and the same thing is to be understood;” – Considerationes 1.153
.
Romanists
Order of
History
Council of Trent 2
Quotes 9
Latin 1
At the Council of Trent
Article
Maxcey, Carl E. – ‘Double Justice, Diego Laynez & the Council of Trent’ in Church History, 48 (3) (1979), pp. 269–78
.
Book
Schmitz, Edwin F. – Girolamo Seripando & Justification at the Council of Trent (Baltimore, MD: St. Mary’s Seminary, 1955)
Quotes
Order of
On Laynez
On Pighius
On Gropper
On Contarini
Contarini
On Seripando
Vega
On Pererius, Gropper, Delphinus, Andradius
On Bellarmine
On Suarez
.
Wikipedia (3-2026)
On ‘Diego Laynez’: ‘Involvement with the Council of Trent’
“Pope Paul III sent Laynez to Trent to act as the Pope’s theologian at the [claimed] Ecumenical Council. Laynez arrived at Trent on 18 May 1546, five months after the Council opened, with Alfonso Salmeron. Before long, Laynez was recognized as exceptional – one of the first practical consequences was that he was allowed to preach in Trent when not on Council business, whereas the general rule forbade preaching by conciliar theologians. Another exception was the three-hour time limit accorded to Laynez in the council debates, while the standard allotment was an hour.
Laynez’s famous speech on imputed and inherent justification (Girolamo Seripando‘s “double justice” theory) on 26 October 1546 was subsequently written out and incorporated into the Acta of the Council under the title “Disputatio de justitia imputata”. By the time Laynez spoke, 37 theologians had spoken on the issue, and 28 had rejected duplex justitia.[clarification needed] In his three-hour-long speech, which was widely regarded as the most thorough on the topic, Laynez gave 12 reasons that the proposed “double justice” must be rejected by the Church, including its relatively recent origin and its implied denial of merit. His arguments were consistent with the Council’s 13 January 1547 Decree on Justification, which taught in Chapter 16,
“we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life.”
Laynez did not participate directly in the several months of discussions between his speech and the issuing of the Decree because immediately after his speech on justification, Cardinal Del Monte assigned him – along with Salmeron – to prepare a list of Protestant errors regarding the sacraments, as well as a summary of the relevant Church documents and patristic writings on sacraments.”
.
On ‘Albert Pighius’: ‘Theologian’
“He [Pighius] originated the doctrine of the double righteousness by which man is justified [this is very disputable], that has been characterized as “semi-Lutheranism”. According to this theory, the imputed righteousness of Christ is the formal cause of the justification of man before God, while the individual righteousness inherent in man is always imperfect and therefore insufficient.
These opinions of Pighius were adopted by Johannes Gropper and Cardinal Contarini; during the discussion at the Council of Trent of the “Decretum de Justificatione” they were maintained by Girolamo Seripando, but the Council rejected the compromise theory.
.
On ‘Johann Gropper’
“In many matters, especially in the doctrine of justification, he approximated Protestant views, but he did not approve of the doctrine of the Reformers concerning the concept and the organization of the Church.”
“Gropper took a zealous part in the negotiations for church union and in the religious colloquies held in 1540 and 1541 in Hagenau, Worms, and Regensburg. In the latter place he secured agreement on the formulation of the doctrine of justification; but he and his sympathizers could not reach an understanding with the Protestants about the organization of the Church. “
.
On ‘Gasparo Contarini’: Cardinalate
“In 1541 Cardinal Contarini was papal legate at the Conference of Regensburg, the diet and religious debate marking the culmination of attempts to restore religious unity in Germany by means of conferences. There everything was unfavorable; the Catholic states were bitter, the Evangelicals were distant. Contarini’s instructions though apparently free were in fact full of papal reservations. But the papal party had gladly sent him, thinking that through him a union in doctrine could be brought about, while the interest of Rome could be attended to later. Though the princes stood aloof, the theologians and the emperor were for peace, so the main articles were put forth in a formula, Evangelical in thought and Catholic in expression. The papal legate had revised the Catholic proposal and assented to the formula agreed upon. All gave their approval, even Johann Eck, though he later regretted it.
Contarini’s theological advisor was Tommaso Badia; his own position is shown in a treatise on justification, composed at Regensburg, which in essential points is Evangelical, differing only in the omission of the negative side and in being interwoven with the teaching of Aquinas. Meanwhile, the papal policy had changed, and Contarini chose to follow this. He advised the emperor, after the conference had broken up, not to renew it, but to submit everything to the pope.”
.
Gasparo Contarini
as given in Richard Field, Of the Church (Oxford, 1628), bk. 3, appendix, pp. 292-93
“Seeing we have affirmed that we attain a twofold righteousness by faith: [1] a righteousness inherent in us, as charity and that grace whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature, and [2] the justice of Christ given and imputed unto us, as being grafted into Christ and having put on Christ: it remains that we enquire upon which of these we must stay and rely, and by which we must think ourselves justified before God, that is, to be accepted as holy and just, having that justice which it beseems the sons of God to have.
I truly think, that a man very piously and Christianly may say that we ought to stay, to stay I say, as upon a firm and stable thing, able undoubtedly to sustain us, upon the justice of Christ given and imputed to us, and not upon the holiness and grace that is inherent in us. For this our righteousness is but imperfect, and such as cannot defend us, seeing in many things we offend all, etc. But the justice of Christ which is given unto us, is true and perfect justice, which altogether pleases the eyes of God, and in which there is nothing that offends God. Upon this therefore as most certain and stable, we must stay ourselves, and believe that we are justified by it, as the cause of our acceptation with God: this is that precious treasure of Christians which whosoever finds, sells all that he has to buy it.”
.
‘Girolamo Seripando’: ‘Life’
“In 1546, he attended the sessions of the Council of Trent, where he distinguished himself by his zeal for the purity of biblical texts, and also by his views concerning original sin and justification that some council fathers felt were more in line with Lutheran opinions.”
.
Andreas de Vega
bk. 15, On Justification, ch. 5, toward the end, p. 683 in William Forbes, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), bk. 2, ch. 4, pp. 149-51 Vega (d. 1560) was a Spanish Franciscan theologian, and is addressing Calvin.
“And not to urge thee [Calvin] more on these matters, this finally I would wish thee to consider with thyself in the spirit of peace:
If when anyone is justified, he is always, even according to thine opinion, sanctified also, what sin is there in establishing some word whereby we may explain both, and generally all the benefits which in that moment are conferred on the sinner by God?
If we wish to teach anyone what he receives from God when his sins are forgiven, or when he is admitted to divine grace, wilt thou not suffer us to say, nor to teach him, the benefits which he acquires in his justification?
What term shall we use to embrace all these things in one word more conveniently than this one, which is so common in Scripture, and draws its etymology from those words by which absolution from sins and reconciliation with God, and his friendship and adoption, and the performing of works of justice, is designated?”
.
On Pererius, Gropper, Delphinus, Andradius et al.
William Forbes, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), bk. 2, ch. 4, p. 149
“More rightly, therefore, do others say, that
‘the justification of the sinner contains two things, diverse indeed from each other, but conjoined by an indissoluble fellowship, the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the grace and justice of God,’ [as says] Pererius (On Genesis 15:6, Disputation 3, sect. 40, Ad haec justificatio, tome 3, p. 740); Gropper in the Enchiridion of Cologne (Of Justification, p. 132, sect. Ut autem ad rem ipsam); Ant. Delphinus (Of the Progression of Salvation, bk. 5, Of Justification, sect. De partibus justificatio, p. 185) calls them the two parts of justification; Jacobus Andradius Payva (Orthodox Explications, bk. 6, etc. pp. 468-70), and many others.”
.
On Bellarmine
William Forbes, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), bk. 2, ch. 4, pp. 145-47
“Bellarmine (On Justification, bk. 2, ch. 2, sect. Quod si concilium, etc.) more rightly [than Vasquez] allows, that forgiveness of sins is something in reality distinct from the infusion of grace, and that accordingly ‘the Council [of Trent], in the same place, makes mention of each separately; not indeed,’ as he says,
‘to signify that the formal cause of justification is twofold, but to point out that there are two terminations of that motion, which is called justification, or two effects of the same cause.’
Let the candid reader judge how far this gloss is agreeable to the words of the Council of Trent: for if our renewal by the Holy Ghost be the one only formal cause of justification, as the Council most expressly says, how is it consistent for the same Council to say, that our justification is (formally and essentially, without doubt) not only the forgiveness of sins, but also renewal, etc.; and for Bellarmine and others to say, that forgiveness of sins is the effect of our renewal, that forgiveness of sins is the effect of our renewal, which is the formal cause of our justification.”
.
On Suarez
William Forbes, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione... 4th ed. (d. 1634; 1658; Oxford: Parker, 1850), bk. 2, ch. 4, p. 147
“Suarez (Of Divine Grace, bk. 7, ‘Of the sanctification of man’, ch. 11, n. 24) argues in favor of the same opinion as Bellarmine; where he says,
‘I grant that there intervene in the justification of the sinner two, as it were partial, effects of grace, one positive and the other privative or exclusive of sin, etc.’
and (Ibid. no. 25);
‘Nor does it follow from hence that there are several formal causes of justification, because there is no formal cause, except a positive form; for the privation of the contrary form is rather a secondary effect of the same formal cause, as in etc. But if anyone contend about the word, by calling the privation of cold, a form which constitutes wood to the state of not being cold, he may talk in the same way of the freedom from sin, and then he will easily answer, that the Council of Trent spoke of the positive form, and that it was concerning it that it said, that there was one only [formal cause].'”
Latin Article
1500’s
Layñez, Diego – 11. Disputatio de Justitia Imputata in ed. Hartmannus Grisar, Jacobi Lainez… Disputationes Tridentiae (Regensburg: Felician Rauch., 1886), vol. 2, pp. 153-92
Laynez, the Pope’s theologian, here at the Council of Trent, addresses in detail the double-justification view(s) and ultimately lists reasons against it/them, which were persuasive to and acted upon by that council. Laynez’s most weighty reason, in his eyes, is that a forensic justification would essentially negate the virtue of human merit.
.
On Affirming Justification by Faith Only in Important Respects, & yet Justification is Not by Faith Only in Every Respect
Note, besides the below, also those proponents above of double justification that speak of justifiation by faith alone. See also those of the Reformed which affirmed first justification by faith only, and yet did not affirm the continuation of justification, or the justification at Judgment Day, by faith only: ‘On the Oneness & Unity of Justification & its Aspects’, ‘On the Continuation of Justification’ and ‘On the Justification of Believers at Judgment Day’.
.
Order of
Article 1
Quotes 2
Historical 1
.
Article
1600’s
Cranmer, Thomas – pp. 208-11 in ‘Notes on Justification’ in The Works of Thomas Cranmer (d. 1556; Cambridge Univ. Press, Parker Society, 1844)
Note, not only was Cranmer a proponent of the phrase “justification by faith alone,” as may be seen in his, ‘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, while holding to a double justification, but numerous of the early and Medieval Church quotes he provides evidence the same.
.
Quotes
Order of
Field
Manton
.
1600’s
Richard Field
Of the Church... (Oxford: Turner, 1628), bk. 3, appendix, ch. 11, pp. 323-24
“Neither have we departed from the doctrine of the Church, in that we teach that faith only justifies. For many of the ancient have used this form of words [though they also affirmed justification involves an inherent righteousness], as:
Origen on Rom. 3:
Dicit apostolus sufficere solius fidei justificationem, ita ut credens quis tantummodo justificetur, etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum.
[The apostle says that the justification of faith alone is sufficient, so that a man is justified by believing alone, even if no work has been performed by him.]
Hilary, can. 8. in Matthew:
Fides sola justificat. [Faith alone justifies.]
Basil, Homily on Humility:
Haec est perfecta & integra gloriatio in Deo, quando neque ob justi∣tiam suam quis se iactat, sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indigum, solâ autem fide in Christum justificatum.
[This is perfect and complete boasting in God: when a person does not boast on account of his own righteousness, but knows himself indeed to be lacking true righteousness, and is justified by faith alone in Christ.]
Ambrose on Rom. 3:
Iustificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, neque vicem reddentes, sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei.
[They are justified freely, because, doing nothing and rendering nothing in return, they are justified by faith alone, by the gift of God.]
Chrysostom, Homily on Faith and the Law of Nature:
Eum qui operatur opera iustitiae sine fide non potes probare vivum esse, fidem absque operibus possum monstrare, et vixisse, et regnum coelorum assecutam, nullus sine fide vitam habuit, latro autem credidit tantum, et iustificatus est.
[You cannot prove that one who performs works of righteousness without faith is alive; but I can show that faith without works has both lived and attained the kingdom of Heaven. No one has had life without faith; but the thief believed only, and was justified.]
Augustine
bk. 1, Contra the Two Epistles of Pelagius, ch. 21
Quantaelibet fuisse virtutis antiquos praedices justos, non eos salvos fecit nisi fides mediatoris.
[However great you may proclaim the virtue of the righteous of old to have been, it did not save them except the faith of the Mediator.]
83 Questions, q. 76
Si quis cum crediderit mox de hac vita decesserit, iustificatio fidei manet cum illo: nec praecedentibus bonis operibus, quia non merito ad illam, sed gratia pervenit, nec consequentibus, quia in hac vita esse non sinitur.
[If anyone, after he has believed, immediately departs from this life, the justification of faith remains with him: not by preceding good works, because he attained to it not by merit but by grace; nor by subsequent works, because he is not permitted to remain in this life.]
Theophylact, on Gal. 3:
Nunc plane ostendit apostolus, fidem vel solam, iustificandi habere in se virtutem.
[Now the apostle plainly shows that faith alone has within itself the power of justifying.]
Bernard
Sermon 22 on Canticles:
Quisquis pro peccatis compunctus, esurit et sitit iustitiam, credat in te qui iustificas impium, at solam iustificatus per fidem, pacem habebitad te.
[Whoever, pierced with sorrow for sins, hungers and thirsts for righteousness, let him believe in you who justifies the ungodly; and thus, justified by faith alone, he will have peace with you.]
Epistle 77:
Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit salvus erit. Caute, inquit, non repetiit, qui vero baptizatus non fuerit, condenabitur, sed tantum qui vero non crediderit, innuens nimirum solam fidem interdum sufficere ad salutem, et sine illa sufficere nihil.
[He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved. He carefully did not repeat, ‘but he who has not been baptized shall be condemned,’ but only, ‘he who has not believed,’ clearly indicating that faith alone sometimes suffices for salvation, and that without it nothing suffices.]
Sometimes by these phrases of speech they exclude:
[1] All that may be without supernatural knowledge, all that may be without a true profession.
[2] Sometimes the necessity of good works in act or external good works.
3. The power of nature without illumination and grace.
4. The power of the Law.
5. The sufficiency of anything found in us to make us stand in judgment, to abide the trial, and not to fear condemnation.
And in this sense faith only is said to justify, that is, the only mercy of God and merit of Christ apprehended by faith: and then the meaning of their speech is that only the persuasion and assured trust that they have, to be accepted of God for Christ’s sake, is that that makes them stand in judgment, without fear of condemnation. And in this sense all the divines formerly alleged for proof of the insufficiency of all our inherent righteousness, and the trust which we should have in the only mercy of God, and merit of Christ, do teach as we do, that faith only justifies.
For neither they nor we exclude from the work of justification,
[1] the action of God as the supreme and highest cause of our justification: for it is He that remits sin, and receives us to grace:
[2] nor the merit of Christ, as that for which God inclines to show mercy to us, and to respect us:
[3] nor the remission of sins, gracious acceptation, and grant of the gift of righteousness, as that by which we are formally justified:
[4] nor those works of preventing grace, whereby out of the general apprehension of faith, God works in us dislike of our former condition, desire to be reconciled to God, to have remission of that [which] is past, and grace hereafter to decline the like evils, and to do contrary good things. For by these we are prepared, disposed and fitted for justification; without these none are justified.
And in this sense, and to imply a necessity of these to be found in us, sometimes the Fathers and others say that we are not justified by faith only.
And we all agree, that it is not our conversion to God, nor the change we find in ourselves, that can any way make us stand in judgment without fear, and look for any good from God, otherwise than in that we find ourselves so disposed and fitted, as is necessary for justification, whence we assure ourselves God will in mercy accept us for Christ’s sake.”
.
Thomas Manton
Intro
From searches across Manton’s corpus, he often speaks of being “justified by faith” and of “justification by faith”, but never, it appears, “alone”. Manton does on occasion speak of “faith only” in certain salvific contexts, but never, it appears in explicit connection with the term ‘justification’.
Note in the below quote Manton’s ambiguity, he may very well be speaking of being justified by Christ only, in contrast to being justified by other persons or things, and not that the sinner is justified from his sin by faith only.
Manton does say, “We are justified by works, and not by faith only; by which are meant the fruits of sanctification…” in A Second Volume of Sermons… (London: Astwood, 1684), Sermons on Rom. 8, Sermon 43, on Rom. 8:33, p. 336.
.
A Second Volume of Sermons… (London: Astwood, 1684), Sermons on Rom. 6, Sermon 6, p. 39 Compare this with Manton’s twofold justification in the quotes above on this page.
“A sinner is justified from his sin by faith in Christ only…”
.
Historical
On the Reformation
On Early Lutheranism
Quote
Charles Hill, The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon… ed. and trans. Charles L. Hill (1521; Boston: Meador Publishing, 1944), pt. 1, Prolegmona, p. 61 Note that Melanchthon’s Common Places was essentially the first systematic theology of the Reformation, and was very influential upon the Reformed.
“In his [Melanchthon’s] treatment of justification, the forensic notion is not voiced in the Loci of 1521. In fact this theory of justification did not come into definite form until very late in the doctrinal writings of the Lutheran church. It was not formulated until 1549 or the date of the appearance of the third edition of the Loci.
Both Reformers [including Luther], it would seem, were solely occupied with merely defining justifying faith and not with what justification in its deepest sense really was. Their sole interest lay in salvaging the doctrine of faith from the Roman Catholic wreckage.”
.
Contra a Twofold Justification
Note that Burgess’s objections are in fact answered by express Scriptures by writers above.
.
Quote
1600’s
Anthony Burgess
The True Doctrine of Justification… (London: Underhill, 1654), pt. 2, sect. 2, sermon 16, ‘An examination of some distinctions about justification, much controverted by several authors’, pp. 151-52
“But there are some learned and orthodox writers that do admit of a first and second justification, but not in the Popish sense—they utterly abhor that—yet they affirm a first and second justification. Ludovicus de Dieu, on Rom. ch. 8:4, a very learned man, is large in asserting this.
The first justification is that acknowledged by the orthodox, whereby, though sinners in ourselves, yet believing, we are justified before God. The second, whereby thus justified out of ourselves, we are justified before God in ourselves.
The first justification is the cause of the second; the second is the effect and demonstration of the first. The first is by faith, the second by works; and both are necessary.
And if it should be objected that then we are justified by the works of the law, he answers that these works of sanctification are not the works of the law ratione originis [by reason of origin], for the Spirit of God does work them, but ratione normae [by reason of the norm], in respect of the rule by which they are prescribed.
And further then (says he) are we justified by the works of the law when they are performed as the condition of that covenant. But this opinion looks not on the law so, but as it is now altered; for the law is deprived of that dominion it once had, and being subjected to Christ, cannot but praise and approve those works which flow from faith and are wrought by God’s Spirit, though they be not satisfactorily answerable to the rigorous commands of it.
So that by this opinion, when we are first justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ, then afterwards our works are accounted also unto us for righteousness. God justifies us as being free from profaneness and hypocrisy, walking sincerely in obedience to his commands; so that though an inherent righteousness be made the foundation of this second justification, yet it is not from any worth or dignity proportioned to the rule of holiness, but from the worth of that imputed righteousness from which it flows, and through whose dignity it is accepted of. And of this latter justification he makes James to speak, and so reconciles him with Paul.
It is true, other learned men speak something to this purpose—not only Bucer, who is known to place justification both in imputed righteousness and inherent, thereby endeavouring a reconciliation with the Papists (for which [David] Paraeus blames him as too facile)—but also Calvin, bk. 3, ch. 17, sect. 8: “It is one thing,” says he,
“to dispute what works avail of themselves; another thing, what, after the righteousness of faith is established—premising remission of sin and Christ’s perfection, whereby what is imperfect is covered—then the good works done by believers justa censentur, or (which is the same) are imputed unto righteousness.”
To this purpose also Zanchi, vol. 1, Of Justification, thesis, that when a man is first reconciled to God by faith, then a believer is afterwards accepted of by God for his good works.
[Objections:] Although this be thus asserted, and [1] all the orthodox do readily grant that our good works are pleasing to God through Christ, [2] yet that this should be called a second justification, and that before God, there seems to be no ground from the Scripture. [3] For (as you heard) Abraham and David after their first justification are still said in the same manner to be justified, viz. by faith, not by works. [4] It is true, God does accept of believers as sincere, that they are not hypocrites; but they are not justified by this. For David cries out, Ps. 19, “Who can understand the errors of his heart?” so that there is hypocrisy in the heart of the most upright man, for which God might justly condemn him.”
.
.
.
“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
Rom. 5:19
“Then hear thou in heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness.”
1 Kings 8:32
“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”
James 2:24
.
.
.
Related Pages
On the Continuation of Justification
On the Justification of Believers at Judgment Day
How Saving Faith Falls under Obedience in some Respect(s)
The Relation of Repentance to Saving Faith & Justification
On the Inseparability of Justification & Sanctification