Justification

“Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity…”

Ps. 32:1-2

“‘Take away the filthy garments from him.’ And unto him He said, ‘Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.’… So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments.”

Zech. 3:4-5

“A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.”

Gal. 2:16

Subsections

Westminster Divines on Justification
Active Obedience of Christ
Eternal Justification
Infant Baptism & Justification
A Faith without Works does Not Justify
Continuation of Justification
Justification at Judgment Day
Works Against Bellarmine on Justification

Order of Contents

Articles 45+
Books 25+
Historical Theology 8+
Latin 12+

Cross & Justification 2
Justification vs. Sanctification 1
Justification without Any Works 1
Faith as an Instrument
Faith is Never Alone
God Knows but does Not Charge 2
Fault & Punishment Remitted 1
Forgiveness of Future Sins 1
Paul & James 3
Faith Does Not Include Repentance or Obedience 4
Relation of Inherent Holiness & Repentance to Faith & Justification 5+

Contra:

Romanism 4
Arminianism 1
Baxter & Neonomianism 4
. Neonomian Writings 2

Articles

1500’s

Beza, Theodore Beza – A Defense of Justification by Faith Alone (1592) in Justification by Faith Alone: Selected Writings from Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Amandus Polanus (1561-1610), and Francis Turretin (1623-1687) (RHB, 2022)

Rollock, Robert – ‘Treatise on Justification’ trans. Aaron Clay Denlinger & Noah Phillips MAJT 27 (2016), pp. 99-110 This work was published posthumously in Rollock’s time.

Rollock (c. 1555-1599) was a Scottish minister.

1600’s

Tuke, Thomas – The Highway to Heaven: or, the Doctrine of Election, Effectual Vocation, Justification, Sanctification & Eternal life. Grounded upon the Holy Scriptures, confirmed by the Testimonies of Sundry Judicious & Great Divines, Ancient & Modern. Compiled by Thomas Tuke (London: Nicholas Okes, 1609)

Ch. 5, ‘What Justification is. All the Causes of it. Five Effects of it. The Subjects & Time of it…’

Ch. 7, ‘Three things wherein Justification & Sanctification Agree. Seven Points in which they Disagree’

Trelcatius, Jr., Lucas – bk. 2, ch. 9, ‘Of Man’s Justification Before God’ in A Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinity… (1610)

Trelcatius, Jr. (1573-1607) was a professor of theology at Leiden, Netherlands.

Polanus, Amandus

pp. 93-94 of ‘Concerning our Communion with Christ’ in The Substance of the Christian Religion… (London: R.F., 1595)

The Free Justification of Man the Sinner before God (1615) in Justification by Faith Alone: Selected Writings from Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Amandus Polanus (1561-1610) & Francis Turretin (1623-1687) (RHB, 2022)

Benbrigge, John – Christ above all Exalted, as in Justification so in Sanctification, wherein Several Passages in Dr. Crisp’s Sermons are Answered, Delivered in a Sermon… (London: Stafford, 1645) 40 pp.

This work appears orthodox, and good. Tobias Crisp was an antinomian.

Fisher, Edward – pp. 60-172 of The Marrow of Modern Divinity… (London: Leybourn, 1646)

Pawson, John – A Brief Vindication of Free Grace… relating to Several Positions Asserted by Mr. John Goodwin in his late Book entitled, Redemption Redeem’d, and in his former Treatise of Justification: Delivered in a Sermon… (London: Peter Cole, 1652) 24 pp.

Pawson (c.1619-1654?). This is orthodox and good. See the fuller title for the positions he argues.

Woodbridge, Benjamin – Justification by Faith: or, a Confutation of that Antinomian Error, that Justification is Before Faith; being the Sum & Substance of a Sermon (London: John Field, 1652) 36 pp.

Woodbridge (1622-1684)

Mather, Richard – The Sum of Certain Sermons upon Gen. 15:6, wherein Not Only the Doctrine of Justification by Faith is Asserted & Cleared, & Sundry Arguments for Justification before Faith, Discussed & Answered: but also the Nature & the Means of Faith, with the Imputation of our Sins to Christ, and of Christ’s Righteousness to us are Briefly Explained & Confirmed (Cambridge, MA: Samuel Green, 1652) 45 pp.

Chewney, Nicholas – ‘Fourthly, concerning a Sinner’s Justification before God’ in Anti-Socinianism, or a Brief Explication of Some Places of Holy Scripture for the confutation of certain gross errors & Socinian heresies, lately published by William Pynchion… concerning… 4. The justification of a sinner… (London: J.M., 1656), pp. 89-123

Hyde, Edward – ch. 6, ‘Of Justification’ in A Christian Vindication of Truth against Error concerning these Controversies… 6. Of justification by faith… (London: White, 1659), pp. 359-470

Hyde (1607-1659). This appears orthodox.

Brinsley, John – ‘The Doctrine of Justification’ in Gospel-Marrow, the Great God giving Himself for the Sons of Men: or, The Sacred Mystery of Redemption by Jesus Christ, with Two of the Ends Thereof, Justification & Sanctification. Doctrinally opened, and practically applied… (London: S. Griffin, 1659), pp. 125-68

Ussher, James – Eighteen Sermons preached in Oxford 1640 of Conversion unto God… Justification by Christ (London: S. Griffin, 1660)

Sermon on Rom. 5:1, pp. 382-403
Sermon on Rom. 5:1, pp. 404-24
Sermon on Rom. 5:1, pp. 425-44
Sermon on Rom. 5:1-2, pp. 445-64

Vincent, Thomas – ch. 9, ‘The Justification of the Ungodly by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ Asserted & Proved’ in The Foundation of God Stands Sure, or, A Defence of those Fundamental & so generally believed doctrines of the Trinity… of the Justification of the Ungodly by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, against the Cavils of W.P.J. a Quaker… (London: 1668), pp. 68-74

Ferguson, Robert – Justification only upon a Satisfaction, or the Necessity & Verity of the Satisfaction of Christ as the Alone Ground of Remission of Sin Asserted & Opened Against the Socinians… (London: Newman, 1668)

Chapters 1-3 & 9 deal with justification expressly.

Danson, Thomas – A Synopsis of Quakerism, or, A Collection of the Fundamental Errors of the Quakers… (London, 1668)

Error 3, ‘That we are not justified by imputed righteousness, W. Pen.’, pp. 39-46

Error 4, ‘That our Good Works (as they are wrought in the Spirit) are a Meritorious (or deserving) Cause of our Justification’, pp. 46-54

Brown of Wamphray, John – Ch. 4, ‘How Christ is Made Use of for Justification, as a Way’ in Christ the Way & the Truth & the Life… (Rotterdam: H.G., 1677), pp. 41-72

Marshall, Walter – ‘The Doctrine of Justification Opened & Applied’ on Rom. 3:23-26 in The Gospel-Mystery of Sanctification… to which is Added a Sermon on Justification (d. 1680; NY: Robert Carter, 1859), pp. 296-320

Turretin, Francis – The Harmony of Paul & James on the Article of Justification (1687) in Justification by Faith Alone: Selected Writings from Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Amandus Polanus (1561-1610) & Francis Turretin (1623-1687) (RHB, 2022)

Harrison, Michael – Christ’s Righteousness Imputed, the Saint’s Surest Plea for Eternal Life, or the Glorious Doctrine of Free-Justification, by the Imputation of the Pure & Spotless Righteousness of Jesus Christ, Stated, Cleared, Vindicated… being the Substance of Several Sermons on Isa. 45:24-25 (London: William & Joseph Marshall, 1690) 24 pp.

Cole, Thomas – The Incomprehensibleness of Imputed Righteousness for Justification by Human Reason, till Enlightened by the Spirit of God, Preached in Two Sermons… (London: Thomas Cockerill, 1692) 54 pp.

Rijssen, Leonardus – ‘On Justification’ trans. J. Wesley White (1692) 12 pp. from his A Complete Sum of Elenctic and Instructive Theology in MJT 16 (2005), pp. 115-31

Riissen (1636-1700) was a Dutch reformed minister and theologian who never served an academic post.

Keach, Benjamin

The Marrow of True Justification, or, Justification without Works, containing the Substance of Two Sermons lately preached on Rom. 4:5, wherein the nature of justification is opened, as it hath been formerly asserted by all sound Protestants, and the present prevailing errors against the said doctrine detected (London: Dorman Newman, 1692)

Keach was a Calvinistic baptist.

‘Some Short Reflections on Mr. Samuel Clark’s New Book entitled Scripture Justification‘ in Christ Alone the Way to Heaven, or Jacob’s Ladder improved containing four sermons… to which is added… Some Short Reflections… (London: Benjamin Harris, 1698)

Anon. – A Brief Account of the State of the Differences Now Depending & Agitated about Justification, & Some Other Points of Religion declaring Plainly wherein Both Sides Agree & wherein they Differ (London: Thomas Cockerill, 1692)

This document first lists the agreements of the unnamed parties in justification, which are in the main orthodox (there is a question of qualification in at least one of them). Next, the disagreements are listed, revealing tenets which appear to reflect neonomianism and antinomianism. The author’s perspective is on the more orthodox side.

Lobb, Stephen – A Peaceable Inquiry into the Nature of the Present Controversy among our United Brethren about Justification (London: John Dunton, 1693)

Taylor, Thomas – The True Light Shining in Darkness… in the Matter of our Justification: shewing, that by the deeds of the law, or mans own righteousness, no flesh can or shall be justified in the sight of God (London: Crouch, 1693)

Keach, Elias – A Plain & Familiar Discourse on Justification being the Substance of Four Sermons… (London: John Harris, 1694)

Gibbon, John – The Nature of Justification Opened in a Sermon on Romans 5:1 (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1695)

Harley, Edward – A Scriptural & Rational Account of the Christian Religion, Particularly concerning Justification only by the Propitiation & Redemption of the Lord Jesus Christ (London: J. Luntley, 1695)

Bright, George – Six Sermons Preached before the Late Incomparable Princess Queen Mary, at White-Hall with Several Additions & Large Annotations to the Discourse of Justification by Faith (London: J.H. for Walter Kettilby, 1695)

Anon. – Actual Justification Rightly Stated, containing a True Narrative of a Sad Schism made in a church of Christ at Kilby in Leicester-shire, Proving None of the Elect are Actually Justified before Faith (London: B. Harris, 1696)

Tomlyns, Samuel – Jehovah our Righteousness, or the Justification of Believers by the Righteousness of Christ Only Asserted & Applied in Several Sermons (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1696?)

van Mastricht, Peter – ‘The Three Periods of Justification’ (1698) trans. Mark Jones in Jones, Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest? (2013)

Mastricht (1630-1706) was a Dutch reformed professor of theology.

1700’s

Witsius, Herman – Concilatory, or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians & Neonomians trans. Thomas Bell (Glasgow, 1807)

ch. 6, ‘Whether the elect are united to Christ before faith, and whether, not only the fruits of his righteousness, but also it itself is imputed to them’, pp. 67-73

Neonomians (such as Humfrey below, contra Davenant) had distinguished that the believer only receives the effects and fruits of Christ’s righteousness, but not Christ’s righteousness itself as his own. Witsius defends the position that the believer receives Christ’s righteousness itself as his own, quoting Davenant’s quotes of Chyrsostom in support, as well as the Heidelberg catechism.

ch. 7, ‘Concerning Paul’s judgment in the matter of justification’, pp. 73-86

Neonomians, in requiring a certain gospel-obedience in justification and the continuation of it, claimed that Paul, in denouncing justification by the works of the law, was only excluding Mosaic, ceremonial works. Witsius argues from the larger historical context of Paul’s argument in Romans and Galatians that Paul was also excluding moral works of a person’s entire life in justification.

ch. 10, ‘What relation faith has to justification’, pp. 108-119

ch. 12, ‘The Explication of Certain Paradoxes’, pp. 122-28

ch. 13, ‘Our judgment concerning these paradoxes’, pp. 129-44

Halyburton, Thomas

Works (d. 1712)

‘A Modest Inquiry whether Regeneration or Justification has the Precedency in Order of Nature’, pp. 547-58

Halyburton was a Scottish minister.

“…the vindication of the commonly received opinion, viz. That though they are agreed on all hands, to be at one and the same time; yet regeneration in order of nature precedes justification.” – p. 548

‘An Inquiry into the Nature of God’s Act of Justification’, pp. 559-68

Trail, Robert – A Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine concerning Justification… from the Unjust Charge of Antinomianism, in a Letter… in The Works… 4 vols. In 2 new ed. (d. 1716; Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1810), vol. 1, pp. 252-96

Trail (1642-1716) was Scottish and became an English presbyterian minister. This work has been considered a classic.

Dickinson, Jonathan – ‘A Discourse on Justification by Faith’ in The True Scripture Doctrine concerning Some Important Points of Christian Faith… (d. 1747; Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, n.d.), pp. 179-218

Witherspoon, John – An Essay on the Connection Between the Doctrine of Justification by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ & Holiness of Life in Treatises on Justification & Regeneration… 3^rd ed. (Glasgow: Collins, 1830), pp. 21-87

Witherspoon (1723–1794)

1800’s

Buchanan, James – ‘The Immediate & Only Ground of Justification: The Imputed Righteousness of Christ’ 16 paragraphs, no source info, probably from his The Doctrine of Justification

Girardeau, John – ‘The Doctrine of Justification: its Ground, Nature and Condition’ (1890), p. 417 ff. 148 pp. being Part II of his Calvinism & Evangelical Arminianism

Hodge, Charles

Commentary on Rom. 5:12-21, on Adam, Original Sin, Imputation, Christ, Justification, etc.

‘Delivered from the Law as a Rule of Justification – Now Joined to Christ’ in Way of Life

‘Justification’ in Systematic Theology, vol. 3, Buy 21 pp.

1900’s

Berkhof, Louis – ‘Justification’ (1950) 38 paragraphs, in Systematic Theology

Gerstner, John – A Primer on Justification (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1983) 26 pp. no ToC

McMahon, C. Matthew – ‘A Review of The Doctrine of Justification‘, by James Buchanan, at A Puritan’s Mind. See the classic book below.

Books

1500’s

Hooker, Richard – On Salvation & the Church of Rome (A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works & how the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown) abridged (1586; Preservation Press, 2007) 65 pp. no ToC Preface by Peter Toon.

Hooker was a chief Anglican apologist.

Hooker, a London minister, made the statement in a morning sermon: “I doubt not but God was merciful to save thousands of our fathers living in popish superstitions, inasmuch as they sinned ignorantly.” (Preface, pp. 3-4) The London presbyterian minister Walter Travers subjected this statement to much criticism in both speech and writing. Hooker defended his statement in three sermons, which he then made into this publication.

1600’s

Wilson, Thomas – A Commentary upon… Romans, containing for Matter, the Degeneration of our Nature by Adam’s Fall &… the Cause of Justification of Elect Sinners before God… set down… in Form of a Dialogue… (1614) 1260 pp.

Wilson (1563-1622) was an Anglican preacher at a cathedral church in Canterbury. He discusses justification throughout this work.

Forbes, John – A Treatise tending to Clear the Doctrine of Justification (Middelburgh: Richard Schilders, 1616) 189 pp. ToC

Forbes (c.1568-1634) was a Scottish minister who founded a church in Middleburg, Netherlands. He was not one of the Aberdeen Doctors, as Forbes (1593-1648).

Pemble, William – Vindiciae fidei, or a Treatise of Justification by Faith, wherein that Point is Fully Cleared & Vindicated from the Cavils of its Adversaries. Delivered in Certain Lectures… (Oxford: John Lichfield, 1625) 239 pp. ToC

Burton, Henry – The Christians Bulwark Against Satan’s Battery; or the Doctrine of Justification so Plainly & Pithily laid out in the Several Main Branches of it… (London: Taunton, 1632) 373 pp.

Downame, George – A Treatise of Justification (London: Kyngston, 1633) 660 pp.

Hooker, Thomas – The Soul’s Justification in The Soul’s Exaltation… The Soul’s Justification, on 2 Cor. 5:21 (London: Haviland, 1638), pp. 131-311

Davenant, John – A Treatise on Justification: or The Disputatio de justitia habituali et actuali…, vol. 1, 2 trans. Josiah Allport (d. 1641; London: Hamilton, 1844/1846) ToC 1, 2

Sclater, William – An Exposition with Notes on the Whole Fourth Chapter to the Romans, wherein the Grand Question of Justification by Faith Alone Without Works is Controverted, Stated, Cleared & Fully Resolved… (London: J. L., 1650) 189 pp. no Toc Scripture Index

Norton, John – A Discussion of that Great Point in Divinity, the Sufferings of Christ; & the Question about his Righteousness Active, Passive: & the Imputation thereof. Being an Answer to a Dialogue entitled, The Meritorious Price of Redemption, Justification, etc. (London: A.M., 1653) 270 pp.

Warren, Thomas – Unbelievers No Subjects of Justification, nor of Mystical Union to Christ: being the Sum of a Sermon… with a Vindication of it from the Objections & Calumniations Cast upon it by Mr. William Eyre… Together with… a refutation of that… Error Asserted therein: viz. the Justification of Infidels, or the Justification of a Sinner before & without Faith. Wherein also the Conditional Necessity & Instrumentality of Faith unto Justification, together with the consistency of it, with the freeness of God’s grace, is explained, confirmed & vindicated… (London: E.T. for John Browne, 1654) 255 pp.

Warren (1616 or 17-1694)

Graile, John – A Modest Vindication of the Doctrine of Conditions in the Covenant of Grace & the Defenders thereof, from the Aspersions of Arminianism & Popery, which Mr. William Eyre Cast on them (London, 1654) 125 pp.

Graile treats of justification throughout; search for the term.

John Flavel: “And as for those ancient and modern divines whom the Antinomians have corrupted and misrepresented, the reader may see them all vindicated, and their concurrence with those I have named evidenced by that learned and pious Mr. John Graile, in his Modest Vindication of the doctrine of conditions in the covenant of grace, from p. 58 onward;

a man whose name and memory is precious with me, not only upon the account of that excellent sermon he preached, and those fervent prayers he poured out many years since at my ordination; but for that learned and judicious treatise of his against Mr. Eyre [above], wherein he hath cast great light upon this controversy, as excellent Mr. Baxter and Mr. Woodbridge have also done. But alas! what evidence is sufficient to satisfy ignorant and obstinate men!” – Works, vol. 3, Appendix, Vindicarum Vindex, pp. 530-31

Eyre (c.1612-1670), according to Benjamin Woodbridge, argued for the doctrine that Justification is before faith (which is wrong). Eyre affirmed in his book, Vindiciae Justificationis Gratuitiae = Justification without Condtions, the instrumental nature of faith in Justification as passive only, not active (pp. 30-31).

Woodbridge, Benjamin – The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners, being a Reply to a Book written by Mr. William Eyre… entitled, Vindiciæ justificationis gratuitæ, or the Free Justification of a Sinner Justified. Wherein the Doctrine contained in the said Book is proved to be… contrary to… the Ancient Apostolic Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Faith Asserted (London: T.R. and E.M., 1656) 359 pp.

Allen, William – A Glass of Justification, or the Work of Faith with Power, wherein the Apostles’ Doctrine touching Justification without the Deeds of the Law is Opened; & the Sense in which Gospel-Obedience, as well as Faith, is Necessary to Justification, is Stated. Wherein also the Nature of that Dead Faith is Detected… & the True Nature & Distinguishing Properties of the Faith of God’s Elect is Handled. Finally, the Doctrine of the Imputation of Faith for Righteousness is herein also briefly discussed… (London: Dawson, 1658) 170 pp.

Chauncy, Charles – Yahweh Tsidkenu or The Plain Doctrine of the Justification of a Sinner in the Sight of God; Justified by the God of Truth in his Holy Word & the Cloud of Witnesses in All Ages. Wherein are handled the Causes of the Sinner’s Justification. Explained & Applied in Six & Twenty Sermons, in a Plain, Doctrinal & Familiar Way… (London: R.I. for Adoniram Byfield, 1659)

Chauncy (1592-1672) was the second president of Harvard in New England.

Owen, John – The Doctrine of Justification by Faith through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, Explained, Confirmed & Vindicated (London: Boulter, 1677) 560 pp.

Troughton, John – Lutherus Redivivus: or, the Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Faith Only, Vindicated, & a Plausible Opinion of Justification by Faith & Obedience Proved to be Arminian, Popish & to Lead Unavoidably into Socinianism, Part I (London: Samuel Lee, 1677) 235 pp. no ToC

This book is written against the Dutch Arminians, Richard Baxter, Joseph Truman and others.

“The question before us, is Whether a man be justified before God by faith only? Or by faith and sincere obedience to the Gospel jointly?” – p. 1

Hopkins, Ezekiel – The Doctrine of the Two Covenants: wherein the Nature of Original Sin is at Large Explained; & St. Paul & St. James Reconciled in the Great Article of Justification in The Works of Ezekiel Hopkins… 3 vols. 3^rd American ed., ed. Charles Quick (Philadelphia: Protestant Episcopal Book Society, 1867), 2.130-220

Hopkins (d. 1690)

Brown of Wamphray, John – The Life of Justification Opened. Or a Treatise Grounded Upon Gal. 2:11, wherein the Orthodox Doctrine of Justification by Faith & Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness is Clearly Expounded… ed. J. Koelman & Melchior Leydekker (Utrecht, 1695) 563 pp.

Smith, Matthew – The True Notion of Imputed Righteousness & our Justification, thereby being a Supply of what is Lacking in the Late Book of that Most Learned Person, Bishop Stillingfleet, which is a Discourse for Reconciling the Dissenting Parties in London; but dying before he had finished the two last & most desired chapters thereof, he has left this main point therein intended, without determination (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1700) 222 pp.

Fraser, James – A Treatise on Justifying Faith: wherein is Opened the Grounds of Believing, or the Sinner’s Sufficient Warrant to hold of what is offered in the Everlasting Gospel… (d. 1699; Edinburgh: William Gray, 1749) 340 pp. ToC

1700’s

à Brakel, Wilhelmus – ‘Justification’ in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vols. 2 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout (1700; RHB, 1992/1999), pp. 341-413

Edwards, John – Part 2, ‘Justification by Faith Alone’ in The Doctrine of Faith & Justification Set in a True Light… (London: Robinson, 1708), pp. 233-441

Edwards (1637–1716) was a calvinistic, Anglican bishop.

Henwood, James – The True State of Justification, as it Stands between God & Man (London: Henry Bonwick, 1710) 195 pp. no ToC

Beart, John – The Sinner’s Justifying Righteousness; or, A Vindication of the Eternal Law & Everlasting Gospel ed. Thomas Jones (d. 1716; London: Seeley, 1829) 146 pp. ToC

1800’s

Alexander, Archibald – A Treatise on Justification by Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Tract & Sunday School Society, 1837) 50 pp.

A largely unknown and scarce work of Alexander’s on an important topic from an important figure: the first professor of Old Princeton Seminary.

Table of Contents

1. Importance of the Subject 3
2. Nature of Justification 6
3. Justification by the Law Impossible 9
4. The Above Declarations of Paul Relate to All Works of Every Kind 12
5. The Act of Faith is Not the Righteousness which is the Ground of our Justification in the Sight of God 14
6. Justification in the Sight of God is Not by Evangelical Obedience in Whole, or in Part 15
7. Justification does Not Consist Merely in the Pardon of our Sins, but also in the Acceptance of our Persons as Righteous 21
8. The Only Meritorious Ground of a Sinner’s Justification is the Righteousness of Christ 24
9. The Righteousness of Christ can no Otherwise Justify the Believer but by being Imputed to Him 31
10. Justification by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ is Obtained by the Exercise of a Genuine Faith 38
11. The Time of Justification 45
12. The Doctrine of James 46
Conclusion 48

Buchanan, James – The Doctrine of Justification Buy (1867) 510 pp. ToC

Buchanan was a professor in the Free Church of Scotland.

This is the standard classic on the doctrine of justification. Read it first. Being a “justified sinner” is a contradiction to a Romanist, it is the highest glory of the gospel to the believer. For many more reasons why you should read this work, read this review at A Purtian’s Mind.

1900’s

Sproul, R.C. – Faith Alone: the Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Baker, 1995) 215 pp. ToC

2000’s

Oden, Thomas – The Justification Reader (Eerdmans, 2002) 175 pp. ToC

Waldron, Samuel – Faith, Obedience & Justification: Current Evangelical Departures from Sola Fide (Reformed Baptist Evangelical Press, 2006) 275 pp. ToC

Historical Theology

On the Whole of Church History

Article

Buchanan, James – pt. 1, ‘The History of the Doctrine of Justification’ in The Doctrine of Justification Buy (1867), pp. 17-220

Buchanan was a professor in the Free Church of Scotland.

Books

Ritschl, Albrecht – A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification & Reconciliation (Edinburgh, 1872) 620 pp. ToC

Ritschl (1822–1889) was a liberal, German theologian.

McGrath, Alister – Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, vol. 1 (to 1500), 2 (to Present) Buy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986) ToC 1, 2

On the Post-Reformation

Articles

Cunningham, William – ‘Justification’ in Historical Theology (1863), vol. 2, pp. 1-120

Van Dixhoorn, Chad – “The Strange Silence of Prolocutor Twisse: Predestination & Politics in the Westminster Assembly’s Debate over Justification” Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. 40 (2) (2009), pp. 395-418

The first prolucotor of the Westminster Assembly. William Twisse, held to an eternal justification. Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 11 says that justification does not occur until the Holy Spirit is applied unto the elect in time. Twisse cited Chamier in support. Pemble held to justification at the Cross, which the WCF also prohibits.

Twisse did not speak much (only three times) in the main debate on justification at Westminster, and this article investigates why. Besides the above, it may have been because his expertise was about predestination, not justification, inline with what Baxter suggested.

Many speeches have been preserved from that debate in manuscript form, which Dixhoorn freely surveys and quotes from. The article shows the influence that anti-Papist and anti-antinomian motives bore on the debate, and how and why things were worded the way they were.

Fesko, J.V. – ‘William Perkins on Union with Christ & Justification’ MAJT 21 (2010), pp. 21-34

Beck, Andreas J. – ‘Doing Justice to Justification: Historical Reflections on a Decisive Controversy of the Reformation Era’ in eds Peter De Mey & Wim François, ‘Ecclesia Semper Reformanda’: Renewal & Reform beyond Politics in Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 306 (Leuven: Peeters, 2020), pp. 135–57

On Lutheranism

Articles

Preus, Robert – ‘Justification as Taught by Post-Reformation Lutheran Theologians’ (1982) 20 pp.

Phetsanghane, Souksamay – Thoughts on Objective Justification: Selections from Abraham Calov’s Biblia Illustrata (2014) 43 pp.

‘Objective Justification’ refers to the erroneous notion of an objective, universal and conditional justification of all people through the work of Christ.

While this doctrine is largely absent from the historic creeds of Lutheranism and Lutheran orthodoxy (which emphasized an actual, personal justification by faith), yet Phetsanghane seeks to show that this doctrine was taught to some minor extent, and incidentally, in some of the orthodox Lutheran theologians (principally Abraham Calov, 1612-1686) and it may be contained in some implicit form in some early historic Lutheran confessions.

As most or all of Calov’s writings are in Latin, these translated selections are valuable.

On the 1700’s

On Jonathan Edwards

Books

McClenahan, Michael – Jonathan Edwards & Justification by Faith Pre (Routledge, 2012) ToC

Cho, Hyun-Jin – Jonathan Edwards on Justification: Reformed Development of the Doctrine in Eighteenth-Century New England (Univ. Press of America, 2012) 150 pp. ToC

Latin Articles

1500’s

Piscator, Johannes

ch. 13, ‘Justification’ 49 in A Forest of Sayings & Examples out of Sacred Scripture by which Christian Doctrine in Common Places are Distributed & Confirmed (Herborn, 1621), pp. 49-51

ch. 15, ‘Of the Justification of Man before God’ 254 in Theological Theses, vol. 1 (Herborn, 1606-1607)

Theological Theses, vol. 2 (Herborn, 1606-1607)

8. Of the Justification of Man Before God 51
.    Same Locus, Another Tract  61
.    Same Locus, a Full Tract & an Opposition Against the
.            Sophistry of Bellarmine 64
.     Bk. 2, Judgment of the Papists & the proofs of the same out
.             of the books of Bellarmine are recited & refuted 87

9 Miscellaneous Questions: 6. ‘Whether the Form of Justifying Faith is Love?’ [Gal. 5:6, We Deny]

ch. 13, ‘Justification’ 85 in Theological Common Places, Exposited in Brief Thoughts, or Aphorisms of Christian Doctrine, the Greater Part of which are Excerpts from the Institutes of Calvin (Herborne, 1589; 1605)

Polanus, Amandus

ch. 37, ‘On Free Justification before God, where is of the Remission of Sins & the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ’ 112 in The Divisions of Theology Framed according to a Natural Orderly Method (Basil, 1590; Geneva, 1623)

ch. 36, ‘Of the Free Justification of a Sinful Man with God’ in A System of Theology (Hanau, 1609; 1615), vol. 2, bk. 6, cols. 2933-3008

1600’s

Pelargus, Christoph

Theological Disputations, which are in 8 Decades of Holy Disputations not contained in the First Edition, held in the Academy of Frankfurt (Hartmann, 1596/1603) no page numbers

Vol. 1, 10. Justification

Vol. 2

3rd Decade, 5. Justification 45
6th Decade, 40. Justification of a Sinful Man, Rom. 3 388

ch. 12, Justification 73 in A Repetition of 20 Principal Articles of the Christian Faith (Eichorn, 1606)

Bachoff, Reinhard – Catechism of the Christian Religion, which is Taught in the Churches & Schools of the Palitinate (Hanau, 1603) This is a commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, following the order of its questions.

Justification of Man Before God Q. 21 [on faith]

60 [justification]

Bachoff (1544-1614).

de la Faye, Antoine – Theological Theses on the Justificaion of Man before God (Geneva, 1604)

de la Faye (1540-1615)

Keckermann, Bartholomaeus – bk. 3, ch. 7, ‘Justification’ 412 in A System of Scriptural Theology 2nd ed. (Hanau, 1607; 1610)

Keckermann (1572-1608). See Joseph Freedman, ‘The Career & Writings of Bartholomew Keckermann (d. 1609)’ in American Philosophical Society, vol. 141, no. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 305-64.

Pareus, David – Theological Collections of Universal Orthodox Theology, where also All of the Present Theological Controversies are Clearly & Variously Explained (1611/1620)

Vol. 1

Collection 1

ch. 12, ‘Justifying Faith’ 39
ch. 13, ‘Justification by Faith’ 44
Appendix: False Dogmas of Lombard, Council of Trent, Bellarmine, etc. 55-58

Collection 2, 25. Justification 249
Collection 3, 10. Justification by Faith  451
Collection 4, 10. Justification of Man Before God  505
Collection 5, 15. Faith & Justification by Faith From Works  580
Collection 6, 6. Faith & Justification  618
Collection 7, 5. Faith & Justification of Man Before God  655
Collection 8, 7. Justification by Faith  711
Collection 9, 7. Justification of a Sinful Man Before God  764
.                   16. Justifying Faith & the Merits of Works 793
Collection 10, 9. Justification of Man Before God  826

Vol. 2

Collection 1

7. Justifying Faith 28
10. Justification by Faith 40

Collection 2, 10. Justification of a Sinner Before God 110
Collection 3

11. Justifying Faith & Justification 155
12. Certainty of Justification, the Necessity of Works & of Merit 156

Collection 4, 11. Justification by Faith 181
Collection 5

13. Justification by Faith 205
14. Certainty of Faith & of Justification, & not the Perfection, Justification & Merits of Good Works 206

Collection 6, 12. Justification of a Sinner Before God 245
Collection 7

7. Justification by Faith 305
9. Certainty of Faith, of Grace, of Justification, of Perseverance, of Salvation, Predestination & Finally of the Faithful, Against the Papistical Doubt 309

Collection 8, 6. Faith & Justification 350
Collection 9, Bellarmine’s Vanities on:

36. Formal Cause of Justification & of Inherent
. Righteousness 572
37. Uncertainty, Immutability & Inequality of
. Righteousness 590
38. Necessity & Righteousness of Works 598
39. Merits of Works 606

Alsted, Johann Heinrich

ch. 17, Justification 396-409 in A Lexicon of Theology, in which the Terms of Holy Theology are Clearly Explained in a Series of Common Places (Prostat, 1612)

Alsted (1588-1638)

Polemical Theology, Exhibiting the Principal Eternal Things of Religion in Navigating Controversies (Hanau, 1620; 1627),

Pt. 2, A Major Catholic Symphony: Theological Common Places, 19. Justification 215

Pt. 4, Controversies with the Romanists, Justification & of Good Works in General 548

ch. 25, Justification 89 in Logical Theology (1625)

ch. 32, Justification 227 in Theological Questions Briefly Set Forth & Exposited (Frankfurt, 1627)

ch. 13, Justification 70 in Theological Common Places Illustrated by Perpetual Similitudes (Frankfurt, 1630)

Hommius, Festus – 70 Theological Disputations Against Papists (Lugdunum Batavorum, 1614)

ch. 62, Justifying Faith 406
ch. 63. Justification 412

Mylius, Conrad – 25. Justification 512 in Catechetical Essays, or Homilies in the Heidelberg Catechism (Hanau, 1618)

Mylius (fl.1616-1618)

Diodati, John

Theological Disputation on our Justification before God (Geneva, 1628)

Theological Theses on Justification (Geneva, 1632)

Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich – Christian Theology (Hanau, 1634; 2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1657), bk. 1, of the Knowledge of God

ch. 24, ‘Of the Reception of the Mediator, & of Justifying Faith’ 448
ch. 25, ‘Of the Justification of Men Before God’ 481

Wendelin (1584-1652)

Crocius, Ludwig – 17. The Consequences & Effects of Christian Faith, where is Treated of the Union of the Faithful with God & of Evangelical Justification Before Him 1115-26 in A System of Sacred Theology (Bremen, 1636), bk. 4, Of the Principles & Means of Human Salvation

Crocius (1586-1655)

Gomarus, Francis – Francisci Gomari dispvtationis elencticæ, de iustificationis materiâ & forma, elenchus: autore Thomâ Gatakero Londinate Ref (1640)

Cocceius, Johannes

A Theological Disputation on the Justification of a Sinful Man before God (Franeker, 1646) 16 pp.

ch. 4, ‘Of Justification’ ToC in 22 Theological-Practical Disputations on the Way of Salvation, that is, of Election, Redemption, Calling, Justification, Sanctification, Glorification (Franeker, 1649), pp. 187-295

Alting, J. Henricus

ch. 17, ‘Justification’ 106 in A Method of Didactic Theology (Amsterdam, 1656; 1662)

Duising, Heinrich – Disputatio theologica inauguralis de justificatione peccatoris coram Deo (Marburg: Salomon Schadewitz, 1679)

Duising was a German reformed professor of Greek, ethics and theology at Marburg.

Latin Books

1500’s

Bucer, Martin – The Disputing of Regensburg, in another Colloquium, 1546, and a responding of the collocutors of the Augsburg Confession, wherein they take up and complete on Justification and all places of evangelical doctrine… (1548) 692 pp. no ToC Indices: Subject, Indices Errata

Bullinger, Heinrich – Justification. Of Faith Alone in Christ Justifying, & of True Good Works (Zurich, 1543) 48 pp. no ToC

Alesius, Alexander – Disputation 1, ‘On the Righteousness of God & the Righteousness of Man before God, & of the Mediator, Christ’ in Three Disputations on the Mediator, Reconciliation & the Justification of Man (Leipzig, 1554)

Alesius (1500-1565) was initially Lutheran but became reformed. He was a professor of theology at Leipzig at the time of writing this (his last academic position).

Beza, Theodore – A Defense of Justification through Living Faith having Apprehended the Righteousness of Christ Alone, freely Imputed (Geneva, 1592) 304 pp. no ToC

1600’s

Bradshaw, William – Dissertation on the Doctrine of Justification, in which a plain way is built up to the concord of them which vary on this thing (Leiden, 1684) 124 pp. ToC

Bradshaw (1571-1618) was an English, congregationalist puritan.

von Diest, Heinrich – Sermons on the Five First Chapters of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans, in which is explicated the most noble doctrine of Justification, with other matters subjoined and cohereing with it… (Arnheim, 1676) 599 pp. ToC Abbreviations Errata

von Diest (1595-1673) was a Dutch, reformed professor of Hebrew.

Special Topics

On How the Cross Relates to Justification

Articles

Warren, Thomas – Unbelievers No Subjects of Justification, Nor of Mystical Union to Christ… (London, 1654)

2nd Question, ‘Whether all the Elect for whom Christ died be actually reconciled and justified from the time of Christ’s death…? [No]’, pp. 121-22 of ch. 4, ‘…the doctrine of free justification of a sinner through faith in Christ, reduced unto four several Questions…’

ch. 6, ‘Showing that a man is not justified actually from the time of Christ’s death’, pp. 174-84

ch. 11, ‘Containing an answer to those arguments… to prove the antecedency of justification to faith, that we are actually reconciled from the time of Christ’s death…’, pp. 231-55

Witsius, Herman – sections 2-3 in ch. 10, ‘What relation faith has to justification’ in Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain: under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians & Neonomians (Glasgow, 1807), pp. 108-10

Girardeau, John L. –

Quote

Samuel Rutherford

Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself… (London: 1647), pt. 2, p. 253

“Proposition 15. We are justified in Christ virtually, as in the public head, when He rose again and was justified in the Spirit. 2. In Christ, as his merits are 〈◊〉 cause of our justification.”

How Justification is Distinguished from Sanctification

Article

Phillips, Rick – ‘Seven Assertions Regarding Justification & Sanctification’ (2015) 9 paragraphs

An excellent, clear and brief Biblical delineation of how Justification is distinguished from Sanctification, and how both flow out of Union to Christ. Phillips is dead-on.

Justification without Any of our Works Whatsoever

Intro

Owen demonstrates that when Paul excluded works from justification, he meant all works whatsoever without qualification, contrary to the Federal Vision, Norman Shepherdism, the New Perspective on Paul, Romanism and other groups who unduly qualify Paul’s statements.

Paul’s pronouncements, as is clearly seen by their unqualified, all-encompassing nature and various contexts, did not mean only to exclude the works of the Jewish law, works of the ceremonial law, perfect works only, works done with a conceit of merit, only works before we believed or only outward works done without faith, but all of our works altogether.

Article

Owen, John – ch. 14, ‘The Exclusion of All Sorts of Works from an Interest in Justification, what is Intended by ‘the Law’ & the ‘Works’ of it in the Epistles of Paul’ †1683 13 pp. in The Doctrine of Justification by Faith in Works, 5.278-90

Quote

Edward Leigh

A System or Body of Divinity… (London, 1654), bk. 7, ch. 10, ‘Whether Faith Alone does Justify?’, p. 528

“How can a man be justified by his works when he himself must be just before the works can be, Gen. 4:4. Good works make not a man good, but a good man makes a work good, and shall that work which a man made good return again and make the man good?”

On Faith as an Instrument

Articles

Burgess, Anthony – Objection 2, pp. 256-59 in sermon 26 in The True Doctrine of Justification… (London, 1654)

Warren, Thomas – pp. 192-97 in ch. 8, ‘…and the instrumentality of faith is proved’ in Unbelievers No Subjects of Justification, Nor of Mystical Union to Christ… (London, 1654)

This is very good and more detailed than Burgess.

Quotes

Edward Leigh

A System or Body of Divinity... (London, 1654), bk. 7, ch. 10, ‘Whether Faith Alone does Justify?’, pp. 528-29

“The Papists, Socinians and Remonstrants all acknowledge faith to justify, but by it they mean obedience to God’s commandments, and so make it a work, and [do] not consider it as an instrument receiving Christ and his pro∣mise.

A Papist, a Socinian, a Protestant says, ‘We are justified by faith,’ but dispositive [dispositionally, as an inherent disposition], says the Papist, conditionaliter [conditionally, as a condition only], says the Socinian, applicativè [applyingly], says the Protestant.

Faith justifies not as a quality or habit [an inward abiding power] in us, as the Papists teach, Ipsa fides censetur esse justitia [faith itself is considered to be righteousness], for so it is a part of sanctification, but as it is the instrument and hand to receive Christ who is our righteousness, much less as it is an act, as Socinus and his followers teach, as though [Greek] ipsum credere [‘to believe itself’], did properly justify; if we should be justified by it as it is an act, then we should be justified by our works and we should be no longer justified actually then we do actually believe, and so there should be an intercision of justification so oft as there is an intermission of the act of faith; but justification is a continued act.
…

We are said to be justified by faith, to live by it, to be saved by it, to have it imputed unto us for righteousness: all which is to be understood not principally, immediately, meritoriously in regard of any worth or dignity of it, or efficacious∣ly in regard of any power or efficacy in itself, but mediately, subserviently, organically, as it is a means to apprehend Christ his satisfaction and his sufferings, by the price and merit whereof we are justified, saved and stand as righteous in God’s sight, and as it has a special respect and relation thereto. Mr. Gataker against Saltmarsh [an antinomian], Shadows without Substance [1646], p. 56.

In the Covenant of Works, works are considered as in themselves performed by the parties to be justified and in reference unto ought done, or to be done for them by any other; whereas in the Covenant of Grace, faith is required and considered, not as a work barely done by us, but as an instrument or mean whereby Christ is apprehended and received, in whom is found, and by whom that is done, whereby God’s justice is satisfied, and life eternal meritoriously procured for us, that which carries the power and efficacy of all home to Christ.
…

Only faith receives Christ and a promise. Faith justifies by the mere ordination of God, that on the receiving of Christ, or resting on Him we shall be justified. The proper act of faith which justifies is the relying on Christ for pardon of sin.

To justify does not flow from any act of grace, because of the dignity and excellency of that act, but because of the peculiar nature, that it does receive and apply. Therefore to receive Christ and to believe in Him is all one, and faith is always opposed to works.”

Anthony Burgess

The True Doctrine of Justification… (London, 1654), sermon 23, pp. 224-25

“…our orthodox divines do say that faith justifies as it’s an instrument, laying hold on Christ, so that Christ received by faith is properly that which justifies, not faith itself, or any dignity in it. This is the hand that receiveth the jewel, which does enrich us.

This doctrine, though so generally received and avowed by all Protestant writers, yet of late is rejected among other reasons, because [it is said] there cannot be any passive instrument. Now I much wonder that Bellarmine, Becanus and other subtil Jesuits that turned every stone to overthrow faith’s instrumentality in justification, should so far forget their logic and metaphysics as not to pitch upon this objection above all, that there cannot be any such thing as a passive instrument.

Truly I think, when a man of godly affections broaches an error, which he takes to be a truth, he himself is a passive instrument to bring others into errors. If we regard natural causes and moral, we may easily mention many passive instruments: In natural things the throat is a passive instrument of drinking. The Conduit-pipe of conveying water, and twenty such instances men may think of. In morality, taking that largely, there are many passive instruments: Nebuchadnezzar and all wicked men are God’s passive instruments. The Serpent by which the Devil deceived Eve, was a passive instrument: and to come nearer to our purpose, who can deny but that miraculous faith was a passive instrument in doing miracles, for the power of working miracles is infinite and could not be communicated to a creature no more than the creation of a world, only they by resting on God’s power, God wrought these wonderful things by them.

But nothing does so fully represent this as the opinion of Aristotle and others following him, that intelligere is pati, and so videre, audire, are pati, ‘to understand is to receive,’ and so ‘to see’ and ‘hear;’ the soul does these by those faculties which are passive instruments therein; and therefore when Bellarmine would prove that credere and apprehendere were actions and works, it’s well answered that to believe or to lay hold on Christ (the Greek word applied often to faith is [Greek].

Though they be grammatical actions, yet they are naturally passions, as intelligere, videre are active verbs according to grammar, but naturally and physically are passions: So that a man in believing is passive, that is, he receives Christ for his righteousness: But of a passive instrument more hereafter.

Justification is not in giving something to God but in receiving from Him; we do not curiously litigate about the word ‘instrument;’ by instrumentum we mean no more than medium, whereby the soul receives the Gospel-righteousness tendered unto it, and those peculiar expressions you heard the Scripture gives to faith, can evince no less.

If therefore faith justify upon a peculiar reason, that that grace only has, viz. because it receives and applies Christ our righteousness, then other graces and holy works, having no such capacity, cannot justify. As the hand only, not the eyes or the feet, are the instrument that take alms given to a poor man. This consideration made that learned man Mr. [John] Ball, say how faith and works should be conjoined as con-causes in justification is impossible to conceive. Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, p. 70.

And it’s a mere sophism to say that if by faith we receive Christ, and faith is the receiving of Christ, then we receive Christ by receiving; for its not the notion of faith that is properly the instrument receiving, but faith as the habit putting itself into act. So that the meaning is, faith acting or laying hold upon Christ, is the instrument receiving Him. Neither is this to give too much to faith, no more than in the faith of miracles, when Christ said to some, ‘Thy faith hath made thee whole,’ that thereby our Savior gave any dignity to faith, as if that were the cause of their health.”

Justifying Faith is Never Alone, Yet We are Justified by Faith Alone

Quotes

John Ball

A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace… (London: 1645), ch. 3, ‘Of the Covenant of Grace in General’, pp. 20-21

Edward Leigh

A System or Body of Divinity… (London, 1654), bk. 7, ch. 10, ‘Whether Faith Alone does Justify?’, pp. 528-29

“When we say, ‘Faith alone does justify,’ we do not mean fidem solitariam, that faith which is alone; neither do we in construction join sola with fides the subject, but with justification the predicate, meaning that true faith though it be not alone, yet it does justify alone, even as the eye, though in respect of being it is not alone, yet in respect of seeing, unto which no other member does concur with it, it being the only instrument of that faculty, it is truly said to see alone, so faith though in respect of the being thereof it is not alone, yet in respect of justifying, unto which act no other grace does concur with it, it being the only instrument of apprehending and receiving Christ, is truly said to justify alone.

When we say by faith only, this opposes all other graces of the same order, but not the merits of Christ or the efficacy of God’s grace; the apostle, Rom. 4, makes it all one to prove a man justified by grace, Christ and by faith. It is to be considered as alone in the act of justification, but not in the subject justified; therefore that is a reproach cast on Protestants to call them Solifidians.”

God Continues to Know All our Sins, but does Not Charge Them to the Justified

Articles

Rutherford, Samuel – Ch. 25, ‘The Antinomians’ ground, that God sees no sin in the justified, refuted’ in A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist: Opening the Secrets of Familism & Antinomianism… (London: J.D., 1648), pt. 2, pp. 26-27

Witsius, Herman – section 13 of ch. 13, ‘Our Judgment concerning these Paradoxes’ in Concilatory, or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians & Neonomians trans. Thomas Bell (Glasgow, 1807), pp. 137-38

Witsius quotes Chamier at a bit of length.

Both the Fault & Punishment of our Sins are Remitted in Justification

Pemble, William – section 7, ch. 2, ‘All sin is remitted unto us wholly in the fault and punishment, for the only satisfaction of Jesus Christ’ in Vindiciae fidei, or a Treatise of Justification by Faith… (Oxford: John Lichfield, 1625), pp. 231-39

On the Forgiveness of Future Sins

Quotes

William Ames

The Marrow of Theology (Baker, 1997), ch. 27, ‘Justification’, p. 163

“23. Not only are past sins of justified persons remitted but also those to come, Num. 23:25. God sees no iniquity in Jacob or perverseness in Israel. Justification has left no place for condemnation. John 5:24, ‘He who believes has eternal life and shall not come into condemnation’ — justification gives eternal life surely and immediately. It also makes the whole remission obtained for us in Christ actually ours. Neither past or present sins can be altogether fully remitted unless sins to come are in some way remitted.

24. The difference is that past sins are remitted specifically and sins to come potentially. Past sins are remitted in themselves, sins to come in the subject or the person sinning.”

Thomas Warren

Unbelievers No Subjects of Justification, Nor of Mystical Union to Christ… (London, 1654), ch. 11, pp. 250-51

“…upon the first moment that a man believes he is justified, and all his sins-past are actually pardoned, his sins to come virtually, so that no following sin shall unjustify him; though it may take away his aptitude for heaven, yet not his right: and though his sin may deserve damnation, and without actual repentance and faith he cannot be saved, yet grace shall be given to enable him to repent and believe, so that though there must be nova remissio [a new remission], yet there is not nova justificatio [a new justification]; though a new remission is needful, yet not a new justification; pardon of sin is a continued act, but our justification quoad statum [as far as the state] is done simul et semel, ‘once and for all’; this you know to be the Orthodox opinion…”

John Owen

The Doctrine of Justification by Faith… (London: Boulter, 1677), ch. 5, pp. 202-3

“Hence in the first justification of believing sinners, all future sins are remitted as unto any actual obligation unto the curse of the Law… And although sin cannot be actually pardoned before it be actually committed, yet may the obligation unto the curse of the Law be virtually taken away from such sins in justified persons as are consistent with a justified estate, or the terms of the Covenant of Grace, antecedently unto their actual commission.

God at once in this sense forgives all their iniquities, and heals all their diseases, redeems their life from destruction, and crowns them with loving kindness and mercies, Ps. 103:2-3. Future sins are not so pardoned as that when they are committed they should be no sins, which cannot be, unless the commanding power of the Law be abrogated. But their respect unto the curse of the Law, or their power to oblige the justified person thereunto is taken away.
…

Whereas therefore one essential part of justification consists in the pardon of our sins, and sins cannot be actually pardoned before they are actually committed…

Justification is at once complete in the imputation of a perfect righteousness, the grant of a right and title unto the heavenly inheritance, the actual pardon of all past sins, and the virtual pardon of future sins…”

Wilhelmus à Brakel

The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vols. 2 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout (1700; RHB, 1992/1999), p. 378

“The justification which occurs upon the first act of faith, and which occurs time and again after that, each time includes the
forgiveness of sins—sins to be committed subsequently virtualiter [‘virtually’], that is, as far as virtue and efficacy are concerned; thus declaring that they would also each time be forgiven actualiter, that is, ‘actually.’ However, sins cannot be forgiven in actuality prior to being committed. We cannot speak of that which does not exist; whatever has not been committed
cannot be forgiven.”

Latin Article

Tuckney, Anthony – ch. 13, ‘Past & Future Sins are Not Simultaneously Remitted’ in Theological Lectures, even Determinations of Various Momentous Question... (Amsterdam: Swart, 1679), pt. 2, p. 118-23

This section is commended by Witsius, Animadversions, pp. 136-37, section 12.

On the Reconciliation of Paul & James about Justification

See also ‘Faith without Works does not Justify’ on the page, ‘The Necessity of Good Works’.

Intro

The traditional Protestant interpretation of Paul and James is that, as their contexts show, when Paul speaks of Justification without works, he is arguing for the *legal*, forensic grounds by which we are justified before God, whereas James, when speaking of Justification by works, is in context showing how a professor is *demonstrated* to be justified, contrary to false professors whose nominal faith is not saving.

See below for why the Protestant interpretation is right and is the natural and necessary reading of the passages.

Articles

Melanchthon, Philip – ‘Melanchton on Justification in James 2’ trans. Charles Johnson from Loci communes theologici (1562), pp. 299-300

Pemble, William – Vindiciae fidei, or a Treatise of Justification by Faith… (Oxford: John Lichfield, 1625), section 6

ch. 1, ‘The reconciliation of that seeming opposition, between St. Paul & St. James in this point of Justification’, pp. 185-93

ch. 2, ‘The confirmation of the orthodox reconciliation of St. Paul & St. James by a logical analysis of St. James…’, pp. 194-219

Goodwin, Thomas – bk. 2, ch. 2, ‘How the Apostle Paul & the Apostle James are Consistent in the Account which they give of Abraham’s Justification’ of Gospel Holiness in the Heart & Life in Works (London: James Nichol, 1861), vol. 7, pp. 180-86

Rutherford, Samuel – ch. 19, section ‘5. The place of declarative justification by works, James 2, discussed,’ pp. 158-74 in The Covenant of Life Opened… (Edinburgh, 1655), pt. 1

Owen, John – ch. 20, ‘The Doctrine of the Apostle James concerning Faith & Works, its Agreement with that of St. Paul’ in The Doctrine of Justification by Faith in Works (†1683; Johnstone & Hunter, 1850), 5.384-400

“…in my judgment the usual solution of this appearing difficulty… in the discourse of St. James, ch. 2, v. 14 to the end, has not been in the least impeached, nor has had any new difficulty put upon it in some late discourses to that purpose…

…It is taken for granted on all hands that there is no real repugnancy or contradiction between what is delivered by these two apostles…

…It is taken also for granted on all other occasions that when there is an appearance of repugnancy or contradiction in any places of Scripture, if some or any of them do treat directly, designedly and largely about the matter concerning which there is a seeming repugnancy or contradiction, and others, or any other speak of the same things only obiter, occasionally, transiently, in order unto other ends, the truth is to be learned, stated and fixed from the former places…

According unto this rule, it is unquestionable that the doctrine of justification before God is to be learned from the writings of the apostle Paul, and from them is light to be taken into all other places of Scripture where it is occasionally mentioned…

For it must be acknowledged that he wrote of this subject of our justification before God on purpose to declare it for its own sake, and its use in the Church, and that he does it fully, largely and frequently in a constant harmony of expressions…

As unto what is delivered by the apostle James, so far as our justification is included therein, things are quite otherwise. He does not undertake to declare the doctrine of our justification before God, but having another design in hand as we shall see…” – pp. 384-86

“…I shall manifest: (1) That they have not the same scope, design or end in their discourses; That they do not consider the same question, nor state the same case, nor determine on the same inquiry, and therefore not speaking ad idem, ‘unto the same thing,’ do not contradict one another. (2) That as faith is a word of various signification in the Scripture… they speak not of the same faith, or faith of the same kind… (3) That they do not speak of justification in the same sense, nor with respect unto the same ends. (4) That as unto works they both intend the same, namely, the works of obedience unto the moral Law.

…As to the scope and design of the apostle Paul… is to declare how a guilty, convinced sinner comes through faith in the blood of Christ to have all his sins pardoned, to be accepted with God and obtain a right unto the heavenly inheritance, that is, be acquitted and justified in the sight of God…

The apostle James on the other hand had no such scope or design… But he had in hand a business quite of another nature… there were many in those days who professed the Christian religion or faith in the Gospel, whereon they presumed that as they were already justified, so that there was nothing more needful unto them that they might be saved. A desirable estate they thought they had attained, suited unto all the interest of the flesh, whereby they might live in sin and neglect of all duty of obedience, and yet be eternally saved…

Against this sort of persons, or for their conviction, he designs two things: (1) In general to prove the necessity of works unto all that profess the gospel or faith in Christ thereby; (2) To evidence the vanity and folly of their pretense unto justification, or that they were justified and should be saved by that faith that was indeed so far from being fruitful in good works, as that it was pretended by them only to countenance themselves in sin. Unto these ends are all his arguings designed and no other.

He proves effectually that the faith which is wholly barren and fruitless as unto obedience, and which men pretended to countenance themselves in their sins, is not that faith whereby we are justified and whereby we may be saved, but a dead carcass, of no use nor benefit, as he declares by the conclusion of his whole dispute in the last verse of the chapter. He does not direct any how they may be justified before God, but convinces some that they are not justified by trusting unto such a dead faith, and declares the only way whereby any man may really evidence and manifest that he is so justified indeed. This design of his is so plain, as nothing can be more evident…” – pp. 387-89

Witsius, Herman – sections 15-16 in ch. 8, ‘Concerning the Law of Works, the Works of the Law, & Faith’ in Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain: under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians & Neonomians (Glasgow, 1807), pp. 97-98

Dixon, Anthony – ‘III. Thing Proposed, viz., to Show in What Sense a Believer is Justified by Works’ being point 3 of 3 of his sermon on James 2:21, Eternal Justification Unmasked, being the Substance of a Sermon (London, 1790)

This sermon is excellent.

Quote

Edward Leigh

A System or Body of Divinity... (London, 1654), bk. 7, ch. 10, ‘Whether Faith Alone does Justify?’, p. 529

“Paul and James do not contradict one another; Paul shows what is that which justifies, and James shows what kind of faith justifies, viz. a lively effectual faith. James shows that faith justifies quae viva [in the manner of it living], Paul shows that it does not justify qua viva [as it is living], which is a great difference though the Remonstrants [Arminians] scoff at such a nicety: who would give a lemmon-paring for the difference?”

Faith Does Not Include Repentance or Obedience

Articles

1600’s

Rutherford, Samuel

The Covenant of Life Opened, pp. 172-176

“The Socinian, Arminian and Papists’ faith includes new repentance and new obedience, contrary to the Scripture which differs between faith and new obedience.”

Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself, p. 77

“Not any protestant divine… did ever teach that faith, new obedience, repentance are grounds upon which God justifies a sinner.”

ch. 36, ‘Repentance Mistaken by Antinomians’ in A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist, Pt. 2

Owen, John – pp. 103-4 of ch. 2, ‘The Nature of Justifying Faith’ in Justification by Faith… in Works, vol. 5

Witsius, Herman – ch. 8, ‘Concerning the Law of Works, the Works of the Law, & Faith’ in Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain: under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians & Neonomians (Glasgow, 1807), pp. 86-99

Quotes

Samuel Rutherford

Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself… (London: 1647)

pt. 1, p. 77

[Margin note:] Protestants make mortification and repentance some other thing than faith.

Not any Protestant divine, whom the author calls legal teachers, ignorant of the mystery of the Gospel, did ever teach that faith, new obedience, repentance, are grounds upon which God justifies a sinner. Antinomians, who make repentance and mortification all one with faith; and as Master Den says, they are but a change of the mind, to seek righteousnesse and mortification in Christ, not in ourselves. Thus much [Greek] does signify, must say, as we are justified by faith, so also by repentance, and mortification: if repentance be nothing but faith, as they say.”

pt. 3, p. 272

“1. Because this is faith; and the Scripture says we are justified by faith. 2. We receive Christ by faith, Jn. 1:12. (3) We receive and embrace the promise by faith, Heb. 11:11, and were persuaded of them. 4. We are to believe without staggering, Rom. 4:19. (5) We have peace of conscience through faith, Rom. 5:1. (6) By faith we have access into this grace wherein wee stand, Rom. 5:2. And boldness to enter into the holy of holiest, and draw near to our High Priest, with full assurance of faith, Heb. 10:19-22.

Now we are not justified by repentance and mortification; we neither receive Christ, nor embrace the promises by repentance. The apostle requires in repentance, sorrow, carefulness to eschew sin, clearing, indignation, fear, zeal, desire, revenge, 2 Cor. 7:10-11, but no where does the Scripture require this as an ingredient of repentance, that we have boldness and access, and full assurance: nor do Antinomians admit that by repentance we have peace, or pardon, but this they ascribe to faith.”

Edward Leigh

A System or Body of Divinity... (London, 1654), bk. 7, ch. 10, ‘Whether Faith Alone does Justify?’, pp. 528-29

When we say, ‘Faith alone does justify,’ we do not mean fidem solitariam, that faith which is alone; neither do we in construction join sola with fides the subject, but with justification the predicate, meaning that true faith though it be not alone, yet it does justify alone, even as the eye, though in respect of being it is not alone, yet in respect of seeing, unto which no other member does concur with it, it being the only instrument of that faculty, it is truly said to see alone, so faith though in respect of the being thereof it is not alone, yet in respect of justifying, unto which act no other grace does concur with it, it being the only instrument of apprehending and receiving Christ, is truly said to justify alone.
…

Objection: Faith is a work; therefore if we be justified by faith, then by works.

Answer: With faith we must join the object of it, viz. Christ, Fides justificat non absolutè, sed relativè sc. cum objecto, non efficiendo sed afficiendo et applicando [‘Faith does not justify absolutely, but relatively, even with the object, not efficiently, but affectively and applyingly]. The Scripture says we are justified by faith, and through faith, but never for faith or because of our faith: per fidem, ex fide, non propter fidem. We can only be justified by that righteousness which is universal and complete; faith is a partial righteousness, Phil. 3:9, and as imperfect as other graces.
…

To justify does not flow from any act of grace, because of the dignity and excellency of that act, but because of the peculiar nature, that it does receive and apply; therefore to receive Christ and to believe in Him is all one, and faith is always opposed to works.

Bellarmine objects that to apply is a work or action. It is true, it is a grammatical action, but a predicamental passion [an Aristotelian category of disposition]. But says Bellarmine, ‘Love lays hold on Christ, and by love we are made one;’ but yet there is a difference: love makes us one with Christ extramittendo [sending out], faith intramittendo [bringing in], and besides love joins us to Christ after we are made one by faith, so that it cannot justify us.”

That a Certain Inherent Holiness & Repentance is a Prerequisite, by way of Order & Accompaniment, to Faith & Justification

Bible Verses

1 Cor. 6:11 “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

Acts 26:18 “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me.”

Rom. 8:30 “Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also [effectually] called: and whom He [effectually] called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.”

Articles

1600’s

Davenant, John – section 5 in ch. 31, ‘Of the Necessity of Works to Salvation, or Justification’ in A Treatise on Justification: or The Disputatio de justitia habituali et actuali…, vol. 1 trans. Josiah Allport (d. 1641; London: Hamilton, 1844/1846), pp. 299-300

Note that what Davenant says here is substantially the same as what Owen says below, with a bit of difference of some terminology. Davenant would have done better to, instead of using the term “good works” in this context, to use “a certain inherent righteousness,” similar to Goodwin below.

Davenant here denies that works are efficient or meritorious causes of justification. Yet he affirms that certain inward works, or a certain inherent righteousness, is necessary as concurrent or preliminary conditions to justification, which accompany it, by way of order, not of causality; and these things “He Himself effects in us.”

These inward works he specifies as (1) mourning over sin, (2) hoping in the Mediator, (3) to resolve on a new life, (4) “and other such like things.” Yet the first three of these things are simply the definition of repentance and the fourth can be understood of things that flow out of repentance in a particular person’s experience and life in an appropriate, saving response to the call of the Gospel. Davenant gives as a reason:

“For the divine mercy does not justify dead stocks, that is those doing nothing; nor horses and mules, that is, rebellious and untractable sinners, obstinately cleaving to their own lusts; but men, and those too full of compunction and contrition, and following the leadings of the Word and the Divine Spirit.”

Ball, John – 2nd Pt., Ch. 5, p. 349 of A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (London, 1645)

“And here the doubt touching the precedency of faith and repentance may be easily determined. For if faith be taken largely or generally for a belief of the promise, if we repent and receive it, then faith is before repentance: for there can be no turning without hope of pardon, nor coming home by hearty sorrow, without some expectation of mercy [see WCF 15.2 & WSC 87]. Thus the exhortations run, ‘Turn unto the Lord, for He is merciful and gracious.’ ‘Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.’

But if faith be taken more strictly, for that faith or belief whereby we receive, embrace, or rest upon the promise of God in Christ Jesus for pardon and forgiveness, then repentance goes before pardon: for no remission is promised to be enjoyed but upon condition of repentance…

If repentance be necessary to justification, of necessity it must go before justifying faith; because faith and justification are immediately coupled together. It is impossible to come unto Christ without repentance… Coming unto Christ is a lively motion of the soul, wherein arising from sin, it draws nigh or approaches unto Christ, that in Him it might be satisfied. The motion is one, but the points are two. For in drawing nigh unto Christ, the soul arises from sin: which may be called repentance.”

Witsius, Herman – ch. 11, ‘Whether Repentance Precedes the Remission of Sins?’ [Yes] in Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain: under the Unhappy names of Antinomians and Neonomians (Glasgow, 1807), pp. 119-21

Witsius speaks of repentance as a ‘disposing condition’ of justification and the remission of sins. That is, it is a non-meritorious, disposition that is an antecedent condition for Justification to take place (it being Scripturally required that for the remission of sins, one must repent).

1700’s

Halyburton, Thomas – ‘A Modest Inquiry whether Regeneration or Justification has the Precedency in Order of Nature’ in The Works of the Rev. Thomas Halyburton… (London : Thomas Tegg, 1835), pp. 547-58

Amongst other helpful things, Halyburton argues the traditional reformed paradigm that regeneration is antecedent to justification, and not the other way around.

Quotes

Thomas Goodwin

Man’s Restoration by Grace, ch. 5 in Works (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1861), p. 537

“Now yet this might stand, if as learned Mr. [William] Pemble and others assert, sanctification does, in order of nature, precede justification, and which to me seems not remote from truth, or prejudicial to the grace of justification at all, and withal consonant to right reason, for if (as all grant) justification be upon an act of faith on Christ for justification, and that not until then we are justified, as all do and must acknowledge that hold justification by faith, according to the Scriptures, and that an act of faith must proceed from a principle of faith habitually wrought, then necessarily sanctification, taking it for the principles of habitual sanctification, must be in order of nature afore justification; for the seed and principle of faith is a part, and a principal part, of regeneration or sanctification, as taken in that sense, for the working the principles of all grace, and so is agreeable to that order and chain, Rom. 8:29, where ‘called’ is put before being ‘justified,’ as predestination is put before being called, understanding calling, of the working [of] the principles of regeneration.”

John Ball

A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace… (London: 1645), ch. 3, ‘Of the Covenant of Grace in General’, pp. 20-21

“A disposition to good works is necessary to justification, being the qualification of an active and lively faith…

Sincere, uniform and constant [obedience], though imperfect in measure and degree, and this is so necessary that without it there is no salvation to be expected. The Covenant of Grace calls for perfection, accepts sincerity, God in mercy pardoning the imperfections of our best performances. If perfection was rigidly exacted, no flesh could be saved: if not at all commanded, imperfection should not be sin, nor perfection to be labored after. The faith that is lively to embrace mercy is ever conjoined with an unfeigned purpose to walk in all well-pleasing, and the sincere performance of all holy obedience, as opportunity is offered, does ever attend that faith whereby we continually lay hold upon the promises once embraced.

Actual good works of all sorts (though not perfect in degree) are necessary to the continuance of actual justification, because faith can no longer lay faithful claim to the promises of life, than it does virtually or actually lead us forward in the way to Heaven. For:

‘If we say we have fellowship with God and walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another,’ 1 Jn. 1:6-7.

This walking in the light as He is in the light is that qualification whereby we become immediately capable of Christ’s righteousness, or actual participants of his propitiation, which is the sole immediate cause of our justification, taken for remission of sins, or actual approbation with God. The truth of which doctrine St. John likewise ratifies in terms equivalent, in the words presently following: ‘and the blood of Christ cleanseth us’ (walking in the light as God is in the light) ‘from all sin.’ [v. 7]”

[It appears in the above paragraph that Ball refers to the inherent holiness of regeneration, a disposition to good works and exercised faith, if not also to actual exercises of repentance (these things being the least degree of “walking in the light as He is in the light”) as requisites to becoming “immediately capable of Christ’s righteousness, or actual participants of his propitiation, which is the sole immediate cause of our justification, taken for remission of sins…” (though faith alone be the instrumental cause of justification).

Note that in Ball saying that saving faith virtually leads us forward in the way to heaven in the path of good works does not mean that actual good works or obedience are contained in justifying faith (which position Owen argues against), but only that this saving faith may produce good works, which is what ‘virtually’ entails.]

Samuel Rutherford

Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself… (London: 1647), pt. 1, p. 102

“…Libertines, who deny that justification, the Covenant of Grace and salvation have any the most gracious conditions in us; for that should obscure the freedom of Grace (they say)…

But I hope faith is a work of free grace, and must presuppose conversion and a new heart as an essential condition, else with Pelagians they must say that out of the principles of nature all are to believe; and this obscures far more the freedom of the grace of God working faith in us than all the conditions of grace, which we hold to be subservient, not contrary to the freedom of grace.”

Edward Leigh

A System or Body of Divinity... (London, 1654), bk. 7, ch. 10, ‘Whether Faith Alone does Justify?’, p. 530

“Whether sanctification precede justification.

Bishop [George] Downame in his appendix to the Covenant of Grace, does oppose my worthy tutor Mr. [William] Pemble for holding this opinion, but perhaps a distinction may solve all.

As sanctification is taken for the act of the Holy Ghost working holiness into us, so it goes before faith and justification, so the apostle puts it before justifying, saying 1 Cor. 6:11, ‘But ye are sanctified, justified;’ but as it is taken for the exercise of holiness in regard of amendment of heart and life, so it follows justification in nature, but it is joined with it in time. The apostle Rom. 8:30, places vocation before justification, which vocation is the same thing with the first sanctification or regeneration. See Acts 26:18.”

John Owen

The Doctrine of Justification by Faith… (London: Boulter, 1677),

General Considerations, p. 34

“(6) Works may be considered either as meritorious ex condigno, so as their merit should arise from their own intrinsic worth, or ex congruo only with respect unto the Covenant and promise of God. Those of the first sort are excluded at least from the first justification; the latter may have place both in the first and second.

(7) Moral causes may be of many sorts; preparatory, dispository, meritorious, conditionally efficient, or only sine quibus non. And we must diligently inquire in what sense, under the notion of what cause or causes, our works are excluded from our justification, and under what notions they are necessary thereunto. And there is no one of these distinctions but it needs many more to explain it, which accordingly are made use of by learned men.”

p. 104

“Wherefore we say the faith whereby we are justified is such as is not found in any but those who are made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and by Him united unto Christ, whose nature is renewed, and in whom there is a principle of all grace and purpose of obedience.”

p. 143

“For a condition does suspend that whereof it is a condition from existence, until it be accomplished…

But it is not yet proved, nor ever will be, that whatever is required in them that are to be justified, is a condition whereon their justification is immediately suspended. We allow that alone to be a condition of justification which has an influence of causality thereunto, though it be but the causality of an instrument. This we ascribe unto faith alone.”

Contra Romanism on Justification

Articles

1600’s

Ferne, Henry – An Appeal to Scripture & Antiquity in the Questions of… 3. Justification by and Merit of Good Works… Against the Romanists (London: Royston, 1665)

ch. 4, ‘Of Justification by Works’, pp. 88-110
Section 4, ‘Of Justification’, pp. 316-64

Ferne (1602-1662)

Owen, John – ch. 5, ‘The Distinction of a First & Second Justification Examined’ (†1683) 22 pp. in The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, pp. 189-211

Books

Burton was an Independent puritan. This book is targeted against Romanism. Most of the chapters interchange between an analysis of the Romanist view and then of the true, catholic, reformed view.

Davenant, John – A Treatise on Justification: or The Disputatio de justitia habituali et actuali…, vol. 1, 2 trans. Josiah Allport (d. 1641; London: Hamilton, 1844/1846) ToC 1, 2

This work is principally aimed against Romanism.

Quote

James Durham

Commentary on Revelation (Naphtali Press) vol. 3, p. 198

“[The gospel according to Romanism] overturns the nature of justification, and at best it does put in sanctification in the room thereof; and there is never any distinct ground laid, by which a sinner may come to receive a sentence of absolution before God, but this, to wit, justification, is lost by the former doctrine;

and they acknowledge no such thing distinct from regeneration or sanctification, as if no such act as justification were needful or mentioned in Scripture, as distinct from these; and, in effect, it leaves a sinner to a way of salvation that wants [lacks] justification in it: and therefore cannot profit him. For by denying that which is the formal cause of justification, they deny itself, seeing that gives it a being.”

Contra Arminianism on Justification

Article

1800’s

Girardeau, John – pt. 2, section 1 in Calvinism & Evangelical Arminianism: Compared as to Election, Reprobation, Justification & Related Doctrines (1890), pp. 417-566

Girardeau (1825-1898) was an American, southern presbyterian minister and professor of theology.

Contra Baxter & Neo-Nomianism on Justification

Books

1600’s

Crandon, John – Mr. Baxter’s Aphorisms Exorcized & Anthorized, or an Examination of & Answer to a Book Written by Mr. R. Baxter… entitled, Aphorisms of Justification. Together with a vindication of Justification by Mere Grace, from all the Popish & Arminian Sophisms, by which that author labours to ground it upon man’s works & righteousness (London: M.S., 1654) Index

Crandon (d. 1654)

Eedes, John – The Orthodox Doctrine concerning Justification by Faith Asserted & Vindicated: wherein the Book of Mr. William Eyre, one of the Ministers of New Sarum is Examined: & also the Doctrine of Mr. Baxter concerning Justification is Discussed (London: Henry Cripps, 1654) 62 pp.

Eedes (1609?-1667?). Eyre had written for the justification of infidels.

Danson, Thomas – A Friendly Conference between a Paulist & a Galatian in Defence of the Apostolical Doctrine of Justification by Faith without Works: Against Many Specious Exceptions of the Modern Galatians: wherein the Question whether the Gospel be a New Law is Modestly Discussed & Determined in the Negative (London: Samuel Crouch, 1694)

1700’s

Chauncy, Isaac – Alexipharmacon, or, A Fresh Antidote against Neonomian Bane & Poison to the Protestant Religion, being a Reply to the Late Bishop of Worcester’s Discourse of Christ’s Satisfaction, in Answer to the Appeal of the Late Mr. Stephen Lob: & Also a Refutation of the Doctrine of Justification by Man’s Own Works of Obedience, Delivered & Defended by Mr. John Humphrey & Mr. Samuel Clark, contrary to Scripture & the Doctrine of the First Reformers from Popery (London: W. Marshall, 1700) 176 pp.

Writings of Neonomians

Humfrey, John

Articles

The Middle-Way in One Paper of Justification with Indifferency between Protestant & Papist (London: Parkhurst, 1672) 41 pp.

Humfrey, an English reformed divine, known for arguing mediating positions, here appears to argue for a protestant view of justification by the imputation of Christ’s passive obedience and righteousness only.

‘Of Justification’ in Free Thoughts upon these Heads: Of Predestination… Justification… (London: T. Parkhurst, 1710), pp. 30-37

Humfrey follows Baxter on some key points. He argues in his third point against Christ’s righteousness being the formal cause of our justification (though it be the meritorious cause, as all affirm), arguing that it does not become personally ours (against Davenant), though we partake of its benefit (which appears to have been a distinctive of neonomians).

Books

The Righteousness of God Revealed in Gospel, or an Impartial Inquiry into the Genuine Doctrine of St. Paul in the Great, but Much Controverted Article of Justification (London: T. Parkhurst, 1697)

Ultimas manus, being Letters between Mr. John Humphrey & Mr. Samuel Clark, in Reference to the Point of Justification: written upon the Occasion of Mr. Clark’s Printing his Book upon that Subject, after Mr. Humfrey’s book entitled, The Righteousness of God, & Published for Vindication of that Doctrine wherein they Agree, as found by showing the difference of it from that of the Papist, & the mistakes of our Common Protestant… together with Animadversions… in order to Reconcile the Difference & Fix the Doctrine of Christ’s Satisfaction (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1698) 92 pp.

Clark, Samuel – Scripture-Justification, or a Discourse of Justification, according to the Evidence of Scripture-Light wherein the Nature of Justification is Fully Opened, the Great Point of Justification by Works, both of the Law & Gospel, is Clearly Stated: together with a Thesis concerning the Interest of Christ’s Active Obedience in our Justification (London: S. Bridge, 1698) 114 pp.

Clark (1626-1701)

In reply to the question: ‘Is there any news today?’: “Oh, yes, this is always news: ‘The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.'”

John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan

Related Pages

Faith

Repentance

Order of Salvation

The Covenant of Grace

Union with Christ

Sanctification