BOOK I
CHAP. II.
Of the Nature of Justifying Faith.
CHAPTER III.
Whether faith alone justifies?
CHAP. IV.
The just consideration of the controversy whether faith alone
justifies continued.
CHAP. V.
The same consideration confirmed and concluded by the opinions
of many very learned men, Protestants and others.
BOOK II.
The Controversy of the formal cause of Justification considered.
CHAP. I.
This controversy treated of in general.
CHAP. II.
A special discussion about the formal cause of justification, and
especially concerning the imputation of the justice of Christ.
CHAP. III.
The imputation of the justice of Christ treated of yet more
fully.
CHAP. IV.
Whether the justice of God, infused and inherent in us, pertains
to the formal cause of justification.
CHAP. V.
The doctrine laid down in the preceding Chapter more fully
confirmed.
CHAPTER VI.
Some objections are obviated, and this enquiry finished.
BOOK I
CHAP. II.
Of the Nature of Justifying Faith.
JUSTIFYING faith properly is not knowledge, but
this is its antecedent; for faith is properly assent:
but common sense teaches that we cannot assent
to the word of God, and to the mysteries therein contain
ed, without knowledge and understanding of them, at
least of some sort, and according to the what it is. But it is
a mere calumny to say that an exact understanding (founded
on examination) of the mysteries, even as to the why
it is, is required by Protestants for justifying faith. To treat of implicit faith, how it is to be understood, and how
far to be admitted, which is one of the things now con
troverted, does not enter into our present design. Those
writers may be consulted who now-a-days treat contro
versies of faith copiously, I wish I could add solidly.
Romanists teach, and indeed rightly, that an explicit
faith in the primary and fundamental articles which are
contained in the Apostles' Creed is necessary to all Christians, so far as each one's capacity admits. In the
other articles, they say that an implicit faith is sufficient
for the mass of the faithful, and if they believe whatever
their holy Mother, the Roman Church, believes, and holds
necessary to be believed. But such a faith (if indeed a
blind and stupid assent merit the name of faith) must not
easily be admitted in this sad and unhappy age; for how
many errors, alas! if not contrary to the faith, at least in addition to it, yet under the name of the faith, are com
monly now taught in the Roman Church, and thrust upon
all as articles of faith. Those words of Bellarmine,” “faith
is better defined by ignorance than by knowledge,” though
they are very crude, and incorrectly expressed by him,
ought not, I think, to be so bitterly attacked as many Pro
testants at present do; since they seem to be said by him
with limitations, and merely comparatively.
2. Nor is justifying faith properly assurance, as very
many Protestants contend; placing the very form and as
it were the soul of saving faith in assurance.
3. It is not the assurance of having previously received
special mercy, or forgiveness of sins; for this assurance, or even (if you choose) assent, by which, by a special ap
plication, each one individually believes, or certainly de
termines that his sins have been forgiven, is not the form
of justifying faith, but only a consequence and effect of it;
and that not of faith alone, but of the other virtues also
which accompany faith. Nor is it even a necessary or in
separable effect of it, as we shall show in the proper place.
For who can certainly determine that his sins have been
forgiven, unless he have first believed that Christ is the
Saviour of the world, and must in every thing be obeyed.
Moreover, neither Protestants nor any Christians can
deny that forgiveness of sins is the consequence and effect
of faith, since it is obtained by faith; (“That they may re
ceive forgiveness of sins, by faith that is in Me."”) And
therefore faith precedes justification, if not in time, yet at least in the order of nature and of causation. Justifying
faith is therefore wrongly defined to be “a confidence
that our sins have formerly been forgiven.” See the
Apostle," where he expressly determines assurance to be
posterior to faith: “In whom we have access, with as
surance, through the faith of Him.”
4. Nor is it the assurance by which we believe individu
ally that our sins are forgiven at the present moment, as
others maintain, having seen the absurdity of the former
opinion;” for justifying faith is the instrument or medium
by which we obtain forgiveness of sins, and therefore it is
the cause of it, and must be prior to it in the order of
nature at least. Secondly, whether we say that by justi
fying faith we believe that our sins have been already
forgiven, or that they are forgiven at the present mo
ment, yet forgiveness is, in either case, considered as the
object of faith, and therefore in nature it would precede
faith; for the object is not created by that act of which it
is the object; because the act of the intellect or will (at
least of that which is created) does not make its object, but
always presupposes it, as vision does not make the visible
object, but supposes it. I therefore regret that Daniel
Chamier (to name no others), a man in other respects
not void of learning or eloquence, should have on these
grounds so inconsiderately affirmed “ that “justifying
faith, if not in time, yet in reason at least follows justifi
cation;” and d that “faith is not the cause of justifica
tion.” Therefore he says that “faith justifies, not be
cause it effects justification, but because it is effected in
and required from a justified person.” “ These are most
absurd statements, nor will any sane and sober Protestant
deny that faith is an efficient cause of justification; not
indeed the principal nor the meritorious, but the instru
mental cause, as the words “by” and “through" sig
nify, (as Romanists rightly urge from St. Paul *); and
that therefore it is always prior to justification in the order
of nature. Thirdly, those who contend that justifying faith is the assurance of the forgiveness of sins, as accomplished
whether at some previous time or now at this present, do not, as they suppose, comfort those who are troubled in
mind, but rather from most persons they altogether take
away every consolation, and all but plunge them into the
abyss of despair. For how many pious souls firmly and
from the heart believe and assent to the gospel promises,
and even recline solely on Christ alone, who neverthe
less are not certain, much less persuaded by a divine faith,
that their sins have been forgiven, although they desire
this above all things. God forbid that we should say that
these are destitute of saving faith, and therefore incapable
of salvation.”
5. Nor again, thirdly and lastly, is justifying faith pro perly the assurance of obtaining forgiveness of sins and
eternal salvation, through and on account of Christ, as
others, who are rather more moderate, maintain; for not
only does this assurance spring from faith," but also it is
seated in the will, while faith is seated in the intellect. It is
true, indeed, that in the justification of the sinner these two
are always joined, with an indivisible union; whence also
the word “faith” is often used in scripture in the sense of
assurance, which is acknowledged even by many Romanists,
as Suarez testifies; * and the thing is evident of itself; but
yet these two are not on this account to be confounded. The
confusion of distinct things has, alas! produced, yea daily
produces and nourishes in the Church many most unne
cessary disputes, in this argument as well as in others.
6. The distinction between faith and assurance is not
only established by many passages from scripture and
testimonies of the Fathers, (which are commonly cited by
those who discuss these matters more at length, and to
which nothing but mere quibbles are replied by those who
think differently), and by the reasons above adduced, but
is also supported by the suffrages of many very learned
Protestants, though not all with the same design and
reason; Beza d'; Peter Martyre to R. Smyth, an English
Romanist, who had urged this distinction from the text
in the Ephesians which has been so often cited, at once
grants that faith and assurance differ, and then, putting a favourable construction on the words of those Protes
tant Theologians who have confounded them, says;
“Philip Melanchthon, and others of our faithful doctors,
when they call the faith by which we are justified assur
ance, mean little else, than that it is not a dead, not a
slothful faith, not a human persuasion, but so vehement an
assent as to have assurance as intimate as possible, and
most closely conjoined.” Zanchius," where he affirms that
Bucer has shown this to have been his opinion, in many
places of his book de reconciliatione Ecclesiae; "Piscator; “
J. Rivius; "Jacobus ad Portum, a theologian of Lausanne; "
“From which words,” he says, “it clearly appears that
that is true which the most eminent theologians [especially]
Calvin and Beza have remarked, viz. that assurance differs
from faith as effect from cause, and that therefore they
are wrongly confounded by some; although, whenever
justifying faith is in question, they cohere with an indisso
luble union.” And in the same place also he largely
proves that these two differ, not only as being cause and
effect, but also in subject, act, and object. And, finally,
he thus concludes,” “They who think differently, and
confound these, involve themselves in very great difficul
ties, from which I cannot see how they can extricate
themselves.” The Remonstrant Theologians;" the Arch
bishop of Spalatro;" Jackson an Englishman;" William
Chibald, also an Englishman, prolixely refutes the opinion
of the Lutherans, as he calls it, (though many others stick
in the same mire), who define justifying faith by an as
surance of having received forgiveness of sins. Yet he
himself also errs, with many others," when" he defines
justifying faith by that assurance wherewith we repose on
Christ for grace and salvation to be obtained through Him.
See George Downam,” (we need name no more in so clear
a matter), who diffusely treats of this matter against
Pemble.
7. Justifying faith (to speak accurately and theologi
cally) is nothing else than a firm and sure assent of the
mind, produced by the Holy Ghost from the word, by
which we acknowledge all things revealed by God in the
Scriptures, and especially those concerning the mystery of
our redemption and salvation, wrought by Christ, to be
most true, by reason of the authority of God who has re
vealed them.
8. Therefore, considered in itself and in its essence, it
is nothing else than Catholic faith, which itself doubtless
justifies a man, if all the other things which are neces
sary to justification accompany it. -
9. And its subject is the intellect, and not the will, al
though belief is ruled by the will; for “faith is a willing
assent of the soul; “” “Other things a man can do,
though unwilling; but he can believe only when he is
willing;" and when the act of belief is in Scripture at
tributed to the heart, we must thereby understand the
mind; since to believe, properly speaking, is nothing else
than to assent to what is said, and to account it true;
for thus far we have shown, by many proofs, that as
surance is no part of faith, nor indeed does it properly
belong to hopef either; for assurance is an assurance not
only of what is future, but also of what is present, as
when any one confides in his strength when carrying a
burden, or in his swiftness when he runs; yet it ap
proaches nearer to the nature of hope than to that of
faith, whence it is said to be “hope strengthened.” This
opinion might be confirmed by many testimonies from the
Scriptures and Fathers, but, because we study brevity, re
ferring the reader to those who write more copiously on
these matters, let us hear what many even Protestants
think on this subject. Andrew Rivetus, a recent writer,"
allows that this is the opinion of some Protestants, and
that he dares not condemn it; whoever has time, let him
read the writer's own words; yet he himself, following
the error of others," contends that “justifying faith is
not a habit, one in number, and absolutely simple; but
one by aggregation, and after a certain manner composed of two," viz., that it includes assent in the intellect, and
at the same time, assurance in the will. Beza, in his
Apol. pro justif contra anonymum, often affirms the same."
Jacobus ad Portum, in the passage above cited;" Pisca
tor," where he contends that those textse which are wont
to be adduced to establish the contrary opinion “are not to
be understood of assurance, but of a certain persuasion of
mind;” using also that common but solid argument, that
“no habit can be at once in subjects differing in kind, as
do the intellect and the will, &c.” Gerard [J.] Vos
sius'; R. Hookers; J. Cameron," where he expressly sup
ports these same doctrines. I cite no more; for indeed
it is unnecessary in a matter so evident. Wherefore
Alstedius, among the questions debated among Protestant
divines, puts this one : * “Whether faith be situated in
the intellect” only, “ or in the will” also : That faith
directs and governs confidence, love, and the other feel
ings, is indeed true; but it is not, on that account, in
the powers of these virtues; in the same way that pru
dence exerts its influence and works in all virtues, but yet
is not inherent in the powers of any of them.
10. All Protestants confess that the general and ade
quate object of justifying faith is all truth revealed by God in Scripture; so that it is in vain that Bellar
mine" and others laboriously prove against them what
they do not deny. I say in Scripture, because the ade
quate and infallible rule on which saving faith rests, is
contained, actually or virtually, in the Scriptures alone.
Many Romanists now-a-days think otherwise, contrary to
Scripture and the Fathers, and even to other divines much
esteemed in the Roman Church itself: but this discus
sion does not belong to this place,
11. Its principal object, however, and what above all
others, in the very act of justification, concerns the faith
ful, is Christ as Mediator, and the redemption wrought by
him, as is evident from most clear texts of Scripture.
“That through Christ, &c.” “Even the justice of God,
by faith of Christ &c,.”P and others innumerable. Nor do the Romanists deny this; because “the justification of the sinner” (as says St. Thomas Aquinas",) “pertains to the
goodness and mercy of God superabundantly diffusing it
self.” But this cannot be found apart from Christ, and from
the salvation offered in Him. Stapleton,” “Faith justifying
or disposing to justice principally indeed regards Christ as
Mediator, and the redemption wrought by Him; but this is
not the sole [and the peculiar] object of justifying faith, &c.”
Suarez,” “The belief of God, as our justifier through
Christ, is as it were the proper justifying faith;” which
he confirms from St. Paul, “To him that believeth on
Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
justice;” and from the decree of the Council of Trent on
Justification," where, after the general faith of those
things which are revealed, there is added, “And this es
pecially, that the wicked is justified by God, through his
grace, &c.” Cornelius à Lapide, f “Faith which com
mences justice” (why not also that which continues and
carries it on) “is properly and strictly faith in Christ the
Redeemer.” Jacobus Reihingius, while he was yet a Je
suit, and indeed of no obscure fame in Germany, (for he
afterwards joined himself to the Lutherans) arguing against
Meisner (as may be read in Meisner's excubiarum papisti
carum depulsio g ) says “Meisner writes that faith taken
relatively, as it is the apprehension of the merits of
Christ, is not acknowledged by Romanists. What an
audacious calumny ! Let us hear the Council of Trent,
&c.” then, having recited the words of the decree,h he
thus writes: “If we believe, in the first place, that the
wicked is justified through the redemption in Christ; if we
trust that God will be propitious to us on account of Christ;
how do we reject and (as Meisner slanderously asserts)
cast aside with scorn faith referred to the merits of Christ,
and assurance of forgiveness to be obtained through Him.”
No Romanist in his senses would deny this; so that those
Protestants are wrong who ascribe the contrary to them.
CHAPTER III.
Whether faith alone justifies?
1. To most of the disputants, on both sides, this question
appears of so great importance, that they think -
they must contend about it with a never-ending dissension, and an irreconcileable war; how truly, let us
now examine, in the fear of the Lord, and laying aside all
party feeling.
2. All Protestants who contend that we are justified by faith alone, always mean a living faith, and one which
works by love; that is, joined to works and love, with at
least the intention of doing good works, viz. when good works specially cannot be performed. Therefore, in this
proposition, “faith alone justifies,” they intend the word
“alone” to determine not the subject but the predicate.
Romanists themselves, when they are moderate, do not
deny that this is the common opinion of Protestants,
Bellarmine a ; Stapleton, though a vehement adversary b, “Lastly, all Protestants to a man teach that the faith which justifies is living and working by love, and all
other good works;” to confirm which opinion he cites Calvin's words." With what good faith then, or at least
with what charity, does Bellarmine, along with many
other Romanists, ascribe, by means of distorted inferences,
to all the sectaries of this time (as it is his wont to call
Protestants) that most impious heresy of Simon Magus
and Eunomius, and those contemporaries of the apostles, d.
who asserted that faith alone, without works, suffices to
salvation. • It cannot be denied that many things have
been said very incorrectly and harshly on this subject, by
the Lutherans and some others of the more rigid Pro testants; by which, however, they are not to be thought,
if we only interpret their words charitably, so much to
deny the indivisible connexion of good works with justify
ing faith, as their concurrence, in the act of justification, before the throne of divine justice. Nevertheless,
on whatever grounds these most dangerous hyperboles and extremely harsh perversions of words (which hitherto have been too patiently listened to), may be explained away, we must abstain from them, nor are they any longer to be
tolerated in the Church, unless we wish to prefer the
authority of a handful of moderns to the divine truth.
3. As to what they repeat, even to satiety, from St. Augustine, viz. that “good works follow a justified per son, but do not precede in one about to be justified,”
truly they have never mastered the sense of St. Augustine;
for he speaks in this place of works of justice, which,
“after the faith” (as he himself says) “has been received and
professed,” are thenceforward to be diligently performed by
the faithful, through the whole course of their life; or of
those works which are performed through justice, which
is habitual i. e. infused in the act of justification, inhe
rent, and permanent; (for St. Augustine always, to mention
this in passing, makes the grace of justification to consist
not in forgiveness of sins solely, but also in sanctification:
but of this hereafter :) and thus, by a sort of special
reason, they are called good works. But St. Augustine
must not be understood of those good works which are
done through the assisting and preparing grace of the
Holy Ghost, before and towards the justification of the
sinner : let the passage itself be read, and also that b
to which St. Augustine there refers his readers: “Being
through the Spirit incorporated and made a member of
Him, each one is able (He giving the increase from
within) to work justice.” These works which precede
justification we do not perform by the indwelling Spirit
and the special grace of justification, but, as St. Augus
tine (and with him all the more learned theologians) most
perspicuously distinguishes," by the Spirit preparing us
from without, and assisting, and by the grace of calling and of conversion.
4. They who acknowledge no grace of God, save that one
only which is infused in justification, or who contend that
at least that one goes before all others, greatly err; since they cannot deny that faith at least precedes justification
in nature; which [faith] we certainly have not from our
selves, but from the preventing grace of Christ." More
rightly, therefore, do other Protestants, who are more
sound and moderate, willingly concede that various dis
posing and preparing acts, produced in us through the
Holy Ghost assisting, and not by the sole powers of our
free-will, are required before justification, though most of
them" deny to these acts any power of justifying.
5. Although not every thing which has been said and
written, and is commonly cited by Romanists and others
for each of these disposing acts, (e.g. “We are saved by
hope,” “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she
loved much,” and some others), fully proves the point in
question, yet they greatly err who, on that account, deny
the thing itself, which is most certain from innumerable
other passages of Scripture.
6. All Protestants rightly deny that these disposing
acts done by faith and preventing grace, merit justifica
tion in any way, even in that of congruity; but very many Romanists also deny this, in opposition to the opi
nion of Bellarmine," and others who agree with him; Do
minicus à Soto;" Stapleton,” whose words I will here give,
as they are worthy of notice; “Works of grace and
special aid, which concur with faith and dispose to [rege
neration and] the forgiveness of sins, are not excluded”
from justification; “but, though they are said to concur
with faith, yet they do not, as our adversaries infer from
our opinion, in any sense merit the first justification;
for merit of congruity, in respect of the first grace, is now almost exploded from Catholic schools.” The same
things may be read in many other places of his works. Al
varez;" who also says it is the opinion of many most
influential Thomists, which Andreas Vega also confesses
(though he himself, following Scotus, defends the contrary)*: Paul Benius b; Hosius e, and many others, whom
it would be superfluous to cite. Scripture favours this view, wherever it says we are justified gratis, and through
grace, &c. The testimonies also of the Fathers favour it,
especially St. Augustine; although those of an opposite opi
nion are wont to cite some passages from him also, because
the words merit and meriting are sometimes, in this mat
ter, used by him in a wide and loose sense, for actual impe
tration or obtaining. Lastly, those words of the Council
of Trent also favour it," in which, without any distinction
of merit whatsoever, [it is said] “We are said to be justi
fied gratis, because none of those things which precede
justification, neither faith nor works, merit the grace of
justification.” But we must not therefore assert (as very
many Protestants do) that these disposing acts have no
influence whatever in justifying. For, unless we wish
violently to distort very many and most clear texts of
Scripture, we must concede that they are in some way
efficient causes of justification; not, indeed, in the way
of any merit, even the smallest and most trivial, but
solely from the benignity and gratuitous promise of God.
9. Who, in his senses, would doubt the causality of
faith? or who would doubt the causality of assurance of
obtaining pardon, through Christ, in which so many Pro testants (as we have said above) place the very soul, as it
were, of justifying faith, although in truth it belongs to
hope “No one,” says St. Ambrose,” “can rightly be
penitent,” (nor consequently be justified from his sins)
“save he who hopes for pardon.” But who can certainly
and firmly hope for pardon from God, without some love
of God, although but imperfect and inchoate 2 That peni
tence (which can never exist without hope and love of
God) not only disposes to justification, but is moreover a
medium of obtaining forgiveness of sins, and therefore
acquires, in a certain way, the nature of a cause, is most
clearly proved by the following passages of Scripture:—
Ezech. xviii. 21, 22, and 27; St. Luke xiii. 3; Acts ii. 38;
iii. 19.; 1 John i. 7 and 9; to omit an infinite number of other texts, by which certainly it is not only shown who
and of what sort they are whose sins are forgiven (as
they are coldly explained by those Protestants who think
differently), but also for what cause (cause, I say, after
its own manner and in its own kind), or under what con
dition they are forgiven. See, amongst other Protestants,
Vorstius.” Nothing is more common in the Fathers than
to read that through penitence sins are blotted out, washed
away, purged as by a medicine, wiped out. The same is
affirmed by some of the more learned Protestants, and
by whoever, in this contentious and quarrelsome age, have
been anxious for peace and concord between the dissen
tient parties; A. Fricius (of whom hereafter), the Arch
bishop of Spalatro *; Zanchius d'; Vorstiuse; the Remon
strants f; Francis Whyte.8 But afterwards we shall treat
of this at length. And what needs it also that we should
speak of the power of prayer, by which we, with the pub
lican, and all other pious persons, do humbly beg from God
pardon of our sins, in order to obtain the same, having
been so taught by our Saviour Himself, “Forgive us our
sins,” or of that of other previous acts,—since the matter is
clearer than the noon-day sun. Nor does this interfere
with our being justified gratis, as the Scripture teaches,
for in these we put nothing at all of merit, any more than
in faith itself, by which it is certain that we are instru
mentally justified; nor yet, on that account, not altogether
gratis. Amandus Polanus, a writer rigid in other re
spects, yet compelled by the force of truth,” lays down this
thesis, as the universal opinion of all Protestants, and
very agreeable to the teaching of the Fathers. “By re
pentance, confession, prayers, and tears, proceeding from
faith, we obtain forgiveness of sins, but we do not, properly
speaking, merit it; and therefore we obtain forgiveness of
sins, not by the merit of our penitence and prayer, but by
the mercy and benignity of God.” Which thesis, after a
sufficiently sound elucidation, he confirms by some very
clear testimonies of the Fathers, to which we could add numberless others, were not the thing itself most clea,
and certain. Would that all Protestants constantly pro
fessed this opinion, thus enunciated by Polanus : for there
would remain scarce any matter for controversy regarding
this article among the more right-thinking of both sides.
Conrad Pelicanus, a “There are many ways even among
Christians of obtaining forgiveness of sins, (concerning
which Origen,” and after him Cyril," which you will also
find abbreviated in the Glossa Ordinaria, d) viz. baptism,
martyrdom, alms-giving, forgiving those who sin against
us, procuring the conversion of the wicked by word and
example, signal works of charity, humble confession made
either to God or man, with tears and bitterness of heart,
&c.” Rigid and pertinacious zealots, especially the
Lutherans, (C. H. Echard," and J. Himmel, and others),
condemn these things, as coinciding with the doctrine of
the Romanists. But what else, gentle reader, could you
expect from such men, who in their writings are guided
not so much by a sound judgment as by an insane eager
ness for contradiction. You may read the same, concern
ing the power and efficacy of pious tears and fasting, in
wiping out our sins, through the boundless mercy of God,
in R. Hooker,g against the idle cavillings of the Puritans,
and in William Covell, in his Defence of Hooker['s Eccle
siastical Polity]," and in Francis White."
10. Protestants, however, almost universally teach that
we are justified by faith alone, and that not after the
manner of a disposition (as the Romanists say) but after
the manner of an instrument; that is, that justification is
received, or as they themselves say, apprehended by no
other thing than faith.
11. And here let us first remove out of the way, in a
few words, some idle and useless contests about words,
but too common to the parties, and after that treat more
at length of the matter itself.
12. We are justified by faith, not only after the manner
of a disposition, but also after that of an instrument; for these two are not repugnant, since indeed faith, and also
the other prerequisite dispositions, are instruments, or,
what comes to the same, means, through which, from the
promise of God, we obtain forgiveness of sins. “Some,”
says Toletus”, “are wont to call these dispositions to
justice the internal instruments of justification; but the
Council of Trent has not used this phrase, though it is
correct, but has called them dispositions, &c.” The Arch
bishop of Spalatrob affirms, that disposing works “when
properly done, bring with them, from the divine benignity
and promise, forgiveness of sins, in some way, whether
as disposing or as an instrument;” and a little beforee,
“There are also very many other things, to which, as dis
positions, or perchance even as instruments, God has
promised forgiveness of sins.” It was not necessary to
speak so timidly and doubtfully, when the thing is true
and certain.
13. As to what Protestants say, that the grace of jus
tification is received or apprehended by faith as by an
organ, verily, those Romanists d who condemn this ex
pression, especially because of the word, “to apprehend,'
are too morose censors; for many most learned Romanists
also speak in the same manner; Pererius", “Faith is as
it were a kind of medium, through which justice is
apprehended, and like an organ, by which the virtue
of the death of Christ is communicated to us;” Maldo
natus *, “By faith we obtain, apprehend, and possess
Christ;” See also Estius g; Claudius Espencaeus h, where
he rightly chastises the rashness of these modern critics.
The Vulgate Latin translation", “The Gentiles which
followed not after justice have apprehended justice,” no
other wise certainly than by faith. But there are very
many Protestants who need to be reminded that the
word (and also “the action” signified by the word) “of ‘re
ceiving or ‘apprehending is not to be too superstitiously
attributed to faith alone";” for we are said in Scripture to receive or apprehend salvation by good works also :
“Fight the good fight of faith, apprehend,” i. e. that you
may apprehend “eternal life";” and, “Charge them that
are rich that they do good . . . that they may apprehend
eternal life b.” “Not that we have already received, . . .
but I follow after, if by any means I may apprehend *.”
“So run that ye may apprehenda,” i. e. that ye may receive
the prize. The word “to receive” is met with in St.
Matt. xix. 29; St. Luke xi. 10; 1 Cor. iii. 8; and num
berless other places.
14. Let us also put aside the quibble, Whether Scrip
ture any where expressly says that faith alone justifies,
(which all the most learned Protestants rightly deny : for
that passage", “Only believe,” and that’, “Believe only,
and she shall be made whole;” these, I say, are nothing
to the point in question. As to the addition of the exclu
sive word ‘only made by Luther in his German version
of Rom. iii. 28, we are little careful about it ; let those
defend it who choose; ) or Whether there be words
equivalent at least; (certainly in this verses, “Knowing
that a man is not justified by the works of the law, except
by the faith of Jesus Christ,” all the most learned commen
tators, both Greek and Latin, and very many Romanists,
understand the word “except" in an adversative sense,
as equivalent to “but only;” a sense in which it is often
used in other passages of Scripture; see Estius", who
wishes also to interpret in the same manner, “We con
clude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds
of the law".” Cornelius à Lapide saysk, “S. Thomas
Aquinas' here admits this proposition, and Adam Sas
bout", “a man is not justified by the works of the law,
but only by faith.’”) The whole question is, what is
the sense of the word “alone,” or “only,” in whatever
manner (whether actually or only virtually) it exists in
Scripture.
15. That also is a fruitless contest about words which
is raised about the distinction of faith into formed and
unformed; for by these terms of distinction Romanists
understand merely living and dead faith, as St. James
calls them "; for they are not so ignorant as to affirm that love is, properly speaking, and as to the very es
sence of faith, the form of faith. They only mean this,
that faith, not as to its meritorious being, as some of them foolishly speak, but only as to its power and efficacy
of immediately bringing justice and salvation, is as it
were formed by love (the word “form being taken in a wide signification,) inasmuch as no other faith avails
to obtain justice and salvation but that which works
by love", and, as St. James" says, is by works in so far perfected and consummated, nay as if quickened;
although all this power of love primarily and originally
flows from faith, as will be shown afterwards. • But,
wearied of the disputes about words, with which most of
the litigants of both sides are wont as it were to delight
themselves, let us discuss the matter itself.
16. The Holy Scriptures nowhere, either expressly or by
necessary consequence, attribute to faith alone the whole
power of justifying, or what is the same thing, assert that
faith is the only instrument or means of receiving and
apprehending the grace of justification. This has been
already demonstrated in part, but let us follow it out a
little more fully.
Concerning penitence, which embraces in itself the
fear of God, and almost all other acts, there occur
(as we have shown before) very many passages in
Scripture, in which it is set forth as a necessary means
through which to obtain pardon of sins, or (what in fact
is the same thing) as a condition under which God (ulti
mately of His own gratuitous promise) forgives sins.
Who will deny that these in some sense have the nature
of a cause, except he who is more pleased with the
pugnacity of disputing, and the desire of cavilling, than
with the love of truth? How often is forgiveness of sins
described in Scripture as the effect or fruit of penitence d?
There are innumerable passages in Scripture in which
forgiveness of sins is attributed to good works, proceeding
from faith and the special aid of grace. To omit for the
present that passage, St. James ii. [24], where man is expressly said to be “justified by works, and not by faith only;” to omit, I say, that passage, about the meaning of which there is such warm contention between the parties,
and of which we will afterwards treat in its proper place,
see Ezech. xviii. [21], and xxxiii. [12, 14–16, 19]; St.
Matt. vi. 14, and xviii. 35; St. Luke, vi. 37; St. James, v.
19, 20, &c. Nay, any one who attentively reads the Scrip
tures will find that there are perhaps more passages which
exact the condition of good works for obtaining the pardon
of sins and eternal life, than there are which require the
condition of faith, simply so called *; although it [i. e.
faith] is necessarily always understood (nay rather pre
supposed) in them all. Let whoever chooses consult the
Collection of passages for good works taken from both
Testaments by G. Wicelius b, and others; but especially
let him diligently, and without prejudice, read the Holy
Scriptures themselves.
Scripture also very frequently teaches that we are purged
from sins by the participation of the sacraments."
17. Not undeservedly, however, does Holy Scripture,
and especially St. Paul, when treating of justification,
pre-eminently and very frequently make mention of faith,
not merely, as the Council of Trent d, Bellarminee, and
others say, because Faith is, 1st, The beginning of man's
salvation and justice; 2dly, The foundation of all our
justification, in that it [i. e. our justification] rests
wholly on faith, and is by it continually supported;
3dly, The root of this our justification; which reasons
are indeed true, and agreeable to Scripture and the
teaching of the Fathers, but do not quite fully explain
the thing itself, and the meaning of the apostle; but
besides these reasons, and others which might be ad duced, there is one particular cause why justification is
often attributed to faith, rather than to love or penitence
or the other works; which I will relate in the words of
Cardinal Toletus f, because they are most worthy of being
read, and oome as close as possible to the opinion of Pro
testants; “Because it is more evident in faith, that a man
is justified not by his own virtue but by the merit of Christ;
for as in the wilderness God placed health in the behold
ing the serpent, because the looking showed more clearly that men were healed by the virtue of the serpent, and
not by that of any work of their own, or medicine, so
faith shows that sinners are justified by the virtue and
merit of Christ, on Whom believing, they are saved, and
not by any virtue or merit of their own. This is the
cause why justification is attributed to faith, especially by
St. Paul, who was striving to exclude the works of the law
and human merit or efficacy from justification, and to
place it solely on the virtue and merit of Christ; there
fore he makes mention of faith in Christ. This neither
penitence, nor love, nor hope, have ; for faith more imme
diately and distinctly has reference to Him by Whose
virtue we are justified. St. Paul, however, does not there
fore exclude the other dispositions which [the Apostles and
Evangelists have taught.]” Estius a brings forward the
same reason: see A. Vega, b, whose words, though worthy
of notice, I omit, from a desire of brevity.
18. To sum up the matter in a few words: faith is both
the soul's eye, by which alone we behold Christ, and
the justice and salvation offered gratis in Him; and at
the same time, it is it's hand, by which, although not
solely, yet in a singular manner, not only along with
the other acts, but also above the other acts, we seize,
receive, and apprehend [Him and His gifts]; and from
which all the other works, whatever virtue they may
have, from it, I say, they have it all, not on account of
the worth or dignity of faith itself, but on account of its
object, viz. Christ, to Whom faith has more immediate and
distinct reference than the others have, as has been al
ready said. For as faith without works is nothing, is
dead, so also on the other hand, works without faith are
nothing, are dead, as St. Gregory Nazianzen says “.
Wherefore A. Vega also a confesses that this is the opinion
of some Catholics also, “ that faith is the first and
chiefest cause of our justification,” (although he says,
“the more common opinion, especially among the school
men, is, that penitence occupies the first place”); “and
all the heretics, I think,” (these are the words of Vega,
after the bad custom of Romanists, who defame with the
title of heretics pious and learned men who dissent from them, yet who often rather speak than think incorrectly)
“who hold that faith alone, without works, can justify us,
will also defend it. For when they admit, what indeed they
cannot deny, that other things also concur with faith to
justify us, they will say that at least the chief part is to
be attributed to faith. And whether of these two opinions
is the truer, is not, to me at least, altogether clear, and I
would rather believe that either may be defended without
peril of heresy, and so, that this whole question is pro
blematical, and may be problematically disputed on either
side in the schools.” Thus Vega, whom P. Canisius, the
Jesuit, in the preface to his work a testifies “to have been
commended, while he yet lived for his singular erudition
and equal sanctity, and that he was, in the opinion of
learned men, numbered among the chief theologians at
the Council of Trent.” Nay, even Th. Stapleton says b,
“Whether, in the first justification, faith have a chiefer
share than either penitence or love, is a scholastic ques
tion, &c. It is sufficient in this place to understand, that
by faith we are necessarily, and above all things, and
chiefly justified, when the wicked is justified, because he
must begin from faith; and when the just is yet more jus
tifiede, because all the works of justice ought to be done
in the right faith, and to proceed from faith.” Thus he.
And not in the beginning only of justification or salvation,
but also in its perpetual progress, does faith act the prin
cipal part; for it is, as the Fathers say, in such wise the
entrance and gate to justice and salvation, that it also
constantly follows him that advances, and always occupies
the first place, or, as we have said, acts the chief part in
leading him on and in performing all the actions of piety.
Not undeservedly, therefore, does Holy Scripture so often
ascribe forgiveness of sins and salvation to faith, as
being the prince, chief, mother, and fountain of all good
works in the faithful; for faith excites and moves the
affection to love, penitence, &c., although “the external
works which proceed from faith are performed by it
through the medium of love, which faith has excited” and continually accompanies, as Vasquez " rightly says.
But, lest this chapter become too long, let us proceed,
deferring what remains to be said in this matter till the
following chapters.
CHAP. IV.
The just consideration of the controversy whether faith alone
justifies continued.
THE works which are excluded from the business of
justification and salvation b are the works of the
law of nature, and of the Mosaic law, not merely
the ceremonial law, but also the moral law done by
Gentiles or Jews, before and without the faith and grace of
Christ, solely by the powers of free will, which those who
performed them imputed to themselves and not to the
grace of Christ, and on account of which they, the Jews
especially, thought (though falsely) that they merited jus
tification and salvation—but not the works that are done
from faith, and the special concurrence of the grace of
Christ. We most willingly grant that the power of
justifying is rightly denied to all works, universally,
even those of faith, if the works be considered nakedly
and in themselves, i. e. without reference to faith in
Christ, or to the divine grace given in Christ, and if
account be had of the proper dignity or value and merit
of the works themselves. Nay, innumerable passages of
Scripture, as we shall hereafter show, exclude all proud
assurance or boasting before God, for any works whatever,
which are done either by the regenerate by their spiritual
renewal, or before regeneration by the powers of our free
will; so that very many Romanists, by their too great boast
ing of merits, albeit of such merits as proceed (as they
themselves teach) from the grace of Christ, do very much
obscure the grace of Christ, although they do not alto
gether overturn it, as was done by those against whom
the Blessed Apostle was arguing. When, however, the special scope and meaning of the Apostle, in the above
cited passages, is treated of, certainly we must confess
that the Apostle in them is not treating of all works
whatsoever, even those of faith, but only of the works of
the law, and those through which the workers thought,
though falsely, that they merited justice and salvation.
For professedly and especially in the Epistle to the
Romans and in that to the Galatians, as well as inci
dentally in the other passages which are cited, the Apostle
is endeavouring to show that neither by the law nor
by our natural powers, nor on account of our own .
merits proceeding from thence, are we justified, but only
by the faith of Christ, and the unmerited grace of God.
That this is the meaning of the Blessed Apostle is abun
dantly evident from this, that in almost all the passages,
the antithesis between the law and faith, works and grace,
or works and the divine mercy, is either openly expressed,
or it is most clearly shown by the context of the passages
that it is necessarily to be understood. For to assert
that the effects of grace and the fruits of faith (as are
acts of hope, love, penitence, prayer, &c.) by which a faith
itself is said to be, in a certain manner, perfected and
consummated, are opposed to grace and faith, as being
contrary to them, or are simply excluded or separated
from it in obtaining justice and salvation, is most absurd
and contrary to innumerable passages of Scripture.
Read, I pray you, Rom. ix. 30, 31, and 10.3, where the
Apostle manifestly opposes their own justice (i. e. that
acquired by works done by our own and the natural
powers, and by the strength of the law, such as the Jews
proudly boasted of, and claimed to themselves) to the jus
tice of God, (i.e. that which proceeds from God, and from
the grace of Christ, and which makes us just before God,
for Christ's sake, and not merely in the sight of men :)
And Philip. iii. 7, 8, 9, where the Apostle accounts for
loss and dung his own justice, which is of the law, i. e.
legal or Judaical, and which was before his conversion to
the faith of Christ, &c. It is a gross error of some Protes
tants to hold, that the Apostle there speaks of all his works,
as well those done before as those after his conversion, and accounts them all as altogether loss and dung. For
“as to the works St. Paul there calls dung, he means,”
says Hospinian *, “those works which he had done in
Phariseeism.” See also Bullinger, Hyperius, Piscatorb,
and others, on the passage, and especially Vorstius, in his Scholia Alexicaca contra Sibrandum *, where he pro
lixly treats of this matter, and the Conference of Al
tenburg." Nor do the Fathers, as well Greek as Latin,
understand otherwise any of these here cited passages:
consult, if you choose, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theo
phylact, CEcumenius, and the other ancients, especially St.
Augustine, (that most strenuous defender of the grace of
Christ), through almost the whole of his book, De Spiritu
et Litera. e.
What very many Protestants affirm, [viz.], that the
Apostlef simply denies that Abraham was justified by
works, even those of faith, is false; for thus St. Paul
would openly contradict St. James, who g most expressly
affirms the contrary; (I do not stop here to consider
any of the foolish methods of reconciling these appa
rently contradictory passages, which have been devised
by many of late, as I purpose afterwards", God will
ing, to refute them at length); in that passage the
Blessed Apostle means merely the works of the law,
or of nature, done without faith in Christ ; for, 1st,
The Blessed Apostle here is speaking of no other
works than those of which he had been discoursing before", where he more than once directly called them
the works of the law; since otherwise his arguments
would not truly cohere either among themselves, or with
the principal thesis, which is, that neither Jews nor
Gentiles (but especially the Jews, who gloried in the law)
could ever be justified before God, without faith in
Christ. 2dly, Because, in verse 2, the Apostle denies in
Abraham justice and glory from works, not simply, nor in
the sight of men, but only in the sight of God: for he
thus shows (as St. Augustine" explains these words, “It
is one thing not to be justified, and another not to be
justified before God,”) that he is speaking of those works
which can indeed obtain praise from men, but cannot look for an eternal reward from God, which only comes
through faith. 3dly, Because he immediately, in verse 3,
subjoins from Gen. 15. 6, “Abraham believed in God,
&c.;” for St. Augustine a shows excellently well that this
passage of Scripture is adduced by the Apostle, in order
to show that faith was present in the works of Abraham;
and I beg any one who desires to know the judgment of St.
Augustine on this passage of the Apostle to read dili
gently the preface to his Comment on the thirty-second
Psalm. 4thly, Because, in verses 4 and 5, he makes an
opposition between the worker to whom reward is given
of debt, not of grace, and him who works not, but be
lieves; where by “the worker,” he does not understand
every one who works well in any manner, even by grace,
but him only who follows solely the justice of the law,
and thinks that, by his own works of justice, he merits
praise and reward from God; and by “ him that worketh
not,” he does not mean him who simply works nothing,
not even from the grace of Christ, (for that would be most
absurd, since he believes, hopes, loves, repents, prays,
&c.), but him who does not trust in his works done without
the faith and grace of Christ, nor attributes to them
justice or merit, but depends entirely on the grace of God
in regard to his justification; and therefore, in this anti
thesis, he does not oppose faith alone to good works done
through faith, but faith to works done without faith and
the grace of Christ. Lastly, In verse 13 et seq., he
opposes to each other “the law" and “faith,” in the
same sense in which he had before opposed “works” and
“faith,” and in which he is wont, in other passages, to
oppose “the law” and “grace.” Whence it clearly
appears that by the works which the Apostle excludes
from the act of justification, we are to understand merely
the works of the law which proceed from our own
powers, and by which a perfect and unbroken obedience
to the law is performed, and by which, therefore, a man
thinks (though falsely) that he merits justice; but not
the works of grace which flow from the faith of Christ.
Besides other learned men, of whom hereafter, those who
are commonly called the Remonstrants universally hold this." See also John Gerhard, the Lutheran theologian,
in the second part of his Theological Disputations on the
agreement between the Calvinists and the Socinians b,
where he most iniquitously and most falsely reckons this
most true opinion among the errors of the Socinians.
3. And as to the Apostle's confirming e by the au
thority of David d, that “the man is blessed to whom
God imputeth justice without works,” it is manifest from
the whole argument and series of the words, that he is
there treating of the same works as those concerning
which we have shown that he has been speaking
hitherto. -
4. Nor can all works be altogether excluded from th
causes of justification, unless faith itself be also excluded;
for who denies that it is a work of some kind, and even a
work of ours, i.e. by us performed, by the aid of grace :
And here, 1st, The Remonstrants, in their late Apo
logy*, are unjust to the Romanists when they affirm
that “the Papists expressly deny that the faith where
by we are justified is an act, much less an act of ours,
but will have it to be " merely “a habit, and that too
infused by God.” This opinion indeed is defended by
most of the schoolmen, but there are many Romanists
who disapprove of it ; see A. Vega', where he ex
pressly affirms that St. Paul, in those passages where
he is treating of justification, is to be understood, not of
habitual nor of acquired nor of infused faith, but only
of actual faith; and confirms this by several reasons,
which read in the author himself: see also Bellarmine g,
and others.
2dly, Those Protestants" also err who teach that faith,
when we are said to be justified by it, is to be taken
not properly but correlatively, and metonymically, viz.
for the justice of Christ and the forgiveness of sins,
which are apprehended by faith. Certainly those who so
think do not interpret Scripture, but manifestly twist it,
and expound most frigidly the power and efficacy of faith.
For faith does truly and properly concur, as a cause to our justification, not indeed as a principal or meritorious cause, but (as has been often said) as an instrumental
one, and therefore the effect (viz. our justification) is
properly and without metaphor, predicated of it. The
source of this error (as of many others) is the opposing
instrumental causes to the principal ones in the affair of
our justification, which, however, ought all to be conjoin
ed, since they all amicably conspire to produce the effect. For we are truly and even properly said to be justified
by faith, and also by the merits of Christ, and also by the
forgiveness of sins, &c., though not in the same manner.
What else do all Protestants say, who understand what
they say, when they assert that we are justified by faith
organically or instrumentally. It would be a useless
labour to allege their testimonies in favour of this
opinion, which are almost infinite."
3dly, Those Protestants are foolishly subtle who would
exclude faith itself, in so far as it is a work, from
the business of justification, but not in so far as it is
an instrument apprehending justice. For faith is an
instrument or medium of our justification, only as it
is a work; because we apprehend or obtain justice not
by the habit, but by the act or operation of faith, and
therefore faith, in the business of our justification, is to
be conceived as an act and operation, or as a work,
not meritorious (as we have often said) but purely in
strumental, whereby we receive or obtain justice, as the
Remonstrants" rightly teach, against Paraeus", the Ley den Divinese, and many others. See also Vorstius. *
Nay, Sibrandus himself (than whom there is no one more
rigid, no one more pertinacious) says thus, (though he
is here but little consistent with himself) f, “and this”
(viz. that faith not properly but relatively justifies us)
“is the universal opinion of our Doctors,” (How truly
Sibrandus says this I do not now stop to enquire, but
that is most false which he asserts when he maintains
that the Protestant theologians universally are to be
understood thus, and thus only); “If any one, however,
shall say that “faith’ in this proposition “a man is justified by faith, is taken instrumentally, I would not deny
that a man is justified by that work, as an instrument.
For faith is truly a work, by which, as by an instrument
or medium, we apprehend justice, &c.” This he there
confirms by the authority of Ursinus", “We are justi
fied by that work as by an instrument or medium, not as
by an impulsive cause.” And in his Commentary on the
Errors of Vorstius b [Sibrandus says], “When faith
which is a work, is taken instrumentally, it is not wrong
to say that the believer is justified from or by his work;”
he there cites Ursinus. "
5. But when the Apostled says, “To him that worketh
not, but believeth, &c.,” he does not there oppose “him
that believeth” to him that simply worketh not, (for
nothing could be said more absurd; for faith is a work
enjoined on us by God, under the promise of forgiveness
of sins, &c. e and is therefore called “the work of God f,”
viz.: because God himself requires it to be done by us):
but to “him that worketh not,” i. e. (as has been shown
above), “him who brings not his own works, done by the
strength of his own nature” or by the aid of the law, “nor
seeks or expects from them justice as wages due to them *.”
And as to what the Apostle there says, that “God justi
fieth the ungodly,” God forbid that you should under
stand it as some of the more rigid Protestants do, of a
man who is simply ungodly in the very act of justifica
tion, (for this would be diametrically repugnant to almost
every word of Scripture), but of him who a little before
was such, but now seriously deploring his own ungodli
ness, and flying for refuge to the throne of grace, is justi
fied gratis by faith in Christ. Among Protestants see
Philip Melanchthon", Pezel", Vorstius", to omit num
berless others.
6. Very many of the Fathers affirm that we are justi
fied by faith alone. Origen"; St. Hilary of Poictiers"; St.
Basil the Great"; St. Ambrose " [or Hilary the Deacon],
who is the author of the Commentaries on St. Paul; St. Gregory Nazianzen; St. Chrysostom *; St. Jeromeb;
Theodorete; St. Augustined; St. Cyril of Alexandriae; St. Leo"; St. Peter Chrysologus g; St. Prosper of Aquitaine h; Claudius Marius Victor[inus]"; Hesychiusk; Sedulius"; In
like manner Primasius"; Theophylact"; CEcumenius"; St. Bernard. P Read the passages in the authors themselves; but if you read all these, and whatever others can be cited
for this opinion, with a mind pure and free from all party feeling, you will clearly see that, by the word ‘alone', the
Fathers never intended simply to exclude all works of
faith and grace from the causes of justification and eternal
salvation; but, in the first place, the natural and Mosaic
laws; secondly, all works done by our own strength,
without faith in Christ and the preventing grace of God;
thirdly, a false faith or heresy, to which, and not to
works, they here oppose faith; fourthly, the absolute ne
cessity (viz. when either the power or the opportunity
to do such works is awanting.) of external works, even
those that are done from grace, as love, penitence, recep
tion of the sacraments, &c.; for then, faith alone, with
out external works, is sufficient, yet not without some
good affections of penitence and love of God, which are
internal works. Fifthly, and lastly, all vain assurance
and boasting of our works, of whatever sort, not only
those preceding faith, but also those done, whether inter
nally or externally, from the grace of faith.
CHAP. V.
The same consideration confirmed and concluded by the opinions
of many very learned men, Protestants and others.
THE doctrine hitherto laid down is so true, so cer
tain and clear, that very many Protestants, and
those too, illustrious, have thought that the word
alone, in the proposition, “faith alone justifies,” ought
not to be pertinaciously contended for, especially as it is
not found in express words in Scripture; nay, that it
might usefully be omitted for the sake of peace.
2. In the year 1530, in which the Confession of Augsburg
was presented to the Emperor of Germany, it was agreed
on between the seven conciliators of the doctrine of the
Romanists and Protestants, chosen in the Diet from each
side, (from the Protestants were these three theologians,
Melanchthon (who also himself had written that Confes
sion), Brentius, and Schneppius), that, for the sake of the
public peace, it should not be taught, that “faith alone
justifies,” but that the word “ alone” should be omit
ted, because the Romanists said, that it bred scandals
among the people, and rendered men negligent about
good works, and is not expressly contained in Scripture
while the Blessed James asserts the contrary.
This is testified, not only by Romanist writers; Cochlaeusa,
who was one of the three Romanist divines chosen,
Surius, and others; but also by many Protestants; Slei
dan”, who relates that “some points were agreed on”
between these fourteen pacificators, but what they were
he altogether suppresses, which ought not to have been
done by a faithful historian, since he has diligently
enough noted those things which remained controverted:
(but to acknowledge the truth, he was unwilling to of
fend the more rigid of Luther's followers, to whom he was
too much attached, and who were very much displeased
with this conciliation: in some other narratives also of this,
in other respects however much lauded historian, to say this in passing) many learned men, some Protestants even, look in vain for candour: Lucas Osiander, out of Sleidan a ;
Chytraeus”; Paraeuse ingenuously confesses that that con
ciliation was made, although he disapproves of it.
3. In the year 1548, the theologians of Wittenberg (the
chief of whom was Melanchthon), together with those of
Leipsic, in their synodical acts, which they themselves pub lished at the time of the Interim, for the sake of concord,
wrote thus on the justification of faith: “Man is chiefly
just and accepted before God by faith, on account of the Mediator. We do not contend about the word “alone;
but we say and confess, that it behoves that the other
virtues, and also a good intention, be begun and abide in
us; but that our assurance ought to be rested not on them
but on the Son of God (as it is said), and ought, as it were,
to overshadow the other virtues.” So far these most
learned and peace-loving men, whom the more rigid Pro
testants were wont to call Adiaphorists and Interimists,
names invented to raise a prejudice against them. This is
attested by Lucas Osianderd and Kemnitze, whose words
are, “In the Conference of Ratisbon,” (i. e. the first
Conference, A.D. 1541), “and at the time of the Interim, it
was contended by many,” (Protestants to wit), “that the
word ‘alone ought not to be insisted on, since it was not
expressly written in Holy Scripture;” by John Gerhard f;
consult, I pray you, a remarkable eulogium on Melanch
thon and his moderation, in that noble historian, Ja
cobus Augustus Thuanus *; the Conference of Altenburgh
also witnesses to this concession.
Martin Bucer, in the second Conference of Ratisbon,
A.D. 1546, although he pertinaciously contended that “we
are justified by faith alone,” yet, overcome by the force of
truth, conceded to the speakers of the other side, “that
we, in a certain mode, apprehend, embrace, and hold fast
the grace of God, and the justice of Christ, by hope and
love also ; but that we are justified by faith alone, be
cause by faith first we apprehend and embrace the justice of Christ.” See the acts written by Bucer himself. And what else is this, but that faith justifies us not alone, but
first or principally, inasmuch as it is the first in this work
of justification, and first apprehends the mercy of God
and the merit of Christ which no one denies to be most
true : for it does not follow, that because some thing is
first in an order, that therefore what follows is excluded
from that order. Nay, the very nature of order demands
that in it there be a prior and a posterior, and A. Fricius,
“a very learned man,” (this title Cassander bestows on
him)”, “ and one very fond of concord and moderation,
although " in most things “too much attached to the Pro
testant party,” rightly has these words concerning this
controversy;” (The passage, though rather long, I here
willingly give, both because it is most worthy of being
read, and also because the book is not in every one's
hand); “Thou,” he says, “assignest justification to faith,
because by faith we apprehend and hold the mercy of
God. Why is it not allowable to say the same of hope
and love, by which also we embrace God justifying us of
His own bounty? . . . For all these have proceeded from
the same Author . . . and, therefore, forgiveness of sins,
access to God, and the other good gifts, are offered not
only to faith, but to hope and love, and the other good
works:” See in the author himself the passages he cites
from Scripture * : “Many arguments are brought for
ward against works [of charity] by those who think other
wise, but it should be considered whether they do not as
sert those things of works separated from faith, without
which it is impossible to please God": for let us speak
of works joined to faith, reposing on the mercy of God,
and placing on it alone the stem and stern of their
salvation; what, I pray you, would there be absurd in
attributing justification to them as well as to faith?
&c.: that is, as the fruit should not be separated from
the tree, so neither ought the work from faith; but
both should repose on the mercy of God. . . . Faith,
therefore, is an instrument or organ receiving justifica
tion; but what hinders our attributing the same to love?
and our saying that, as it is not on account of faith, so neither is it on account of love; but still it is by faith and love that we are justified; since, indeed, this is shown by
many most clear authorities. Care must, however, be
taken to recall men's minds from confidence in and boast
ing of works, to shew the imperfection of works, to give
the glory to God alone, to refer every hope of salvation to
the merit of Christ and the goodness of God. For in
this way we in nothing depart from the divine words, by
which forgiveness of sin and eternal life is promised as to
faith so frequently to works, &c.” And discussing this
matter more diffusely in his treatise on the Church", he
thus writes”: “What matters it whether thou say that
we are justified by faith alone, which looks at God's
mercy, or by faith and works, which themselves are
based upon the same mercy. The mercy of God it is, to
which our justification is altogether ascribed: that it is which imputes to us that justice of which we were alto
gether destitute. Whether, therefore, thou embrace mercy
by faith alone, or by faith which worketh, makes no differ
ence, since in either way thou obtainest what thou hast
need of “” And; “This” (viz. God's mercy) “is to be
placed in the highest place, and it must be laid down
that by it we are gratuitously justified, when our sins are
not imputed to us; and, in order to obtain the assurance of
the forgiveness of our sins, no respect is to be had to the
worth of either our work or our faith . . . For neither
does faith here play any other part than that of the
organ whereby the mercy which justifies us is appre
hended. If to this organ thou add works, as the
fruit to its tree, each will act as an organ; for they
who teach that faith alone justifies do not gainsay works
being a cause sine qua non, or a necessary condition of jus
tification;” (Would that very many did not gainsay it, viz.
all the more rigid ) “but a cause of any sort whatever,
for this very reason that it is a cause, must necessarily pre
cede the effect. We have therefore only to take care
that we do not bring into conflict the justice which is done by the strength of our own powers with the justice which
is gratuitously given us. This being provided for, I do
not well understand why there should be contention about these formulas, “faith alone;” “faith with works;” if
only works be not opposed conflictingly to gratuitous jus
tice, but be added to faith, as the fruit to its tree, so that
both may repose solely on God's mercy, &c. As far as
concerns my own conscience, I willingly and tranquilly
acquiesce in the mercy of God. In the mean time, I think
it little concerns me to enquire whether I apprehend
mercy by faith alone, or by faith and works. I know
well that both of these are required from me, and acknow
ledge my great imperfection in both; but I beseech my
God to succour the weakness of my faith, and also,
having forgiven my sins, to fulfil in me the justice of the
law. Nor truly do I doubt but that there are very many
who rest most calmly in the wounds of Christ, and yet
are not endowed with so much talent as to be able to
judge whether to attribute their justification to faith
alone, or to faith with works.” All this, and much more
of the same import, may be read in the author himself,
most worthy of note, as having proceeded from a deep
sense of piety, united with truth, and from a desire of re
moving the dissensions of the parties.
-
6. Peter Baroe, a Welshman, formerly Professor of Di
vinity in the University of Cambridge, a most learned man,
and a great lover of peace, showing" by what methods
the controversy concerning the justification of works, at
present agitated with the Romanists, seems likely to be
removed, or at least diminished; (“ for,” says this
writer" in golden words, “if we be the children of the
light", we ought always to endeavour to diminish con
troversies;”) in the first place, by the works which
St. Paul excludes from justification, understands the
works of the law; not the ceremonial works only, but
also those which are moral, when destitute of faith, and
opposed to it." Secondly, though he wrongly contends
that the love of God (viz. that by which the will begins
to love God, shown to it by the intellect, and desires to
be joined to Him, &c.) belongs to the nature of justifying
faith, (since, as we have above largely proved, faith is situated in the intellect only,) and is not an effect of it pos
terior to justification, as his antagonists in that Univer
sity then absurdly maintained; in order that, by this hy
pothesis, he might truly and safely, as he thought, support
the general doctrine of Protestants, that we are justified
by faith alone; yet by that very supposition this learned
and sagacious man most clearly saw that faith cannot
justify, if we remove from it (though only in thought)
that first love of God: since, thus viewed, it is only an
action of the mind, to attribute the power of justifying to
which alone is most absurd and diametrically repugnant
to innumerable passages in Holy Scripture. “But,” says
this author", “if the will [not only does not reject, but
even] desires the good thing offered to it by the mind,
and seeks and pursues it with assurance of obtaining,
then it is true faith, together with hope and repentance,
&c. whereby man obtains justice, &c.” By all which
arguments he here and elsewhere clearly demonstrates
that we are justified not by faith alone, properly so
called, and as contradistinguished from the other acts,
but by hope, love, repentance, &c. also. Secondly, it is
only the love of God (as the author says) arising from
Christ abiding in us through the Spirit and faith, by
which we, mindful of the benefits we have received,
embrace, &c. Him, not merely as God, and the fountain
of all good things, Who is as yet separate and remote from
us, but as being now our Father, and most closely united
to us. And he denies that we are justified by the ex ternal effects of love, as well towards God as towards
man, because these are subsequent to justifying faith
and to our justification. This, however, thou must take
care to understand of the commencement only of jus
tification, not of its progress and increase; otherwise
thou wilt manifestly err, as will be shown hereafter.
On this subject read the ample and learned dissertations of
this writer."
7. Innocentius Gentiletus, a Jurisconsult of great
name among the Protestants, even the more rigid, thus speaks", while examining the canons of the sixth ses
sion of the Council of Trent, of justification; “If the
Tridentine Fathers, when they say that good works along
with faith effect our justification" (although this expres
sion be an improper one) mean thus,” (viz. that that faith
only which works by love is the faith by which we are
justified,) “we by no means dissent from them : for we
do not deny that love to God and our neighbour are good
works; nay, on the contrary, we affirm them to be the
fountain and well-spring of particular and individual good
works; for we also allow that faith is a good work. But
if they mean that almsgiving, fasting, and such like par ticular exercises of love, cooperate together with Chris
tian faith our justification, which seems to be their
opinion,” (but certainly it is not, for these the Romanists
do not exact, except when time and strength afford op
portunity for performing them;) “this truly we cannot
allow; for that thief who was justified by Christ on the
cross openly indicated, when he betook himself to Him
with prayers, that he placed his hope in Him, and loved
God; and, from his rebuking his partner in guilt to in
duce him to embrace the same faith, it clearly appears
that he loved his neighbour also : so that, though he gave
no alms, nor macerated himself with any fastings, nor
performed any other such private good works of love,
nevertheless he was justified.” Whence it is evident that
this author excludes from justification only the external
works of love, viz. in the case already mentioned, but
not the internal works of hope, love, &c. Wherefore he
adds these still more explicit words; “But when we say
that we are justified by faith alone, we do not so under
stand it as if faith alone were the efficient cause of our
salvation, (for that is the mercy of God, which He
bestows on us through the merit of His Son,) but merely
the instrumental cause, whereby He conjoins and binds us
to Himself, and we, having been conjoined, draw from Him our justification, through the operation of the Holy
Ghost. It is therefore of no great importance whether
we say that faith alone (which, as we have said before,
cannot be separated from love) is the cause of our justifi
cation, or whether we assert that love also is a cooper
ating cause, provided only we be persuaded of this, that
Christ alone, obtaining for us the love of the Father, is
the efficient cause. For since the one [i. e. faith] cannot
be without the other [i.e. love], we may call both con
jointly instrumental causes.” What follow, “Neverthe
less it is more proper to say that we are justified by faith
than by faith and love, &c.” are added by him only to
gratify the more rigid, lest he should too much offend
them by what he had before said, or, what is more pro
bable, they have proceeded from another hand.
8. Of the opinion of C. Vorstius on this matter, no one
who has diligently read his Scholia Alexicaca contra Si
brandum can have a doubt; for he asserts and proves this
in very many places. I can only give here the following
words”: “ Nay, I say that not even a pious man is
justified by pious works, if ‘works’ be taken properly
and by themselves, and be opposed to faith and grace.
But this only I say (with the Scriptures and the Fathers)
that we are justified by a living and working faith; and,
therefore, that we are justified by the works of faith
in so far as they are taken for that faith, and are
considered as the fruit, nay rather as the soul of
faith.”
9. The Remonstrants" affirm that, in the affair of jus
tification, faith “is to be considered in no other way
than in as far as it includes the obedience of faith, and is
as it were the prolific mother of good works, and the
fountain and well-spring of the whole of Christian piety
and holiness. So impossible is it that it ought to be or
justly can be itself opposed to this obedience and piety.”
And in their Apology " they thus speak, “Is it not a
mere logical controversy to dispute whether faith which
is living or faith in that it is living is required to justi
fication ? Certainly both sides agree in describing the nature of faith; by both sides the presence of good works
is held to be necessary: the question only remains as to
the relation which living faith bears to justification. But
to determine the relation does not belong to us, but to
the Judge. Next, what is there in the mere relation, to
afford a just cause to a great dispute? Nay rather, what
has it not that ought to cut off all occasion of dispute
from among those that are desirous of piety and good
works. Certainly, if it be said that faith is required to
justification, in so far as or in that it is a living faith, the
necessity of good works and Christian piety is more
strongly set forth than if it be said that faith which is
living is required to justification. The nature of the
thing [i. e. of faith] shows it.” And " the Remonstrants
thus lay down that “almost the whole controversy which
the Censors here raise is about the metaphysical relations
which true and living faith bears to justification, to deter
mine which belongs to the Judge and Lord, not to His
subjects. But indeed,” (would that all the more rigid of
both sides would fix these words deep in their souls),
“who, without groans and sighs and tears, can reflect
that we, wretched pigmies, so slow and negligent in accu
rately examining and faithfully performing those things
which belong to our duty, should assume so much leisure and
audacity as to soar into what belongs to our Lord and
Judge, and should dare to define by what relation this or
that act of ours will be judged by Him in the last
judgment; and that unless our other fellow-servants ad
mit these our definitions, made by us transgressing the
bounds of our duty and calling, we do not hesitate to divide
into parties the Christian people, the peculiar property of
our God and Lord Jesus Christ, to beat, scourge, cast out
our fellow-servants, to rage against them with anathe
mas, and every sort of unmercifulness.” These last
words are worthy of being written in letters of gold.
The same Remonstrants", to these words of the Censors (that “they” [the Remonstrants] “attribute pardon of
sins and eternal life equally to faith and to obedience to the
commands,”) reply as follows: “The expression ‘equally'
is equivocal : if the Censor takes it for ‘equally princi
pally, he is unjust to the Remonstrants, for they ascribe
forgiveness of sins and salvation to faith, as the prince,
leader, mother, and fountain of obedience. But if he
take it for ‘conjointly, then the Remonstrants acknow
ledge that they ascribe pardon of sins and eternal salva
tion to faith, which and in so far as it has joined to it
obedience, strictly so called, (under which the intention of
obeying, i. e. when special acts of obedience cannot be
performed, is comprehended) and therefore to obedience
also which has proceeded from faith. “But this, says
the Censor, “is nothing else but to attribute justifi
cation and salvation to faith and works, indistinctly or
conjointly. Even so is it : they have Scripture for
their warrant, not only in that famous passage of St.
James", where it is expressly said, “We conclude,
therefore, that a man is justified by works, and not by
faith only, but in a thousand other passages besides;
where forgiveness of sins and life eternal are attributed
to good works, &c.” Read the Apology itself; again";
“That is to say, the whole dissension about this
article” (of justification) “comes to this. Whether faith,
or that belief whereby we believe that our sins have
been forgiven, or whereby we apprehend the mercy of
God and the satisfaction of Christ for us, justifies us
before God, in that simply it is such an act, or in so far
as it is a living act, i.e. one having joined to itself either
actual repentance, or at least a firm and deliberate in
tention of mind to regulate, by the aid of divine grace,
our whole life with fear and trembling, after the pattern
of the Christian religion. This is what the declaration
of the Remonstrants asserts and professes, nothing but
this.” They repeat the same in their Responsio ad spe
cimen calumniarum &c." See the arguments of Thammer, which were proposed in the year 1547–8, at Marpurg, against the opinion that faith alone justifies, together with the very weak
answers of Benedictus Aretius, in this latter author's
Problemata. Theologica." Theodorus Bibliander, a Zu
rich theologian": “Although,” he says, “those things which make up the Christian religion so cohere that they
cannot be separated from one another, yet often one or
two things are by a synechdoche put for all the others;
which, in my opinion, has given a handle for altercation
to not a few persons in the dispute about the justification
of man, who have not observed the figure by which one
thing is sometimes put for several others, &c.” See the
author.
10. All those Protestants who define justifying faith to
be knowledge and assent, and the supplicating for the
promised mercy, and a firm trust in Him that pro
mised, as many of them do, or that it is a trust . . . . .
or a trustful and even obsequious assent, as very many
others will have it, however much they may contend
in words that “faith alone justifies;” yet in fact they
overturn it, provided only they distinguish between the acts of faith, hope, love, penitence, prayer, &c. For
neither theology nor even right reason allows of bring
ing under the essence of faith, things so diverse, unless
we wish, by such a confusion of words and things, both
to be ourselves deceived and to deceive others.
11. The Archbishop of Spalatro * allows, that “faith,
if it be taken in its own sole pure formality, in so far as
it is an act of the intellect alone, cannot justify us, &c.
But,” he says, “ in true and living faith, we, besides
the act of the intellect, . . . put also the good disposition
of the will, which is affected by inchoate love towards
God, . . . to whom it submits itself, and disposes itself to
obey Him, and places in Him a great hope, and con
ceives trust.” And again", “Especially since true faith includes a pious affection of the will, in which there is an inchoate love towards God, and a great trust
from the merits of Christ.” And, * “And whoever are
justified when near death, as the thief on the cross
and such like, they certainly are justified by faith alone,
with that at least inchoate love and trust which
is in all true living faith.” What else does all this
mean, but that we are not justified by faith alone, if
we mean faith properly so called, and as it is contradis
tinguished from the other acts united with it? The
Archbishop indeed, who was most desirous of Christian
unity and love, affirms”, that “Holy Scripture attri
butes to other antecedent acts also, a certain power (from
God’s promise) of obtaining forgiveness of sins, and that
it is the duty of pastors to exhort their people to per
form these works, because, if they be rightly done, they
bring with them from the divine benignity and promise,
forgiveness of sins, in some mode, whether disposingly
or instrumentally. With which,” however, he thinks (in
order to gratify the more rigid Protestants) “it consistent
that faith alone is that which formally apprehends justifi
cation.” Yet a little before * he had said, that it is
proper to trust alone, (which is " reducible to hope,
and is born from faith, or is an effect of faith) or at least
seems to be an action of it, formally and proximately to
apprehend, &c. Christ's justice. But how are these con
sistent, that the justice of Christ is formally apprehended
by faith alone, and yet not except by trust, which is
an effect of faith? Lastly, what he says *, that faith
alone, without any good work whatever, provided only
there be no sinful work, fully justifies, is false, unless he
mean external good works, which he no doubt does,
though he speaks too generally and incautiously: for to assert that inchoate love of God and trust (which
are internal good works) can be excluded from living faith, is absurd in itself, and this same Conciliator has
previously often confessed that they are included in it,
and therefore he cannot mean that faith alone, without
other internal good works or acts, justifies us. I very much approve of and praise the pious desire of the
author to conciliate the parties, but I would wish solid
conciliations, and such as are consonant to the truth, to
be always employed.
G. Cassander, who is much praised for “his very great candour of mind and moderation,” by that noble historian
Jacobus Augustus Thuanus", says”, “To many learned
and pious men it seems preferable that the word ‘ alone”
be omitted in popular discourses,” (viz. because it is for
the most part wrongly understood by the people), “and that the scriptural expressions only be employed; as, ‘By graceye are saved, through faith, without works”; “Ye
are justified gratis through His grace"; “We account that a man is justified by faith, not from the works of
the law. *'''
12. George Wicelius, another most learned and mo
derate man", says, “We would wish that Protestants,
whenever they debate concerning justifying faith, would,
for the sake of peace, omit this exclusive word alone,
since the sacred writings nowhere add it, and that they would rather speak and teach from the Canonical Scrip tures than from the writings of their own party.” "
13. The Bishops of the Anglican Church, in “A neces
sary doctrine and erudition for any Christian man,”
printed at London, [in English, 1543, and in Latin] A.D. 1544, three years before the death of Henry 8, although
they reject many dogmas which are now-a-days univer
sally defended by Romanists, yet thus speak of justifica tion:—“And therefore it is plain, that not only faith, as
it is a distinct virtue or gift by itself, is required to our
justification, but also the other gifts of the grace of
God, with a desire to do good works, proceeding of the
same grace.”" See the book itself; see also the Enchi ridion Coloniense on justification."
14. To conclude this consideration. Since it is no
where expressly said in Holy Scripture, (and none
contend more vehemently than the Protestants that in matters of faith we must both think and speak as it does),
that “we are justified by faith alone;” and since the
Fathers, who certainly have often used this expression,
never understood it in the sense in which it is univer
sally taken now-a-days by Protestants; and since the
explanations and conciliations which have been lately
devised are altogether futile; and since, finally, very
learned men of both parties have accounted, and even
now account, this question to be by no means necessary;
we, therefore, being led by the desire of truth and of the
unity of the Church to agree with them, deem it right
that it be no longer pertinaciously contended for ; and
therefore that the opinion of all the more rigid Pro
testants is opposed as well to truth as to Christian
charity, who contend that the assertion commonly de
fended by the Romanists, “that faith alone does not
justify,” apart from every definition either of faith itself,
or of the merit, even improperly so called, of the
other works or acts which concur with faith towards
justification,—that this assertion of Romanists is not only
diametrically repugnant to Holy Scripture, and the pious
Fathers, but also that it (besides innumerable other
things) has afforded and does still afford to Protestants
a just cause for seceding from the Roman Church. Read,
besides innumerable others, the last words of the first
book of Paraeus de Justificatione contra Bellarminum."
15. And thus from what we have said it clearly ap
pears, that that contention, “Whether true and justifying
faith can in reality be separated from love and the other
virtues,” is nothing but a mere contest about words.
For if by “true and justifying faith' dogmatic faith be
meant, (and if we speak properly and distinctly about
faith, we can mean nothing else), almost all Protestants
affirm it. For that opinion of Martin Bucer (which was
also that of Peter Martyr" and of some others), in the
conference of Ratisbon " is altogethert absurd, that “every
man who admits mortal sin, or remains in such sin, has in his soul an assent contrary to the Catholic faith, and
does not assent truly to any article of faith, or to any
word of God, nay, does not even believe that God is,
namely, that God who has revealed Himself to us in
Scripture, &c.” “That dogmatic faith,” says R. Abbott,
Bishop of Salisbury", arguing against this opinion, “is
shaken off with every grave lapse, and that it cannot
consist with mortal sin, is contrary to common sense, and
is proved false by all experience, when we see men, in
no ways pious, &c. seriously maintain the doctrines of the
faith and defend the form of religion with all eagerness,
only not applying to themselves what ought to be of use
in regulating their life.” But if by justifying faith we
understand faith which is living, and united to love,
which certainly Protestants, and even many others, mean,
nothing could be more absurd than to say or pretend that
it can be separated from love, for this is an open con
tradiction; “Without love,” as says St. Augustine, b
“faith may be, but cannot profit,” nor therefore justify.
SECOND BOOK.
The Controversy of the formal cause of Justifica
tion considered.
CHAP. I.
This controversy treated of in general.
1. T' disputation concerning the formal cause of justification follows next, that is, not on account
of what [cause] (if we wish to speak properly),
but through or according to what, man is said to be just
before God. “A very great question, indeed,” says Bel
larmine”, “and at present necessary above all others.”
“Rightly does Bellarmine,” says Paraeus”, “call this
question a great one, since indeed it was and is the most
especial cause of the separation which the Evangelicals
have been forced to make from the Roman Papacy.”
Thus he. So now-a-days alas ! think most of the contro
versialists of both parties; so they write, for we live
in an age given to disputes. But who that loves the
truth which is according to holiness and the unity of the Church more than contentions and schisms, does not
think otherwise? For all agree in these things, as we shall see by-and-bye, that when a man is first justified,
his sins are forgiven gratis; the justice of Christ is im
puted to him; and he is, at the same time, renewed
and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. All these things are
necessary to be believed, and even put beyond all possi
bility of doubt. But the disputes as to whether the formal cause of justification is to be placed solely in the
forgiveness of sius, or whether also in the imputation of
the justice of Christ, or whether also in internal renewing and sanctification, might appear (as the Archbishop of
Spalatro" says) almost metaphysical, and not unlike a
disputation in Logic, or rather Metaphysics, in what the
essential or formal cause of quantity consists, whether
in measure, or in divisibility, or in the extension of
parts, and to many other such dissensions. In the Ro
man Church how many discordant opinions have there
been, and even yet are, concerning this matter, none of
which might or may rightly be condemned for heresy
Hear the Master of the Sentences,” “The death of Christ
justifies us, while by it love is excited in our hearts,—
that love, namely, by which we love God who hath done
so great things for us. We are also said otherwise to be
justified by the death of Christ, because by faith of His
death we are cleansed from sins. Whence the Apostle,
‘The justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ". And
again, ‘Whom God set forth as the propitiator by faith
in His blood," i.e. by faith of His passion; as of old
those who looked on the brazen serpent raised on the tree
were cured of the bites of the serpents. If, therefore, we
with the look of sound faith regard Him Who for us
hung on the tree, we are loosed from the bonds of the
devil, i. e. from sins, and are so freed from the devil, that
not even after this life can He find in us aught to punish : .
for by His own death, that one most true sacrifice, Christ
extinguished whatever faults there were, whereby the
devil detained us to endure torments, &c.” This is very
nearly the opinion of Protestants now-a-days, and it then
was that of other orthodox teachers also in the Roman
Church itself: see very many others who will be cited
afterwards in their proper places. Certainly the words of
Bellarmine," speaking of the diverse, nay adverse, opinions
of Romanists about the efficacy of the sacraments, are
worthy of note; “And this” (viz. “that the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, in which all” [i. e. all Roman
ists] “are agreed”) “suffices for faith and for the legiti
mate use of the sacraments; as in the miracles of Christ
it was not required that the men who were to be cured
should know by what genus of cause the hem of His gar
ment cured; it was sufficient that they should know and believe that the touch of that hem brought healing; InOl'
was it necessary that the Apostles themselves,” &c. [read]
what follow. And again, on the dissensions of Romanists
about the matter and form of the sacrament of marriage;"
“And although Catholics should differ extremely among
themselves both as to the matter and as to the form, that
would be no obstacle to the certainty we have about the
sacrament of marriage. For to the holding the Catho
lic faith concerning the sacraments, and to the faithfully
ministering or receiving the same, it is sufficient to know
what is necessarily required to the celebration of the
sacrament, and what are the rites without which the sa
crament is not valid; but what in these is properly
the form, what the matter, may be disputed, nay even
ignored, without prejudice to the faith, &c.” what follow
are most worthy of being read. All these words, I say,
of Bellarmine may, mutatis mutandis, be to a certain ex
tent adapted to this controversy. Let us all hold and
embrace with a firm faith the things which, in the justifi
cation of the penitent and believing sinner, are done or
effected by God, our sole justifier, as all these three afore
said things certainly are; but let us avoid subtle and scho
lastic disputes, (among which, perchance, is this one, in
what precisely is the formal cause of justification to be
placed) and audacious and peremptory definitions under
pain of anathema, (as are many of those of the Council of
Trent,) for they are not necessary to the salvation of the
people, nor even of the more learned; and Christian love
is by them most sadly injured. It were safer to have
justice before God, and also before men," than to dispute
contentiously about it. “We contend,” (as a certain man very desirous of moderation not undeservedly complains) “so long and so often about justification, and we never
strive to be ourselves in truth just, and to be found just
to salvation";” for we prefer disputing to living well. But
since the present fates of the Church lead us to the special
consideration of those things which are disputed between
the parties on this subject, come now, let us follow out
the unprejudiced and placid consideration of them, under
God's guidance, where they lead us.
CHAP. II.
A special discussion about the formal cause of justification, and
especially concerning the imputation of the justice of Christ.
1. WE do not deny that various, incorrect, crude, and
sometimes contrary, opinions and expressions
concerning the formal cause of our justification
are to be found in the writings of many Protestants,
which, though some labour very much to excuse, yet we,
to whom truth and the peace of the Church is much
dearer than the authority of a handful of men, especially
of moderns, do not excuse, much less defend, lest we
foster contentions both unfair and useless. Romanists
indeed studiously extract and curiously reckon up these
opinions from the writings of differing Protestants, but
certainly not always candidly, nor with good faith. They
should remember, however, that there are some dis
cordant opinions on this subject in the works of their
own writers also, as we shall show hereafter, and that
therefore, they ought to treat Protestants with the more
tenderness.
2. That faith is the formal cause of our justifica
tion has been held by many Protestants of great name,
as Luther, Brentius, Scheghius—nay, Calvin himself",
and others; and that, through the gracious condescension
and acceptation of God, faith is, on account of the obe
dience of Christ, reckoned as our true and perfect justice,
is maintained by those above mentioned (except Calvin), and among the more recent divines, by J. Arminius,"
Peter Bertius, while yet he was Professor of Theology at
Leyden", and others, always indeed meaning a living
faith. But Protestants now-a-days commonly deny both
propositions, and, indeed, rightly. For faith, taken even
properly, and not metonymically for the justice of Christ
apprehended by faith, is (however this may be cavilled
against by many rigid Protestants) imputed to us for
the obtaining of that justice by which we are properly
and formally justified before God, or for it, i.e. to acquire it;
for Scripture often testifies this"; But faith neither is, nor
is anywhere said to be, that justice properly so called;
but justice is said to be from faith, and by faith."
And even if it be lawful to explain these passages of
Scripture as the Romanists do, viz., that “faith is
imputed or reputed for justice, because faith is true
justice, at least, as being its commencement” (since God's
reputing or accounting is always joined to truth); “for
faith of this sort having been conceived by the sinner”
through the grace of God “is the beginning of his justice
and renewal, and indeed is such that it apprehends justice
itself, and that from it, as a seed, the whole of justice .
germinates,” as Estius says *;—still faith, in whatever
manner its imputation for justice be explained, properly
speaking, neither is, nor is accepted for, that perfect justice
by which we are properly and formally just before God.
And in this Protestants and Romanists universally agree;
so that Bellarmine might have spared that whole disputa
tion', that faith is not the entire formal cause of our
justification. *
3. There is no need to speak of the opinion of
A. Osiander and the strange and absurd expressions
used by him, since all Protestants reject them no less
than Romanists.
4. Since all of both sides allow that forgiveness of sins
belongs to the formal cause of our justification, let us now discuss the imputation of the justice of Christ, and
whether by that also we are formally justified.
5. The justice of Christ which is imputed to us consists
not so much in that habitual justice which was given to
the all-holy soul of Christ from the first instant of its
conception, and whereby it was made a partaker of the
divine nature", as in His actual justice, which He per
formed through the whole of this mortal life, both in
acting and in suffering, and which was the effect of the
other. Christ, indeed, merited for us justification by His
habitual justice also; (for it behoved us to have such an
High Priest, holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from
sinners:”) but in His actual justice there was a more
special way of meriting it, and therefore the Scriptures
speak of it especially in teaching of our justification.
6. Christ merited for us by everything which He did or
suffered on earth; for all infinitely pleased God the Father, and were of immeasurable and inexhaustible merit, because
of the hypostatic union of the Divine Person, for He
worked human works in a divine manner, as testify S.
Dionysius the Areopagite “ and S. John Damascene." But
amongst all that Christ did and suffered, undertaken for
us, His death, with the passion immediately preceding it,
has chiefly and most especially merited to us justification;
for in it the obedience of Christ to the Father, and His
love to the human race, shone forth in a wonderful manner,
and His whole obedience was therein consummated, as
the Apostle clearly teaches." This is testified by in
numerable passages of Scripture and the Fathers, and
moreover, in this all Protestants and Romanists agree;
but among Protestants themselves there is some con
troversy about the merit of the obedience of His life; and
therefore it will not be altogether foreign to our design to
discuss and explain in a few words what ought to be
believed on this subject.
7. Some Protestants affirm that Christ merited for us
justification not at all by His active obedience, or (as they choose rather to call it) by the obedience of His life, but solely by His passive obedience, i.e., that of His death, But they most grossly err. For this opinion is new, and
first brought into the Church by a certain M. George
Kargius, a pastor of Anspach, in the year 1570, as
Mentzerus testifies", and John Gerhard". He, however, re
tracted it, having been more rightly instructed by pious
and learned men. The same opinion, however, was af
terwards again brought forward and vigorously, nay, per
tinaciously, defended by Zachary Ursinus, and especially
by J. Piscator, a theologian of Herborn; as if there were
not already more than enough disputes in the Church.
These were afterwards followed by many others. Charles
Molinaeus defends the same opinion."
8. But this opinion is opposed, first, to the sacred
Scriptures, which in very many passages most clearly
testify that salvation and justice have been procured for
us not only by the death of Christ, but by the entire obe
dience both of His life and death," and that too in the
way of merit.
9. Secondly, it is repugnant to the unvarying and
continuous consent of the Fathers: [pseudo] Justin
Martyr"; S. Irenaeus'; Ambrosiaster]*; S. Chrysos
tom"; S. Cyril of Alexandria"; Primasius"; Leo the
Great"; S. John Damascene"; S. Anselm, or rather
Hervaeus"; and [S. Anselm]"; S. Bernard, P &c. From
desire of brevity, I omit the words of the Fathers: let
them be read in the writers themselves.
It is, thirdly, repugnant to the unanimous opinion of
all Romanists, which is by no means to be despised in this matter, since it most entirely agrees with Scripture
and the Fathers. For Barth. Battus, a Lutheran theolo
gian", does very great injustice to the Romanists in
ascribing to them also this new opinion, as J. Gerhard, of
the same sect with him, ingenuously confesses", though he suppresses the name of Battus. For the Council of
Trent " says that “Christ has merited justification for us”
not simply, by His passion, but “by His most holy pas
sion,” as Battus himself is there forced to allow. Bellar
mine, indeed", makes mention solely of the passion of
Christ in assigning the meritorious cause of justification;
he even affirms", that “the whole Scripture testifies
nothing more frequently than that the passion and death of Christ was a full and perfect satisfaction for sins:”
but he excludes, not the sanctity of the life of Christ, but
only that justice by which Christ, not as man, but as
God, is essentially just, which A. Osiander (against whom
Bellarmine is there disputing) contended for; and he mentions only the justice of the death of Christ, because
in the passion and death of Christ was the complement
and consummation of the merit of our justification. For
in another place" he expressly writes that “Christ by
His works and labours has not only acquired grace and
glory for us all, but also, &c.” See, besides other Roman
ists, Gregory de Valentia *, where he prolixly discusses
this point; Ruardus Tapper"; Thomas Stapleton'; Cos
terus j, &c. Wrongly, therefore, has even Amandus
Polanus inscribed the tenth thesis of the twelfth chapter
de justificatione of his Symphonia Catholica, “Against the
Papists,” in which he affirms that “that justice of Christ
which is imputed to us is His satisfaction whereby He
fulfilled the whole law by most perfectly performing the
obedience enjoined upon us, and enduring the death
threatened to us,” which also he, with no small diligence,
confirms by the consent of the Fathers. But since the
Romanists deny it not, it ought to have been inscribed
“against Piscator and his followers.”
11. It is, fourthly, repugnant to the uniform opinion of all the Lutherans, very many of whom, in divers
published treatises and disputations, have refuted this
opinion.
12. Fifthly and lastly, it is repugnant to the more
common opinion even of those Protestants who are
generally called Calvinists, as is abundantly evident from
various of their writings, which the reader, if he be
curious, may consult for himself. Whence the Gallican
pastors assembled in the Synod of Gap", in the year 1603,
admonished Piscator by letters, which are publicly extant,
to retract publicly this dogma as being unsound and
contrary to the Gospel, and not for the future to imbue
miserably the minds of the studious with it ; nor to
afford matter of scandal to the weak, of dissension to
his colleagues, and of triumph to Papists, &c. Hugo
Grotius, a man most skilled in antiquity (as the Remon
strants deservedly praise him in their recent Apologia”),
in his most learned Defence of the Catholic Faith on the
Satisfaction of Christ against Socinus"; “Although,
indeed,” he says, “we have hitherto shown that, by
the punishment of Christ, God was satisfied, yet we would
not deny that the power of satisfaction was also in the
acting of Christ, &c.”", and (note this against the error of Robert Rollock" and others) “As works temporally good avail to temporal impunity, so the work of Christ, which was perfectly and spiritually good, hath availed
to our liberation from eternal punishment; to which
the following passage relates; ‘By the obedience of One, many are made just", that is, are justified, are accounted as if innocent.” And again, “But what
we have before said of satisfaction, viz., that it is to
be attributed in the first place to His punishment, but
in a secondary degree to His obedient acting also,-the same is to be understood of the appeasing of God, of our redemption, and of expiation, &c.” And Gerh. J. Vossius,
a most learned man, and one very much versed in
antiquity, in his learned preface prefixed to the book just cited, not far from the beginning, has what fol lows; g “His” (Christ’s) “benefits consist partly in those things which He has acquired to us by His life and death, &c.,” and again, “For he who does not recognize
the true dignity of Christ must necessarily esteem His
actions and sufferings of less value.” There is an Epistle
of D. Paraeus to an Illustrious Count, &c., annexed to the
Explicatio Catechismi, &c.", in which he explains his
opinion of the active and passive justice of Christ, in what
each of the contending parties is wrong, and, lastly, by
what method this controversy may be reconciled. But
there are many things in it in which he himself in
no small degree errs; among which (to omit others)
the chief is the following, namely, that after his wont
he accounts the habitual and actual conformity of the
manhood of Christ to the law to be merely the justice
of the person of Christ, and not the justice of the merit of
Christ. Nor will learned men ever be satisfied with this
method of conciliation which is proposed by him, when it
is joined to a manifest detriment of the truth. .
13. All those Protestants, however, err (to pass over
other errors from a desire of brevity) who, impugning this new and singular opinion, affirm that original sin is
remitted to us on account of Christ's holy conception;
sins of omission on account of Christ's holy life; lastly,
sins of commission on account of His most holy passion:
or who thus distinguish the active and passive obedience
of Christ, in so far as regards merit, that the latter has
merited for us liberation from eternal death, the former
eternal life. For the justice of Christ in meriting for us
justice and salvation, must not be thus separated and
broken into parts and morsels; for Christ, by His entire
obedience, both habitual and actual, of life and of death,
has not only expiated all our sins, whatever they may
be, and taken away the evils into which we had fallen
through sin, but has also acquired for us the good things
which we had lost, nay, things far more excellent than
these, as very many passages of Scripture testify.” Nor
may His active justice be thus separated from His
passive, nor the latter from the former, as far as regards
merit, for neither would have been meritorious without
the other; but each of them had its weight and value from the infinite dignity of the person of Christ acting and
suffering. But having thus explained in few words that
justice of Christ whereby He has merited to us justice
and salvation, and which is imputed to us, let us proceed
to the following parts of the disquisition we had begun.
14. Some theologians at the Council of Trent—from
being too superstitious, or perhaps too contentious—so
disliked, or at least were so suspicious of the word
“imputation (viz., of Christ's justice,) as is related [by
Paul Sarpi] in the History of that Council", and is
known of Dominicus à Soto from his writings", that
they wished it taken away, because the Protestants used
it so familiarly, although it is nowhere met with either
in Scripture or in the Fathers, and because of the
inferences which the Protestants elicit from it. Cer
tainly we nowhere expressly read in Scripture that
“the justice of Christ is imputed to us for justice.” We
read, indeed, in Scripture that “faith is imputed to us for
justice"; that because of Christ's justice God does not
impute to us our sins"; and that justice is imputed to
us";” but the Scripture nowhere expressly says that
“God imputes to us for justice the justice of Christ.”
But the opinion itself, rightly understood, is taught
through the whole of the Sacred Writings; for that the
justice (i.e., the obedience) of Christ is imputed to us
(i.e., is communicated, attributed, and given to us, as
to its effect or fruit, viz., the remission of our sins, our
inherent justice, and our acceptation to eternal life), is
virtually said in Scripture whenever it is expressly asserted that, by the obedience or by the death of Christ,
justice and salvation have been procured to us, or that
by them we have been redeemed from sin and reconciled
to God, which the Scripture teaches throughout ; or
whenever it is taught, that “Christ is of God made unto
us justice";” or that “for us He is made sin, that we in
Him might be made the justice of God *;” or that “by His
justice and obedience we are made just before God.”
So also in the Fathers the expressions communication,
sharing, gift, diffusion, derivation, application, copulation, and conjunction, are often found, as is well known
and allowed by those who most dislike the word “imputa
tion, although this word signifies precisely the same thing
as these others. Wherefore, since the thing itself is suffi
ciently certain, it is fruitless to contend about the words.
Nay, the very word “imputation occurs in S. Bernard";
“If one died for all, all therefore are dead, viz., that the
satisfaction of one may be imputed to all; as He being
one, carried the sins of all.” (Read diligently, I pray you,
the whole of that epistle,) and again”, “Death is put to
flight by the death of Christ, and the justice of Christ is
imputed to us.” and this [namely, that S. Bernard makes
use of the word imputation] is allowed by many Roman
ists: A. Vega"; Bellarmine (who also confesses that “the
justice and merits of Christ are rightly said to be imputed
to us, when they are given and applied to us, as if we had
ourselves satisfied God, but not so that we should formally
be called and be just through the justice of Christ”");
Suarez"; Ruardus Tapper"; Vasquez *; Stapleton";
Costerus', and many others. And many centuries be
fore S. Bernard, S. Athanasius" affirms, that “it behoves
us to believe from the Holy Scriptures . . . that the
fulfilment of the law performed by the first-fruits” (i.e.,
Christ) “is ascribed or imputed to the whole mass;” for
in the Greek it is the same word which the Apostle uses
in the fourth chapter of the Romans; see the passage.
15. Many Protestants say that the justice or obedience
of Christ, in so far as it is applied and imputed to us by
faith, is the formal cause of our justification, whereby we
are and are pronounced just before God; the word “form’
being taken not properly for the internal cause which
constitutes and denominates the subject, or for the in
forming cause (for every form of this sort is intrinsic and
inherent), but loosely and improperly for any kind of
cause which constitutes a definition to the thing, and
gives being to the thing of which it is the form; and
which [cause] being removed, the thing no longer exists; whether it [i. e., the cause] inhere or assist, or in what
ever other manner it be applied or united to the subject
by relation. This opinion Romanists now-a-days condemn
as a foolish, nay, even as an impious error, and they
call imputed justice, putative, fictitious, imaginary, and fantastic, a spectre of Luther's brain, the most senseless
insanity, and what not. Nay, the Tridentine Fathers
have gone so far as not to fear to anathematise those who
thus think"; “If any one shall say that men are justified
without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us,
or that by it they are formally just, let him be ana
thema;” where, first, how unjustly and odiously do they join together and condemn by the same anathema, those
who say that we are justified without the justice of Christ,
and those who affirm that by it we are formally just 2
Second, how unnecessary (to use no stronger expression) and contrary to the practice of all the ancient councils is
it, to insert into the canons of a council a term (viz., “for
mally') taken not from Holy Scripture, nor from the
writings of the Fathers, but solely from the distinctions of
the Schools, and one, moreover, which may be used in
different senses, and to subject to an anathema whoever
asserts this ‘formality'? Certainly, even those Protestants
who say that we are formally justified (the word “form'
being, as we said before, taken in a very wide sense) by
the justice of Christ imputed to us, and apprehended by
living faith, do not deny inherent justice, nor assert that
by it [Christ's justice imputed to us] we formally are
called and are just, if the word “form be taken properly and strictly. But what they contend for is this: that, on
account of the imperfection of inherent justice, we are not
justified by it before the divine tribunal, but only by the all-perfect obedience of Christ, &c.; which subject we
shall hereafter examine,
Whence some of even the more rigid Protestants,
attending to the proper meaning of the word “form,' assert that, by the imputation of the justice of Christ,
we are justified not formally, but only imputatively, or
relatively, though truly and really. Paraeus”; “We have never said, nor do we think (as we have already shown several times), that the justice of
Christ is imputed to us, in order that by it we might
formally be called and be just; for that is no less repug
nant to right reason than if a criminal pardoned in court
were to say that he was formally just through the
clemency of the judge, who granted him his life.”
John Prideaux, an Oxford divine, in his Lectiones
Theologicae, lately published at Oxford", in answer to
these words of Bellarmine”, “If they,” the Protestants,
“merely meant that the justice or merits of Christ are
imputed to us, &c.,” says thus; “But who of our party
ever asserted that we are formally justified by the justice
of Christ imputed to us”? (Nay, rather, very many Pro
testants have so said, as everybody knows: Yea, he
himself, although in this inconsistent with himself, but a
little before expressly asserted in this very lecture", that
“the form of our justification, &c., is the imputation as
well of the active as of the passive obedience of Christ.”
But this is what I before said, they play with the ambiguity
of the word “form.’) “Have we not always rejected an
inherent form of any sort by which we should be formally
called just.” Thus he. Sibrandus"; Chamier.”
15. Some Romanists also, before the Council of Trent,
followed nearly the same opinion with these Protestants,
as Romanists themselves testify: Bellarmines; Staple
ton"; and especially A. Vega"; and others.
Alb. Pighius, in other respects a strenuous and very bitter adversary of Protestants", all of whose words on
this opinion cannot be transcribed, for he has much on this
subject. After having there diffusely shown, that “there
is no one of mortals who, if he were tried even according
to the rule of divine justice, which is imperfect and attem
pered to our frailty, and according to which we are justly tried, &c.”, might not be convicted of injustice, “though he be the most just among men'”, he adds, that the divine
mercy has succoured us through Christ, “in Whom, and
not in ourselves, we are justified before God; not by our own, but by His justice, which is imputed to us, who now
communicate with Him,” (and who, as he afterwards says,
“are engraffed, conglutinated, and united to Him:”)
“destitute of any justice of our own, we are taught to
seek justice out of ourselves in Him"; ” and a little
after, “But that our justice is placed in the obedience
of Christ is hence, viz. that we having been incor
porated with Him, it is imputed as if it were ours, so
that by it we also are accounted just.”” and Pighius
confirms this opinion by many proofs from Scripture,
which are commonly adduced by Protestants, and illus
trates it by the not inelegant example of the blessing of the Patriarch Jacob", in which Protestants greatly
delight. He concludes finally in this manner; “We
cannot dissemble that this” (viz., about justification),
“which one may even call the chiefest part of Chris
tian doctrine, has been obscured rather than illustrat
ed by the, for the most part, thorny questions and de
finitions of the schoolmen; according to which, some,
arrogating to themselves with much superciliousness the
chief authority in all things, and hastily pronouncing on
all things, would perchance have condemned this my
opinion, by which I deny to every son of Adam proper justice before God, and such as flows from his own
works, and have taught that we can rely only on the
justice of God in Christ, that by it alone we are just
before God, being destitute of any justice of our own:
unless I had established this thing with much diligence."”
so far he. From the desire of avoiding prolixness, I
have thought good to leave to the following chapter what
remain to be said.
CHAP. III.
The imputation of the justice of Christ treated of yet more
fully.
1. THE Canons of Cologne, in their Antididagma, in
the chapter in which they treat of the causes by
which we are justified", speak as follows about the formal cause; “We are justified,” say they, “by
God, with a double justice, as by formal and essential
causes: of which, one and the prior is the perfect jus
tice of Christ, not indeed as it is out of us and in Him,
but as and when it (being apprehended by faith) is
imputed to us for justice. This same justice of Christ,
thus imputed to us, is the chief and most important cause
of our justification, which we ought principally to rely
on and trust to. But in another way, we are formal
ly justified by inherent justice, which, by the remis
sion of sins, together with the renewal of the Holy
Ghost, and the spreading abroad of love in our hearts,
according to the measure of the faith of each one, is given
to us, is infused, and becomes our own, &c.” So far
they.
2. “The authors, moreover,” says Vega, “ of the
memorial presented to promote concord, by Charles 5,
to the Collocutors at the Diet of Ratisbon” in the year
1541, seem to have leaned to this opinion, as may
be seen in Goldastus"; where, among the other
good things communicated to us in our justification,
they put the imputation of the justice of Christ",
and say, that “we are justified (i.e. accepted and
reconciled to God) by faith, in as far as it apprehends
mercy and justice, which is imputed to us on account of
Christ and His merit, not on account of the worth or
perfection of the justice communicated to us in Christ":”
and they say, that “the faithful soul does not lean on
the justice inherent to itself, but solely on the justice of
Christ given to us, without which there neither is nor can
be any justice at all.”" “For although,” says Vega ,
“they do not use the word “formally, nor say that the
justice of Christ is the formal cause of our justification, as
the divines of Cologne do, yet they seem to have adopted
the same opinion as they did, because they assert that,
besides inherent justice, another justice (namely, that of
Christ) is communicated to us, by which especially we
become just, and on which alone we ought to rely.”
3. Cardinal Contarini, a man illustrious both for learning and holiness, who was present at that diet of Ratis
bon", writes thus; “Since [we have said that] by faith
we attain to a twofold justice, [1] justice inherent in us,
and love, and that grace whereby we are made par
takers of the divine nature, and [2] the justice of
Christ given and imputed unto us, because we are
engraffed into Christ, and have put on Christ; it remains
to enquire upon which of these we ought to rely, and to
account ourselves justified by it before God, that is,
accounted holy and just. . . . . . I certainly think
that it is piously and christianly said that we ought to
lean, to lean, I say, as on a firm and stable thing, which
certainly supports us, on the justice of Christ given to
us, and not on holiness and grace that is inherent in us;
for this our justice is inchoate and imperfect, and such as
cannot preserve us from offending in many things, or from sinning frequently, so that we therefore need the
prayer whereby we daily beg that our trespasses may be
forgiven us. Therefore we cannot, by means of this our
justice, be accounted just and good in the sight of God, as
it behoves the sons of God to be good and holy. But the
justice of Christ which is given unto us is a true and
perfect justice, which is altogether pleasing in the eyes
of God, in which there is nothing which offendeth God,
which does not most thoroughly please Him. We must,
therefore, rely on this as the only sure and stable [jus
tice], and believe that on account of it alone we are
justified (that is, accounted and called just) before God.”
so far he.
4. Ruardus Tapper (though after the Council of Trent)
pronounced much more equitably and moderately of this
expression, so strongly condemned by the Fathers of that
Council, viz., that by Christ's justice imputed to us we
are formally just, although he also thought differently from Protestants on the thing itself”; “And if,” he says,
“there were an agreement on the point itself,” (i.e. if
inherent justice were not excluded) “there would be no
need of contending much about words and expressions
which, on account of the various metaphors which the
Scriptures, and even we ourselves oftentimes use, might be allowed and winked at, viz., that we are formally just
by Christ's justice imputed to us, although our justice is not the participation of the justice of Christ, except in
as much as it is the efficient cause of ours;” and a little
after, “Therefore by a similar metaphor we also may be
called just by the imputation of the justice of Christ, as it
is a figurative phrase, that “Christ is made to us wis
dom, justice, &c.” also that “Him who knew no sin,
He made sin for us that we might be made the justice
of God in Him.” also, “the Lord our justice.” Therefore
we should not have to contend so much about this expres
sion and mode of speaking, if our adversaries would
concede to us that we have justice of our own, inherent
in us, as we have contracted a real sin of our own from
Adam, which defiles us intrinsically.” so far he.
5. More rightly, however, do some other Protestant
theologians, and the generality of Romanists, hold that
Christ's justice or obedience imputed or applied to us is
not the formal cause, but only the meritorious and im
pulsive cause (which is called the "pokarapkriki) of our
justification. For it cannot be said that the justice of
Christ justifies us both as the formal and also as the
meritorious cause, as is asserted by those who hold the
former opinion. For it is impossible that the same thing
can be at once the efficient cause to which merit is
reduced, and the formal [cause] of the effect of the same
cause, since thus it at the same time would be and
would not be of the essence of the effect; inasmuch as
the formal cause is internal, and that which expresses
the essence or being of a thing; but the efficient is -
merely external, as all allow.
6. I say that it is more rightly taught, that the justice
of Christ is the meritorious, not the formal, cause of our
justification; because, besides what has been said, in the
first place, the whole of Scripture testifies that it is the
meritorious cause : but that it is the formal cause, is
evinced by no one passage of Scripture at all by a clear
and necessary consequence. For as to Christ's being called " “the Lord our justice”
(which text, along with the following, all those Protestants who hold this opinion vehemently urge, and no
one more than the Bishop of Winchester in an English
sermon, “Ofjustification in Christ's name, in other respects
most learned, on this text"), and in the parallel passage,"
His being said to be “made to us by God wisdom and jus
tice, &c.,” it is to be understood only in a causal and figura
tive sense, not properly, viz., because through Christ's merit
we receive from God true justice and divine wisdom, sanc
tification, and redemption; as " Christ is called “our
peace, because by His merit He has conciliated peace
to us. Thus the contexts of the passages when diligently
sifted, compel us to interpret these texts, thus all the more
learned interpreters persuade us to do,
As to what is said " that God “hath made Christ, Who
knew no sin, &c.,” it has this meaning: “God has made
Christ sin for us, i.e., “a victim or sacrifice for our sins,'
as many, both ancients and moderns, interpret the word
‘sin’ in this verse from many passages in the Old
Testament; or ‘A man obnoxious to death, miseries and
various calamities, and thereby like to sinners, so that by
“sin,’ ‘the likeness of sin, or ‘the punishment of sin,” be
understood;—so others; or, thirdly, as S. Chrysostom"
and others of the Greeks, ‘For our sakes He treated Him
as sin itself, as crime itself, i.e., “as a man signally
depraved, as being Him on Whom He had laid the
iniquity of us all', viz., when for us He subjected Him to
the death of the cross, by which accursed and ignominious
kind of punishment infamous criminals were wont to be
punished: “That we through Him,” in the Greek it is
‘in Him,” which is a Hebraism for ‘through Him,”
and so CEcumenius expounds it; “through Him,” i.e.,
‘through the merit of Christ'; “might be made the justice
of God,” i.e., “truly just, viz., with that justice which is
given to us by God, and is pleasing to Him for Christ's
sake, all our sins having been forgiven, and we ourselves
sanctified by the Spirit of Christ. Consult all the more learned interpreters, as well ancients as moderns, on the
text, for we are not now writing commentaries. So that
nothing is more foreign to this passage than what is
inferred by those who defend this opinion, viz., that all
our justice whereby we are justified before God is ex
ternal, to wit, the very justice of Christ, which becomes
ours by God's gratuitously imputing it to us; in the same
way (so they speak) in which Christ was made sin, or
a sinner, not on account of sin inherent in Him, but
because of the imputation of our sins &c.
I say nothing here, how opposed to truth is that which
is so frequently affirmed by them from this and other
passages, that Christ was accounted by imputation really
and truly a sinner before God. Christ, indeed, took upon
Himself, of His own accord, and also by His Father's
command, the debt of paying the penalty due to our
sins (from which He merited to be called not a sinner,
but just, nay, most just); but He did not properly take
on Him our sins and their guilt. For sin is a very
different thing from the debt of paying the penalty; for
this is the consequent effect, and a man can be willing to
pay this debt for another, though he do not properly take
his sin on himself. “He took not sin,” says S. Augus
tine", “but He took the punishment of sin; by enduring
the punishment without having the fault, He cured both
punishment and fault.” and”, “Christ endured our
punishment without guilt, that thereby He might do
away with our guilt, and also end our punishment.”
so far he. For it was neither seemly, nor indeed pos
sible, that Christ should take upon Himself true unjust
ness; for He would thus have been by no means fitted for
satisfying God for our unjustness. But as to the whole of
this new and moreover false exposition of this text, read
of the more recent Protestants, the very learned Thomas
Bilson, formerly Bishop of Winchester."
7. Neither do the testimonies of the Fathers, which are commonly cited to confirm this opinion, prove it. Those
words of S. Augustine", which seem to them so clear, “He,
therefore, is sin that we might be justice; neither our own
justice, but God's; nor in us, but in Him. As He pointed
out, in the likeness of sinful flesh in which He was crucified,
sin, not His own, but ours, nor existing in Himself, but in
us,” are to be understood thus, as will be most evident to
every one who reads the passage; “Christ, in Whom there
was no sin, God, to Whom we are to be reconciled, made
sin for us,” says S. Augustine, “that is, the sacrifice for
sins through which we might be able to be reconciled.
He, therefore, was sin,” i.e., He in the likeness of sinful
flesh, in which He had come, was sacrificed to wipe away
our sins, not His, “that we justice,” i.e., that we might
be just, “not our own,” i.e., not justice acquired by
our own powers, “but of God,” i.e., given by God; “nor
in us,” i.e., not proceeding from ourselves, “but in Him,”
i.e., from Him and through Him: for nothing could be
conceived more foreign to the mind of S. Augustine, than
that we are not justified on account of the merit of
Christ, by justice divinely infused, but always accom
panied by forgiveness of sins. In the same manner are
to be understood all the other passages cited from S.
Augustine on this subject”; as also the words of S. Ber
nard", “O Lord, I will make mention of Thy justice
solely", for it is mine also.”" and the words of S. Justin
Martyr', “For what else could cover our sins but His
justice, &c.” all these passages, I say, and other such,
are to be no otherwise understood than of the imputation
or communication of Christ's justice to us in the way of
merit, or by whatever other method theologians allow
of; but not in the way of the formal cause of our
justice or justification, as will evidently appear to those
who read those and other sayings of the Fathers.
8. Nor can any necessary reason be given for such an
imputation of the justice of Christ, For whatever imper
fection joined with sin exists, or is believed to exist, in our inherent justice, either our habitual justice, or the
actual, which emanates from thence (for whether every im
perfection whatever, or defect and littleness of our justice
in this life, be truly and properly a sin, will be discussed
hereafter), it [i. e., the imperfection] is entirely remitted
gratis on account of the merit of Christ's justice which
[i.e., which merit] is imputed to us; so that there is no need whatever of this new mode of the imputation of
Christ's justice in order to the constituting of the formal
cause of justification over and above the forgiveness of
sins and inherent justice, both of which are the effects of
Christ's satisfaction and merit imputed to us.
Nay, if by Christ's justice imputed we are accounted
and are just, in exactly the same manner as if it was our
own proper intrinsic and formal justice, these absurdities
would seem thence to follow :
1st. As the Romanists urge, we ought to be accounted
before God no less just than Christ Himself. There is,
indeed, this difference : that Christ is just from Himself,
and in Himself, or inherently, we only precariously and
imputatively, i.e., from Him and in Him. Nevertheless,
by Christ's justice thus imputed to us we are accounted
and are equally just with Christ Himself in the all
true estimation of God; which Christian ears will
scarcely endure. Certainly neither Scripture nor the
Fathers ever or anywhere so speak.
2nd. All who are justified are equally justified, because
they are just not by a diverse participation of justice
transfused by Christ, but solely by the imputation of the
one and the same justice of Christ, which is equally
imputed, the whole to each person. The distinction
between the justice of justification and that of sancti
fication, which is wont to be here used by those who
favour this opinion to avoid this absurdity, is not solid,
as will be shown in the next chapter.
Lastly, It follows from this opinion, that the just are in
this life more just than they will be in the life eternal,
since here they all are accounted and are truly just
before God by Christ's justice (by far the most perfect of all) imputed to each, while there, each one will have
his own justice only, since there will be no further occa
sion for such an imputation of Christ's justice, on account
of the perfection of the inherent justice, which, however,
will be very much inferior to the justice of Christ.
9. Lastly, this imputation of Christ's justice, not as
the meritorious cause only, but also as the formal
cause, or at least the quasi-formal cause (as some
choose to express it), is not approved of by those Pro
testants (and they are no inconsiderable number) who
place the form, nay, the whole essence, of justifica
tion solely in the forgiveness of sins."
I can scarcely agree with Bellarmine", and some Pro
testants also, in numbering Calvin among these. For
though Calvin sometimes makes our whole justice to
consist in the gratuitous forgiveness of sins", still in
other places (as Bellarmine himself" is compelled to
allow) “he says, in express words, that justification
consists in the forgiveness of sins, and the imputation
of the justice of Christ."” Those who (as Paraeus',
Chamier 8, and others) adhere tenaciously to Calvin's
dicta, attempt to reconcile these seemingly contradictory,
or certainly very ambiguous passages; whether altogether
solidly, the candid reader may judge.
Piscator in his Exegesis Aphorismorum Doctrinae Chris
tianae (taken for the most part from Calvin's Institutes),
affirms", that “the form of justification is the forgiveness of
sins, or the non-imputation [i. e., of sins], or, what comes
to the same thing, the imputation of justice,” which,
moreover, he endeavours" to prove from many texts of
Scripture; and he holds" the justice of Christ, or that
obedience which He paid, &c. to the Father, to be only
the initiative or meritorious cause.
Vorstius'; “And finally in this sense,” he says, “we,”
Protestants, “teach that the justice of another is im
puted to us, in so far as we affirm that by the obedience
of another, i. e., by that of Christ alone, as the meri
torious cause, our formal justice (i.e., the forgiveness of sins by which we are constituted every way just before
God) has been procured for us. In the meantime, we
neither assert, nor allow to be anywhere declared in the
Scriptures, that Christ's justice properly so called (that
is, His obedience, as well active as passive, and also His
innate holiness, &c.) is so imputed to us, that it itself
subjectively inheres in us, and that thus we by it are
formally made just.” and again”, “By the expression
‘the justice of Christ, we understand either the obe
dience performed by Christ, and then we say that that
obedience of Christ is, not indeed properly in itself and
through itself, but merely effectively or as concerns its
fruit and effect, imputed, i. e., imparted and communi
cated to us; Or by “the justice of Christ, we understand
justice itself, taken in the abstract or generically, im
puted to us by the grace of God, but yet in truth obtained
by the obedience of Christ; and then we scruple not to
explain the word “to impute by the word ‘to give, or in
fact ‘to attribute'. For certainly each of these is most
true : both that the fruit of Christ's obedience is in reality
given to us, so as to inhere in us subjectively, and that,
therefore, obedience itself is in this sense communicated
to us (inasmuch as by the right of our spiritual wedlock,
whatever Christ has is ours); and also, that on account of
that same obedience of Christ we, as many as believe in
Christ, are reputed just by God, as may be seen in Rom.
c. 3, and 4, and 5, also 1 Cor. c. 1 and 2 Cor. c. 5, and
elsewhere. In the meantime we allow that it is far
safer in this most important subject, precisely and simply
to use the very terms of Scripture, which either say that
justice generically (not specifically, the justice of this or
that person) is imputed to us, or, that faith is imputed to
us for justice, and which explain both expressions by the
remission or non-imputation of sins.” The same divine"
affirms in the name of many Protestants, that the true
and proper form of justification is the imputation of justice, or what is the same thing, the forgiveness
of sins, and labours to confirm this by many argu
ments.”
The Remonstrants”; “Is the obedience of Christ for
mally our justice? We allow that this is said by some,
but we see not how it can be said consistently. For if
the obedience of Christ be formally our justice, how is
faith imputed to us for justice on account of the obedience
or merit of Christ? It is absurd to say, that the obe
dience of Christ is formally imputed to us on account of
the obedience of Christ as an initiative cause.”
See also Thomas Morton."
[10.] But, to pass over in silence other Protestants,
the Archbishop of Spalatro", expounding the opinion of
Protestants, or rather their diverse opinions, on this
matter, writes thus; “The latter” (the Reformed, to
wit) “hold that the obedience of Christ and His justice
imputed to us is our formal justification, or that this
imputation of Christ's justice is indeed requisite to us in
justification, but that our justification is formally the
forgiveness of sins, by the non-imputation of them.” and
a little after, “But whether the justice, by which after
justification we are called just, be solely the imputation
to us of the justice of Christ, or whether it be something in
herent, which God by justifying puts in us, . . . or whether
justice be formally the forgiveness of sins, i. e. that
freedom from injustice, is a matter that may be disputed.”
Thus he, too anxiously endeavouring to please the dis
sentient parties; and so far of the imputation of the justice
of Christ.
CHAP. IV.
Whether the justice of God, infused and inherent in us, pertains
to the formal cause of justification.
1. IT is not sought here, as the more rigid Protestants
suppose, (and therefore Romanists" complain in
strong terms, of their false and uncandid statement
of this question), what it is on account of which God justi
fies and receives into favour the sinner ? whether it is
the merit of Christ or incipient newness in us? for if
the meritorious cause of our justification, which is pro
perly designated by the word on account of, be sought for,
Romanists willingly grant that this is solely the merit
of Christ, and not any thing inherent in us. But if we
are enquiring about the formal cause, which is properly
denoted not by the word on account of, but by the word by,
i. e., what that is by which man is justified, Romanists
affirm that a man is justified by justice which is given to
him by God on account of the merits of Christ, and which
is inherent in him, and not by the merit of Christ itself
imputed to him from without. In the mean time, they
profess that they make more account of the merit of
Christ, which is all perfect and complete, than of our
renewal, which is in this life imperfect and incipient.”
What are here answered on the other side, on behalf of
Chemnicius and others, by John Gerhard the Lutheran *,
Paraeus", and others, &c., are not solid, nor do they touch on the state of the question when it is rightly
proposed.
2. The Fathers of the Council of Trent" say, that there
is one only formal cause of our justification, viz., the
justice of God infused into us and inherent. See the
Council's own words, where, in the first place, they say,
that “it is the justice of God whereby He makes us just,
viz., which we, having received from Him, are renewed
in the spirit of our mind, &c.,” and a little after, “This
comes to pass in this justification of the wicked, when, by
the merit of the same most holy passion, the love of God is, through the Holy Ghost, spread abroad in the hearts
of those who are justified, and inheres in them, &c.” Yet
the same Fathers, in the beginning of that same chapter,
say, that “upon this disposition follows justification itself,
which is not the forgiveness of sins solely, but the
sanctification and renewal of the inner man also, &c.”
and a little lower down, “Whence in justification a man
receives along with forgiveness of sins all these things
simultaneously infused through Christ.” It is wonderful
how much contention has arisen (even among those whose
whole efforts are directed to preserve the authority of the
Council of Trent) from this precise and peremptory deter
mination of one only formal cause of justification, arising
out of and taken from, not the Scriptures or the teaching
of the Early Church, but the altercations and contentions
of the schools, as is evident from the very terms em
ployed, and indeed not altogether consistent with itself.
Vasquez" strenuously contends, that forgiveness of sin
is in reality nothing but the infusion of justice, and attri
butes this opinion to some other Romanists, whether
truly or falsely we do not now labour to find out; but he
especially argues from the words of the Council of Trent
concerning the one only formal cause of justification.
This opinion of Vasquez is most strenuously attacked by
many other Romanists, and by all Protestants."
Bellarmine "more rightly allows, that forgiveness of sins is something in reality distinct from the infusion of grace,
and that accordingly “the Council, 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 ex
pressly 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, &c.; and for Bellarmine and others to say, that
forgiveness of sins is the effect of our renewal, which is
the formal cause of our justification.
Suarez" argues in favour of the same opinion as Bel
larmine; 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, &c.” and *; “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 secon
dary effect of the same formal cause, as in &c. But if
any one 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 con
cerning it that it said, that there was one only” [formal
cause.] This is the fruit of the scholastic disputations and definitions, excessively ambiguous, to use no harsher
term, which have been unhappily introduced by that
recent Council of Trent into matters of faith.
But all these divines always confound forgiveness of
sin with the blotting out or abolition of it, which indeed
is an effect of, or at least never ordinarily happens with
out, the infusion of justifying grace, although, as Fr.
Sylvius a Brania rightly says", “the liability to punish
ment, properly, is taken away by the forgiveness of
sin; for, properly speaking, to forgive sin is to free the
sinner from the obligation of undergoing the punishment,
since he forgives sin who pardons it; but he pardons who
relaxes the punishment, and does not exact what he might
exact. Scripture calls it by another name, to non-impute,
viz., for punishment." And therefore forgiveness of sin, properly, is not the blotting out or abolition of it, but the
pardon of the punishment due to it; but the blotting out of sin is the wiping away of the stain, which never
happens (if we speak of the stain of mortal sin) without
the infusion of justifying grace.” so far he.
More rightly, therefore, do others say, that “the justi
fication of the sinner contains two things, diverse in
deed 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"; Grop
per in the Enchiridion of Cologne"; Ant. Delphinus *
calls them the two parts of justification; Jacobus An
dradius Payva", and many others.
3. Protestants, with a unanimous consent (as not even
the Romanists, when they speak soberly, can deny) admit
that the infusion of inherent justice or holiness is neces
sarily and invariably joined to our gratuitous justifica
tion: but they in general do not admit that it is any part
of our justification, or that it pertains to its essential
form, but hold that it is, and is to be called, sanctifica
tion, which, they say, must be accurately and necessarily
distinguished from our justification, since it is merely a
consequence of it.
4. Though this difference appears of great moment to
the dissentient theologians, especially to the more rigid
Protestants, yet perchance, when we have rightly and
without prejudice examined it thoroughly, we shall find
it to be verbal and notional rather than real; nay, that the
opinion of the more rigid Protestants seems to be not
altogether agreeable either to Scripture or to the Fathers,
or even to right reason.
5. The words of A. Vega, with which * he thus ad
dresses Calvin on this subject, are very worthy of notice;
“And not to urge thee more,” he says, “on these matters,
this finally I would wish thee to consider with thyself in
the spirit of peace: If when any one 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 any one 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 com
mon 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 per
forming of works of justice, is designated ?” Which
words Francis White", a recent Protestant writer,
rightly judges proper to be considered to procure peace
to the Church on this matter.
6. That the word ‘to be justified (in Hebrew, Tsadack" Hitsdik"; in Greek, 8tratojv Bikatovoda) often has in Scrip
ture (nay, even in some passages of S. Paul which speak
of our justification) a forensic or judicial signification,
i. e., that it has the same meaning as ‘to be pronounced
or declared just,’ &c., is willingly granted by many
Romanists. Marinarius the Carmelite urged this against
Dominicus a Soto at the Council of Trent (as may be
read in Paul Sarpi's History of the Council"), from that
passage in Rom. c. 8, v. 33, 34, where the judicial words
‘to accuse' and ‘to condemn, which are opposed to the
word ‘to justify, clearly show that this word is to be
taken, from its forensic use, for the declaration of justice.
John Pineda, a Jesuit", having also adduced this very pas
sage from Romans 8.33*; Vega *, adducing, besides many
other passages, the one from Romans c. 6, v. 7. Toletus
says", that it may be proved by innumerable testimonies that this meaning is very common in Scripture, and
in that passage, Romans c. 8, v. 33, he takes the word
‘to justify, in the same sense, because it is opposed
to ‘to condemn. Estius"; Pererius", where also he
affirms that the so often mentioned passage of S. Paul,
Rom. c. 8, v. 33, is to be understood in the same way;
Ruardus Tapper"; Bellarmine"; and many others. So
that it is in vain that so many Protestants labour to
prove this against them.
7. But very many learned Protestants acknowledge that the word ‘to be justified signifies also sometimes.
in Scripture ‘to be imbued or gifted with justice, con
trary to the opinion of others more rigid, who pertina
ciously deny this. *
Romans 8, 30: “Whom He called, them. He also jus
tified, &c,” (where the more rigid, Paraeus" and many
others, absurdly maintain that sanctification, of which
there is no mention in that golden chain, is included not
in justification, but in glorification :)
and Titus 3, 7 : [“That being justified by His grace, we
should be made heirs, &c.”] “Calvin " " himself, as Paraeus
allows", “thinks that it may be granted that regeneration,”
or sanctification, “is [in these passages] comprehended
under justification, though he adds, that this is by no means
necessary, &c.” Beza" more expressly says; “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, &c.
Thus also the word ‘to justify is taken in Romans 8, 30.”
thus he. The same writer" says; “So by the word
‘justification' sanctification also is sometimes meant, since
these two altogether cohere.” The same author also
allows' that both are sometimes understood by the word
justification; “although,” he says, being carried away
by the common error, “these two ought to be accurately
distinguished, as they frequently are by the Apostle.”
Antony Thysius *; “Nor do we deny that, on account of
their most perfect and close connexion, justification seems
sometimes to embrace sanctification itself, as being a
consequence of it."”
1 Cor. 6, 11 : “And such were some of you; but ye
are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified,
&c.” Hier. Zanchius' affirms that by justification and
sanctification one and the same thing is to be understood;
for" he asserts, that “the word ‘to justify has two
meanings, the first signifies to absolve any one from
crimes, . . . and to pronounce him just, and is opposed to
the word ‘to condemn; and this signification is altogether forensic. The other meaning,” he says, “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 signification the Apostle” in the passage already
cited "“has said, “And such were some of you, &c. 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 jus
tified 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,”
he says, “and especially S. Augustine, have interpreted
the word in this sense. . . . These are two certain
meanings of this word ‘to justify.’” thus he. H. Bul
linger" thus writes; “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, &c.”
Romans 4, 25: “Who was delivered on account of
our sins, and raised on account of our justification.”
P. Martyr, writing on the passage", grants that by
the word justification the newness of our life may be
understood, which the Apostle in that passage expressly
distinguishes from forgiveness of sins. For two inter
pretations of the passage have been proposed “with
much plausibility,” he says, “ of which the first is this:
. . . that the faith of the death and resurrection brings"
justification; but that S. Paul has disjoined these, that
he might elegantly show the analogy between them.”
“Again, because justification seems to be declared in
that we begin a new life: therefore it [i. e., our justifi
cation] is referred to the resurrection of Christ, because
He then was seen to have begun a heavenly and happy life,
&c. But which of these two expositions be the truer, I
neither contend,” he says, “nor could I easily say, &c. Lastly, when Christ is said to be raised from the dead
on account of our justification, we easily see,” he says,
“that we are called by Him to a new life.” so far he.
Martin Borrhaus", explaining the same passage" of the
Apostle, has these words; “The Apostle has expressed
both parts,” (of justification, to wit) “in these words, “Who
was delivered on account of our sins, &c. In His death,
therefore, is found satisfaction for sin; in His resurrec
tion, the gift of the Holy Ghost, by which our justification
to life is effected, &c.” the same writer had immediately
before premised these words: “Two things are seen in
Christ which are necessary to our justification: the one
is death; the other, resurrection from the dead, &c. It
was fitting that by His death the sins of the world should
be expiated, &c. 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.” immediately follow the words above
cited, “The Apostle has expressed, &c.” , Martin Bucer,
writing on the same passage", thus speaks; “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 of 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, where
by He has entered on a heavenly life, and now lives to
God, . . . let us recognise that we are called to a life
new and well-pleasing to God, and that He Himself will
bestow that upon us.”
Rom. c. 5, v. 17 and 19, “And if by the offence of
one, &c.” The same M. Borrhaus“ affirms, that in this
passage of the Apostle, to be justified by Christ is not
only to be pronounced just, but also truly to become
and be made just through the gift of inherent justice;
“And here,” he says, “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, &c., by which words S. 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.” and again" he has the following words; “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, &c.’” which read in the
author himself, for he has much on this subject. Bucer
also on the same passage, on the words,” “Not as by
one, &c., writes as follows; “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, &c., but has at
the same time given His Spirit of solid and perfect justice,
to conform us to the image of the First-begotten. “Justi
fication here occurs, which, as it is opposed to ‘con
demnation, 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 [i. e., justification] will then at length be consum
mated 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.” and on the words,
‘through Jesus Christ; “This also,” he says, “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.” these words
occur in observ. 3, &c. See also the following words of
Peter Martyr, who thus explains the antithesis which the
Apostle there makes between Christ and Adam", where,
proving that the sin of Adam is not propagated merely
by imitation, as the Pelagians maintained, he has these
words; “Next, this opinion is confuted from S. Paul's
making a parallel between Christ and Adam. But
Christ's justice is not proposed to us merely to be
imitated; but also that they who believe in Him should
be changed in soul, corrected in spirit, and emended in
all their powers. Wherefore in order that the parallel
may hold good, it is required in turn, that, besides the
bad example which Adam exhibited to his posterity,
he shall have moreover depraved their nature, and, as
S. Augustine says,”” “‘shall have tainted them with a
certain taint,’ &c.” again"; “The imitation of another's
sin or the persuasion to sinning is not here”* “treated of;
but the Apostle is now engaged in teaching, from what, as from a beginning, sin was handed down in the human
race by propagation. And that this is the design of the
Apostle may be proved from that parallel which he makes
between Christ and the first Adam; for the Lord did not
renew us, or make us just, by merely setting Himself up
as an example to be imitated, or by showing Himself as a
most faithful counsellor, but by entirely changing us and
restoring us by the Spirit and grace.” thus he. So
that the more rigid, Chamiere, Paraeus', and others (I do
not excuse P. Martyr's own inconsistency) wrongly deny
that the Apostle here means the same thing by “to be
made just’ as by “to be justified, if we understand ‘to be
made just’ of inherent justice; for because the Apostle
uses the future tense, “will be made just, they think
that it follows that, if these two words mean the
same thing, “no one” (these are the words of Paraeus *)
“is in this life justified by Christ.” How weak
and futile is this miserable reason 1 for through the
merit of Christ we are both in this world not only forgiven our sins (which in their opinion is the whole
of our justification) but also in an inchoate degree made
just (which in truth is the other part of our justifi
cation); 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, that he might signify both the
beginning, and the summit and perfection, of the work.
Nay, Chamier" affirms, 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 is so
wretchedly urged and twisted by those who think dif
ferently, in order altogether to exclude our sanctification,
begun in this life, from the benefit and essence of justifi
cation. Piscator" thinks, 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, &c.,”
“Much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved, &c.,”
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. •
Daniel, c. 12. [v. 3], “Those who have justified many,
&c.” D. Chamier allows that the word ‘to justify’
here is not used in the forensic sense, but in that of
to make just; for he thus writes"; “Except that one
passage from Daniel", “Those who have justified many,’
. and another from Ecclesiasticus", “Defer not until
death to be justified, which is apocryphal; and a third
from the Revelations, “He that is just, let him be
justified still, I have observed no passage” (but he is
wrong, as we have seen), “which certainly pertains to
this” signification “ of inherency. These excepted, I confidently say that no other can be adduced.” thus he.
But this asseveration is over confident. Benedictus
Aretius"; “In the fourth place,” he says, “to justify
signifies to excite others to justice by teaching and
instructing”: “Those who justify others, i.e., who
instruct, make them just by teaching and instruction;
and *; ‘He that is just, let him be justified still, i.e.,
let him make progress in acting well.”
Of this last cited passage in the Revelation, there is no
need whatever to say more; for almost every one, even the
most rigid, acknowledges that the word ‘to justify in this
place, has not the forensic sense, but signifies the increase
of inherent justice.
For brevity's sake, I will not now touch upon other
passages, such as that of Isaiah", “In His knowledge
shall My just Servant justify many, and those like it.
Hear the confession of D. Chamier, which the force
of truth extorted from him *; “We are not such ill
judges of words as not to know, nor such captious dis
putants as to be unwilling to allow, that the words jus
tification and sanctification are interchanged; nay, we
know that the Saints are so called chiefly for this rea
son, that they have in Christ forgiveness of sins: and
we read in the Revelation’, ‘He that is just, let him
be justified still, which can only be understood of the
increase of inherent justice; and we do not deny that
perhaps in other places also they are used indiscrimi
nately: especially in the Fathers, &c.”
8. Nay, that whenever the Scripture makes mention of
the justification of the sinner before God (as the blessed
Paul speaks, and after him S. 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 other wise 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"; 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: this is the opinion of the 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 of 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 justifi
cation, 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, &c., 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 punish
ment and the offendedness of God might indeed be taken
away without the infusion of justice,” as Bellarmine
rightly lays down", “for nothing seems to hinder but
that God should be able to will to non-ordain to punish
ment, and to pardon the offence, 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, &c.” Nay, “it is probable,” as
Fr. Sylvius à Brania" rightly determines, “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, nor accept
able 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 con
trary 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.”
9. What I have said, that by justifying grace the stain
of every mortal or heinous sin is entirely blotted out,
understand thus in a few words, and a little more fully
explained, as far as the design of the present plan allows:
Although the guilt of habitual concupiscence or passion
is by the power of baptism altogether destroyed and
taken away, and it is itself also broken and weakened
in its powers; yet there remain, even in the justified,
some remains of it which occasionally show themselves
in them, and even in themselves are morally bad, vicious,
and hateful to God, as Romanists themselves allow ;
(although the Tridentine Fathers have said" very incon
siderately after so great care had been used, that “God hates nothing in the regenerate,” unless we take their
words candidly and ingenuously, in a very different spirit from that in which they take many things said and
written by Protestants, incorrectly indeed, but with no
bad design) but they cannot hurt those who do not
consent, but manfully resist through Christ's grace; nor
are they imputed to them for sin before the gracious
tribunal of God, as S. Augustine says", nor any longer
reckoned as sin. The moderation of C. Worstius (to say this in passing) on this question, about which the parties
so contentiously strive", is not to be entirely disapproved
of; “If our adversaries,” he says, “would grant that
this concupiscence, although it have been pardoned and
subdued by the Holy Ghost, yet is in itself bad and
vicious” (which they certainly do grant, as is evident
from all their writings), “in the same way that our
divines in their turn grant that it by no means reigns
in the regenerate, and consequently does not bring to
them damnation, and in this sense, finally, has not the
nature of sin, then certainly nothing would perhaps
remain (save an idle question about words) which would
thenceforward be worth contending about; for too great
subtlety in such matters is to be avoided.” thus he.”
“Even the justified remain still liable to the lighter and
more transient sins, without which this life is not passed,
but yet of them an easy pardon is provided from the
boundless mercy of God in Christ to the just who
humbly acknowledge them and beg forgiveness. Nor is
justifying grace destroyed or lost through them. But
not only the liability to punishment for, but also the
stain of, every mortal, or (as the Fathers say) grievous
and deadly sin is taken away by justification.”
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 auda
ciously and rashly define the order of the divine actions,
which has not been manifestly revealed in the Scriptures.
In the schools themselves there has been no small con
tention on this subject, nor is it yet decided: “Whether
the infusion of grace,” says Stapleton”, “precedes the
forgiveness of sins in the order of nature, as S. 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
any thing 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”; “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, then sanc
tification 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”; “When I had
said what is quite true, that provided it is allowed that
we must first of all be made partakers of Christ Him
self, that in Him we may be justified and sanctified, we
need not labour much to find which of these two precedes
in order,—Illyricus brings forward against me Calvin,
who " says 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 con
nexion; and therefore says, that “if any one is justi
fied renewal also follows, i.e., that it is necessarily con
cluded that, if any one be justified, he may also be said to be
sanctified. But, I pray you, if I say, “If any one 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"; “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 use the slightest labour to determine whether this one
or that precedes in order, since we never receive the one
without the other, &c.” 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
disturbances in the Church about the mode and order of
the divine operations.
11. It may also be proved by many other arguments taken from Scripture, 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,
&c.”), that we are made friends of God, sons by adoption,
beloved, heirs of the heavenly kingdom, &c., as the Scrip
tures 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 (Paraeus", Chamier ", and others),
of which let the candid reader who is skilled in these
matters judge
CHAP. V.
The doctrine laid down in the preceding Chapter more fully
confirmed.
1. EVERY one who is versed in the reading of
the Ancients must be aware that this was the
universal opinion of all the Fathers, both Greek
and Latin, as appears by very many passages in their
writings, especially in those of S. Augustine, that most
strenuous defender of the grace of Christ. Truly, if it
were our design to cite and examine each of the passages
which might be brought to confirm this opinion, we
would need to draw up not one or two chapters, but
almost an entire volume. But the thing is so certain and
manifest, that even those who oppose this doctrine grant
it of their own accord.
Calvin"; “Not even the opinion of S. Augustine,” he
says (whom, nevertheless, he elsewhere prefers to almost
all others) “ or at least his expressions, is to be received
on all occasions. For although he eminently deprives man of all praise for justice, and ascribes the whole to
the grace of God, yet he refers grace to the sanctification
whereby we are regenerated by the Spirit to newness of
life.” thus he.
Kemnitz"; “We raise no controversy with the
Fathers, although for the most part they take the word
‘to justify” to mean that renewal whereby works of
justice are worked in us by the Spirit, &c.” and ";
“And indeed I am not ignorant that the Fathers often
use the word “to justify’ in this sense” (viz., that of
making just); “but the question is of the idiom of
languages.” What is this that I hear? Think you,
reader, that the Fathers, those most shining lights of
the Church of Christ, were so rude and unskilled in the
commonest things and words in Scripture, and those, too,
such as most pertain to the business of salvation, as even
to be ignorant of the proper power and meaning
according to the mind of the Holy Ghost, Who speaks
in the Bible, of the word ‘to be justified ? And again",
“The Fathers, indeed, although for the most part they
follow the analogy of the Latin composition in the word
‘to justify,’ &c.”
Beza "; “I allow that the Fathers sometimes have not
distinguished these two benefits” (of justification and
sanctification) “so accurately as they ought, viz., because
before the Pelagians this question of justice arising from
works, was not agitated in the Church, &c.” But this
assertion is most rash; nay, altogether false. For this
question of which we are now treating, was never known
in the Church, either before or since the Pelagians, till
this last century, in which so many controversies before
unknown have unhappily sprung up.
Zanchius"; “And the Fathers (and especially S. Au
gustine) have interpreted the word ‘to justify’ in this
sense” (viz., that of making just), “so that with them to be justified was nothing else than from unjust to be
made just through the grace of God for Christ's sake.
Read (besides other passages) in vol. 2, Epist. 105, ad
Sixtum *, also, in vol. 7, de Gratia Christi contra Pelag.
and Caelest. lib. 18; also de Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, lib. 1", also in vol. 3, de Spiritu et Litera,
cap. 28.”
Martin Bucer"; “We of our own accord have said, that
we allow that both he" (S. Augustine) “and the other
Holy Fathers thus explain the word and thing of justifi
cation in more than one place.”
Paraeus *, replying to Bellarmine who had brought
forward many testimonies from the Fathers for inherent
justice, says, “I will not here contend with the adversary
on this point; for I allow that in those works of the
Fathers which we have, some things may be read which
seem to favour his opinion, et cetera,” where he fool
ishly and falsely boasts that many things which make for
the contrary opinion are also found in the Fathers.
Chamier”; “It is certain that the word ‘to justify’ is
used sometimes according to the grammatical etymology,
sometimes according to that forensic use. S. Augustine,
as well as the other ancients, has often, or even gene
rally, held by the derivation, and used the word in that
sense.” He acknowledges the same in his treatise de
Sanctificatione", and therefore , “We have preferred
(with S. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and Gala
tians) to call that first part, justification; but the other,
sanctification: . . . although if any one likes otherwise,
we protest that we wish not to fight about words.”
In so manifest a matter, it were superfluous to name
Imore.
2. Nay, many very learned Protestants have followed
this opinion, or at least have not altogether disapproved
of it. Even Luther himself, who is believed by his fol
lowers to have been the first who drew the pure doctrine
of justification from Popish darkness, expressly reckons
two parts of justification", as may be read in the Acts
of the Conference of Altenburg, printed at Leipsic, A.D.
1570." The words of Luther are, “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.” When this saying of Luther's was
opposed by the divines of the Elector Augustus, Duke of
Saxony, to the Collocutors of the opposite side, they
could not deny that he had said it, nor even oppose
any thing solid to it. See the Acts." Luther, indeed, in
this opinion, as in many others, did not abide any long
time; but we mention it to show what the force of truth
extorted from him.
3. In the Apology for the Confession of Augsburg, of
which Melanchthon was the author, we often read that to
be justified by faith means in Scripture not only to be
pronounced just, but also from unjust to be made just, or
to be regenerated.”
4. John Brentius, a divine of great name among his
party, always held with S. Augustine, that by the word
‘to justify’ in the very process of justification, renewal also
is to be understood; and he also wrote on this point to
Philip Melanchthon. Read the exceedingly cold answer
of the latter, together with the hyperbolical appendix
of Luther in Melanchthon's Consilia. Theologica." The
same Brentius, in the Apology for the Confession of
Wirtemburg", thus writes, as cited by John Gerhard";
“When a man believes in Christ, he is justified in a
twofold manner: one, which is according to the Hebrew
signification of the word ‘justification, in that he is
absolved from sins, and obtains forgiveness of sins, and
the justice of Christ is imputed to him. . . . The other
manner is according to the second signification of the
word ‘justification, which is the Latin one, in that when
we believe in Christ, we are gifted with the Holy Ghost,
to renew us and produce in us the works of justice .
which justice and obedience, although it is worked in man
by the Holy Ghost,” yet “in this life is not perfect, and
therefore we must always look back to that first justifi
cation, whereby our sins are pardoned gratis by faith
on account of Christ.” “So far Brentius, whom, God
forbid,” says Gerhard, “that we should suspect to be guilty of the Popish error about justification, because
he uses the term “justification' in a wide sense following
the Latin composition of the word.” M. Kemnitz also";
“This difference of the meanings of the word ‘to jus
tify has been often shown, even by those of our party,”
(alluding to Brentius and others, who also are followers
of Luther) “how even this signification” of the word
‘to justify, viz., “if with the Fathers we interpret it
according to its Latin composition, may be rightly,
piously, and properly understood and admitted, according
to the analogy of the faith and the perpetual consent of
Scripture.”
5. John Spangenbergius in his Margarita. Theologiae
(in which he professes to follow most especially the
doctrine and words of Melanchthon) expressly affirms,”
that justification comprises three parts—forgiveness of
sins, acceptation to life eternal, and the gift of the Holy
Ghost.
6. John AEpinus, an ecclesiastic of Hamburgh, and “of
great authority among his own party",” defines justification
by forgiveness of sins, and regeneration or sanctification",
as he is cited by George Cassander."
7. M. Bucer"; “S. Paul never so uses the word ‘to
justify’ as not to appear to mean this communication of
true justice no less than that beginning and head of our
whole salvation, the pardon of our sins. And in chapter
3” of the Epistle to the Romans”, “when he had said that
justice is manifested in the time of the revealed Gospel,
that is, so plainly shown in the life of believers, that the
world may now recognise that they alone are possessed
of true justice; and when, secondly, he had said " that
Christ came in order to give to the world a sure shewing
or declaration of divine justice to all men, he adds, “that
He might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth
in Christ Jesus.” Here, doubtless, in the word ‘to justify,’
he has at the same time embraced that justice which God
by His Spirit works in those who believe in Christ,
and which He would have to be His testimony that
He has already forgiven their sins, and accounts them
among those whom He has decreed to justify, that is, to account among the just not only by pardoning them wherein
they have sinned, but also by rendering them conformable
to the image of His Son. After this manner the Apostle
everywhere speaks of our justification, never failing to
include in it that perfection of our salvation which he prays
for to the Philippians”, “This I pray, that your love may
abound yet more and more in knowledge, &c. Since,
therefore, S. Paul was wont to speak thus, and by the word
‘to justify, to express in the first place forgiveness of sins,
but along with this always to signify that communication
of justice also which God equally works in us by the same
Spirit by Whom He makes us certain of the pardon of
our sins, and Whom He has appointed to be the seal of
it, most of the Holy Fathers, looking namely, at what most
shows itself in justification, have understood ‘to be justi
fied’ as meaning ‘to be made just.’”
8. “In the first Conference of Ratisbon, A.D. 1541, the
article of justification” was “thus agreed upon between
the Collocutors of the two parties; and having been agreed
on,” was “presented by them to the Emperor Charles
5,” . . . “Which, however” (i.e., to obtain forgiveness of
sins), “‘happens to no one, unless also love, which heals the
will, be at the same time infused, so that the will having
been healed (as S. Augustine says) begins to fulfil the
law. It is therefore living faith which apprehends the
mercy in Christ, and believes that the justice which is in
Christ is imputed gratis to itself, and which at the same
time receives the promise of the Holy Ghost and love;
&c. “But although he who is justified receives justice,
and through Christ has it, even inherent, as the Apostle
says, “Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified, "
&c.” Bucer, in the acts of the second Conference of
Ratisbon, A.D. 1546," warmly urges this conciliation, and
frequently appeals to it. Cassander" professes that he
sees nothing which even he who is most zealous for
the grace of God could desire to be added to this
explanation.
9. The same Bucer in this second Conference of Ratisbon " thus writes; “We have hence declared that
the point of controversy between us is not, whether the
holy Fathers by the word ‘to be justified’ in S. Paul
have understood man's being gifted with inherent jus
tice, nor whether this is necessarily present in the
justified, but whether this inchoate justice be what is
principally signified by this word ‘to be justified’ in the
Apostle, and that in which the essence of our justification
before God principally consists.” He here acts in exactly
the same manner as above in the disputation on faith
alone justifying, in the same Conference, where" he
granted to the Collocutors of the opposite party, that “in
a certain manner, we apprehend and embrace the justice of
Christ by hope and love also, yet that we are justified by
faith alone, because it is by faith that we first apprehend
the justice of Christ.” But what I have said in the first
book, when discussing that question, I wish now to
repeat with reference to this one. Whether because the
forgiveness of sins is what the Apostle has principally
both understood in the word ‘justification, and placed in
the essence of it (as Bucer expresses it), it therefore follows
that the Apostle has neither understood in the word
‘justification, nor in any way joined in its essence the
gift of inherent justice? Certainly, that something is
first or principally in some order, does not exclude
altogether from the same order what necessarily follows
or accompanies it. Even Romanists problematically dis
pute among themselves, “Whether the infusion of grace,
or internal renewal and obedience to the law, pertains
to true justice more properly and principally, and as if
from the nature of the thing, than forgiveness of sins,
because the former can be without the latter, and be
cause the former properly includes the free gift of eter
nal life and the new form, while the latter includes
escape from punishment and the abolition of the old sin,
&c. : Or whether, on the other hand, forgiveness of sins
equally pertains to justice, because it is reputed before
God for justice, when by removing the prohibiting
obstacle, it equally with true obedience leads to eternal
life, and is an altogether necessary part of justice in the state of nature now repaired, in which we cannot live
without , sins.” All these are the words of Stapleton,
who rejects this question as a merely scholastic one, and
one not yet defined by the Church." S. Augustine"
expressly asserts, that “our justice in this life consists
rather in the forgiveness of sins than in the perfection
of virtues.” Of which thing we shall hereafter treat.
10. M. Borrhaus, whom we have already often quoted
in this discussion"; “In the imputation,” he says, “by
which Christ is reckoned and imputed for justice to
believers, there is equally included the merit of His
Blood, and the Holy Ghost given to us by the virtue of
His merits. And thus we shall allow that Christ is our
justice, as well from His merit, His satisfaction, and
the forgiveness of our sins obtained by Him, as from
the gift of the Spirit of justice. And if we do this,
we shall consider in our justification the whole Christ
proposed to us for salvation, not some one part of Him,
&c.” the same writer says"; “In our justification,
therefore, Christ is considered, Who breathes and lives
in us, viz., having been put on by us through His
Spirit;” of which putting on the Apostle says, “Ye
have put on Christ.’” the same writer", reconciling the
diverse, if not adverse, opinions of Protestants on this
matter, thus writes; “They who say that we are justified
only by the merit, satisfaction, and obedience of Christ
without reference to justice inherent in us, they in our
justification consider Christ in so far as He is our justice
from having satisfied for our fault. For they know that it
is by this part only,” [that is, by the satisfaction made by
Christ] “that they can withstand sin, death, hell, and
the author of sin and death, Satan, in the fight and strug
gle with the law condemning us. Moreover, since the law
of God requires the full obedience commanded in these
words, ‘Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
thy neighbour as thyself, and finds not this obedience in
us, it would certainly have the right of condemning us
for rebellion, did there not occur a price of satisfaction,
whereby we might be redeemed, and a perfect and com
plete justice, which we might interpose, as if our own, between us and the severe judgment of the law : this
price, this perfect justice, is Christ, &c.” “Thus far,”
he says", “we have made mention of that part wherein
by faith we acknowledge Christ to be our justice, from
His merit, His satisfaction, and the forgiveness of our
sins, which we can interpose before God, between us and the
law's accusation and condemnation. This part chiefly is
treated of by those who define justification to be our re
ception into the grace of God, through faith of the merit
and obedience of Christ. But truly, since Christ could
not be acknowledged to be our justice from His merit,
without the Holy Ghost, nor His merit profit any but
those who have apprehended it through faith, and this
[i. e. faith] apprehends not only the merit, satisfaction,
and obedience of Christ, but Himself, in that part also
in which He is our justice from the gifts of life and
justice communicated to us, we labour to discuss in our
justification not a part of Christ, but Him entire, in so
far as He is in every way our justice.” and, a little
after; “As therefore the Blessed Paul, when he says,
‘Whom He justifies them. He will glorify", includes in
our justification all things which pertain to the recon
ciling us to God the Father, and to our renewal, so as to
be fitted for the attaining of glory, among which are faith,
justice, Christ and the gift of justice bestowed by Christ,
whereby we may be regenerated to fulfil the justification
which the law requires; so we also would wish to
embrace in this definition all things which concur in
the recovering of justice and innocence. But when these
things are taught, nothing new is taught, but things allowed
by all, both the Ancients and also by Protestant teachers
of Holy Scripture, those at least who have taught truly
and rightly; unless, perhaps, we say some things
more distinctly than is usual in this matter of jus
tification; but we do not question that in reality there
is no difference: for all teach that in the justification of
the sinner, these three things are comprehended: Christ
our justice; the forgiveness of sins acquired to us by His death; the Holy Ghost given to us by the virtue of Christ's justice imputed and ascribed to us: trusting
to which, let us believe that forgiveness of our sins
is bestowed on us by faith, and let us forward our renewal
by loving God and our neighbour with pure love, &c.” and
afterwards; “But you will say, ‘that love indeed is not
excluded in justification, yet no one accounts it for jus
tice: and indeed, it is not accounted for satisfying justice
and the justice of merit, &c., but it is allowed that
love is to be accounted for the justice of obedience spring
ing from the merit of the Blood of Christ, by which
[obedience] the minds of believers are conformed to the
divine will, &c.” and afterwards; “The justice of God
being thus explained in the process of our justification,
great controversies are set at rest, since some maintain
that we are justified by the merit of Christ without
reference to any thing else; others, that justice abides
in us, which they contend to be the divine nature and
power. Both will be seen to think aright, if it be con
sidered what that justice is which we by faith embrace to
justify us. For if in Christ, Who is our justice, we con
sider that part by which He by His death merited our
reconciliation with God the Father, we shall place the
justice of merit and satisfaction for sin in that part, and
in that alone, and in no other thing; but if we consider
Christ our justice in so far as He imparts to us in our
justification His Spirit, whereby we are renewed to new
justice and life, we certainly shall affirm that a justice is
communicated to us, which is not a human but a divine
power, such as is the Holy Ghost. The one party, there
fore, who look at the merit, consider Christ in so far as
He is an expiatory justice, and one who reconciles God to
us; while the others, who weigh the gift of the Spirit by
the merit and benefit of the death and resurrection
of Christ, mean that Christ is justice in so far as He
regenerates us when reconciled to the Father, and
fashions and forms us to be new men.” And * he thus
defines justification: “It is the gratuitous imputation of
justice whereby God renders us,—having been adopted into
sonship by faith excited by the Holy Ghost under the
ministration of the Gospel, our sins having been forgiven through the benefit of the Blood of Jesus Christ, —just to
possess the heavenly kingdom, &c.” “The form,” he
says," “ of our justification is the divine justice itself,
whereby we are formed to be just and honest. Jesus
Christ is this [justice], Who, partly from the pardon of
our sins, partly from our renewal and restoration to that
perfectness which was lost through the sin of the first
Adam, is accounted our justice, as being the new and
heavenly Adam Whom we have put on; of Whom the
Apostle says, “Ye have put on Christ", ye have put on, I
say, as a form, i.e. justice, wisdom, and life of God, &c.”
The same things may be read in his commentary on the
words, “And if thou wilt do according to all things, &c".”
“Some one,” he says, “will say, ‘If the thing be thus,
then we are said to be justified by the merit of Christ, and
by the pardon of sins, and by the Holy Ghost. Even so;
for we read concerning the merit and obedience of Christ",
&c. but, lastly, we find these things concerning the Spirit
as our justifier, “But ye have been justified through the
name of the Lord Jesus, and through the Spirit of our
God", &c.” I have most willingly transcribed so much
from this divine, who was formerly a very celebrated
professor in the University of Basle', for no Protestant
has more expressly or more copiously built up and con
firmed this opinion, though in many other doctrines
of those now-a-days controverted, he has often been
carried away in a common error with the rest of his
party.
11. Claude Aubery of Tonnerre, formerly Professor of
Philosophy at the University of Lausanne, and “admir
ably versed in Aristotle,” as Zanchius' testifies of him,
but not ill versed in theological matters either, as appears
from his writings, and who therefore was joined to
Theodore Beza and Abraham Musculus, the theologians,
in the Conference of Montbeliard, held with the Lutheran
theologians A.D. 1586, most strenuously maintained that
our sanctification or renewal (which he was wont to call
by the unusual epithet of a patible quality) is the other part of our justification", but contends", that those err
who say that justification is the cause, and as it were
the tree, while sanctification is the effect, and as it were
the fruit. He (I may mention in passing) was the
anonymous writer" whose treatise on this subject Beza"
endeavoured to refute, but how solidly he has per
formed this the learned and candid reader may judge. This
opinion, indeed, of Aubery and some others of the same
opinion with him, viz., Jo. Bovius and Jo. Merula, minis
ters of the word at Lausanne, was condemned (along with
some opinions of others about Predestination which were
also most true) in a synod assembled at Berne, A.D. 1588,
by the Lords of Berne, consisting of some pastors of the Hel
vetian churches, and three of that of Geneva, of whom Beza
was the chief, and Theses about justification and sanctifica
tion were drawn up by them, to which the dissentients were
compelled to subscribe". But this is not to be wondered
at; for who that has eyes to see does not see, that in most
of the synods assembled by either party in this most de
plorable age, scarcely anything else is attempted or done
than to oppress and condemn the older and truer opinions,
and that (the majority of those who were present at these
synods, overcoming, as generally happens, the better part.)
those opinions that are new and recently introduced into
the church should be established with all violence, and made
to dominate exclusively in the church and the schools; so
that that old complaint of S. Gregory Nazianzen of the
Synods of his time, might with good reason be renewed and
repeated of most or rather of all those of our age. But
may God, Who Alone is able to cure the evils of His now
most afflicted Church, bend the hearts of all men, as well
of the Ecclesiastical as of the Political order, to better
counsels than they have hitherto followed, and grant
us, through His boundless mercy, sounder Synods than
those which this most wretched age to its great loss has
seen and experienced. In Him let us hope, even against hope, He will at length have mercy on His Church, and
will do it.
12. At the end of Sebastian Castellio's Dialogues on
predestination, &c"., there is an anonymous treatise
(but in truth it is by Castellio himself, as appears
from the preface) of justification, in which this same
opinion is proved at much length, and the reasons which
are wont to be urged against it are answered, though
not always very solidly.
13. John Himmel, a silly Lutheran divine, in that silly
farrago of his which he has called Calvino-Papismus",
cites these words of Zuinglius"; “The sanctification of the
spirit is true sanctification, [without external sanctification
(provided it is not contemned)], which alone suffices to
justification.” and these of Joachim Curaeus"; “We
are just in the first place by imputation on account
of the obedience of the Son” of God, “Who transfers on
Himself the punishment of the human race for their sins;
. . . but the other part of justification is sanctification.”
He also names Philip Melanchthon, who in the narration of
the Conference held at Marpurg, A.D. 1529, says of Zuinglius.
and his followers, that “they had spoken and written
incorrectly of man's justification before God, and had not
enough enforced the doctrine of faith; but had so taught
concerning justification as if" sanctification and the good
“works which follow faith are the justice of man".” But
whether he [Himmel] recites these things with good or
with bad faith, certainly no weight whatever is to be attach
ed to his opinion who is not afraid to accuse and condemn as
error, nay, as he thinks, as popish heresy, an opinion which
is held by learned and pious men, and which is altogether
agreeable to Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers.
But this is the wonted mode of many contentious writers
of this age, to condemn straightway as false, may as impious,
many things which they themselves have never rightly
examined, or have not received from their teachers, in men
even the most learned and the most holy, whom very often
truth itself forces to dissent from rigid and pertinacious
zealots; for never is there anything more unjust than an
ignorant man.
14. Field, an English divine of great name among his
countrymen", expressly affirms that ‘in the first justification
of the sinner, besides the remission of sins past, and the
acceptation into the favour of God, there is also included
the grant of the gift of the Holy Spirit, or f of sanctifying
and renewing grace, whereby we may be framed to the
declining of sin and the doing of the works of righteousness:
and he appeals to the Conference of Ratisbon, A.D. 1541,
(of which we have spoken above) to show that on this
subject all the divines of both sides are agreed. And also
[he asserts] that in this sense and in no other are we to
understand what Protestants commonly urge [viz.] that
the word ‘to justify in the affair of our justification before
God, is a forensic word". He also° asserts that “we are
formally justified by the remission of sins, the gracious
acceptation of God, and the grant of the gift of" inherent
“righteousness.”
15. Richard Montague, in the book which he published
against a Romanist abridger of modern controversies A.D.
1624", has affirmed, that the justification of the sinner “con
sisteth in forgiveness of sins primarily and grace infused se
condarily".” The same divine, however, in his book against
the Puritans, published A.D. 1625, and entitled Appello
Caesarem, asserts, in consequence of their clamours, that
he had meant this of justification only when taken in a wide
sense, but not when taken strictly". But how consistently,
let him look to it himself.
See also Francis White 8.
16. The Archbishop of Spalatro" asserts, that “both
Scriptures and the Fathers teach, that justice is given in
both ways, viz., both imputatively and inhesively; and
that our sins are abolished in both ways, [viz.] both by
the covering or non-imputation of them,” as the Protest
ants in general hold (where, however, note, that some
passages of the Fathers' seem to be wrongly understood
by him, of the imputation of Christ's justice to us in the
way of the formal cause; as if that justice were, so to speak, lent to us by Christ, in order that being clothed with it as
with a garment we might please God the Father; for S.
Augustine has never understood the imputation of Christ's
justice to us after this manner,) “and also by true blotting
out,” or “purifying and washing out of the stain” of sin,
“so that nothing of it remain in the soul".” Therefore to
both parties he very much exhorts and recommends the
endeavour of peace, those things being put aside “which,”
as he says, “are purely metaphysical, in no ways necessary
to salvation".” Some of these remarks we very much
approve of, some less.
17. G. Cassander”; “Concerning the justice itself by
which we are justified,” he says, “there have hitherto
arisen great controversies; some placing the form of
justification solely in the justice of Christ imputed to us,
others in the justice of the new life, which [justice] is
communicated to us; even since it has been observed by
very learned men, from the Apostolic teaching and the
tradition of the Fathers, that both kinds of justice ought to
be joined in the essence of justification.” and a little
after, having explained it in many words"; “But here again
it is necessary, that those who are called Protestants agree
in this with the other Catholics, who say that this justifica
tion, or justice, by which we are justified, does not consist
solely in the forgiveness of sins, but also in the inner re
newal of the man, &c.” read what follows in the Author him
self, a man most wishful both for truth and for the peace of
the Church: where see also how this most learned man (to
say this in passing) understands, agreeably to Scripture and
the Fathers, that Christ's justice is imputed to us; “And
truly,” he says", “the Scriptures speak openly enough of
the justice (i. e. the merit and satisfaction of Christ)
imputed to us (that is, attributed to us as if it were our
own), for by that justice (i. e. the merit and intercession
of the blood of Christ) our sins are forgiven (i. e. are not
imputed) &c.” See what follows, “And this indeed is
incontrovertible, &c.” This I wish to be observed on account of a recent writer who, among other Romanists,
who think that Christ's justice is imputed to us in the way
of even the formal cause of our justification, reckons
Cassander also, citing this very passage. But let us con
clude.
CHAPTER VI.
Some objections are obviated, and this enquiry finished.
1. AS to what is objected, that, according to this
opinion, there are two formal causes of our
justification, which seems absurd: we justly
answer—having set aside the vain evasions of Bellarmine
and other Romanists, devised to maintain and preserve
inviolate the authority of the Council of Trent, which
has falsely and even inconsistently declared", that there
is but one formal cause of our justification, viz., the
justice infused into us—we answer, I say, that justification
is an entity, one by aggregation, and compounded of two,
which by necessary conjunction and co-ordination are
one only : wherefore that there is nothing absurd if we
place its essence in things even diverse. Suarez, an
illustrious Jesuit, labouring much and miserably twisting
himself in explaining and defending the definition of the
Council of Trent, that there is but one formal cause of
justification, says,” “As to the first objection, I grant that
there intervene in the justification of the sinner two, so to
speak, partial effects of grace, one positive and the other pri
vative, &c., but from both there coalesces that complete
justice and holiness from which a man has it that he is and
is called simply just and holy. Nor is it an objection that
in one justification several, as it were, partial graces are
included, since the complete justice consists in a certain
assemblage; and there are as many positive partial graces
as there are virtues from which it springs.” These words might much better be accommodated to strengthen our
anSWei'.
But many even of the more rigid Protestants hold that
there are two parts of our justification (and therefore a
double formal cause of justification), forgiveness of sins and
the imputation of the justice of Christ; and attribute different effects to these parts; as is known from their
writings: see Beza, Zanchius, Polanus, the Synopsis purioris
theologiae", and many others.
Other Protestants, who think that forgiveness of sins and
the imputation of justice,—nay, the imputation even of the
justice of Christ, i.e. of that which Christ has acquired for
us by His obedience (for, as we have said above on this
subject, there is a contention among Protestants themselves
about the imputation of Christ's justice, viz., whether it is
to be admitted, and how far; see, besides the others then
quoted, Vorstius", where he says, “Although some some
times distinguish the imputation of Christ's justice, i.e. of
that which is acquired to us by Christ's death and passion,
from this forgiveness of sins, as a diverse thing, yet the
greater part of those” Protestants “who are learned do not
do so; and those who do, speak improperly, inasmuch as
they conjoin along with the formal cause the immediate
efficient or meritorious cause.”)—differ not in reality but
only in name, viz., as expressing the terminuses from
which and to which, as Chamier", Paraeus", Vorstius,
John Gerhard', and many others; although this argu
ment cannot be retorted on them as on the others, yet,
as we have abundantly shown, they falsely define justifica
tion by the mere forgiveness of sins or imputation of
justice.
Justifying faith, according to the opinion of most Protes
tants, includes knowledge and assent in the intellect, and
at the same time trust in the will; whence they are forced
to allow that it is a habit, not one in number and absolutely simple, but only one by aggregation: see besides others
the Synopsis purioris theologiae".
Very many Protestants, to say nothing of Romanists,
make the form of original sin to consist in the imputation
of the first sin of Adam, and in the being destitute of original
justice and in a certain positive depraved inclination or
tendency to all evil: which three things differ much from
each other.
The formal cause of a sacrament all the more learned
Protestants, along with Romanists, place not only in signi
fying, but also in sanctifying, viz. instrumentally; but to
signify and to sanctify are things of different predicates;
the former of relation, the latter of action.
Protestants who in general hold that Christ was Mediator
as to both of His natures, consequently teach and are
forced to teach, that the formal cause of His mediation is
placed not only in meriting for us, but also in giving the
Holy Ghost, &c., which, however, are actions differing
altogether in kind, but which, according to their opinion,
must necessarily be conjoined to the perfecting of His
Mediatorial office.
2. As to what is objected, that Scripture sometimes
distinguishes justification from sanctification", I answer, 1.
with A. Vega", Is it just to confine the word and whole
essence of justification to the forgiveness of sins alone, on
account of one or two passages where justification is dis
tinguished from sanctification, contrary to the whole tenour
of Scripture in almost all places, and to the unvarying
teaching of the Fathers? 2. But, come, let us in few
words sift each of the passages which are brought against
U1S.
Rom. c. 6, v. 22, “But now being freed from sin and be
come the servants of God;” this they say is our justification:
“Ye have your fruit unto sanctification;” this, they say, is
our sanctification, the Apostle calling it the fruit of justifica
tion. Thus a certain man, in other respects most learned,
interprets this passage of the Apostle in a certain treatise
on justification; thus others also with him. But truly they all misinterpret the passage: for the being freed from sin in this passage does not mean merely the being freed from the liability to punishment for sin, in which they put the whole essence of justification, but also the being freed from the dominion of sin, to which the Romans were formerly
servants; (as most clearly appears from the preceding
verses, 19 and 20, and the words immediately following, “But having become servants of God",” or, “bondmen of
God,” or, as he before" said, “having become servants to justice;”) and the words, “Ye have your fruit unto sancti
fication,” contain a Hebraism, i. e., as the fruit of that
servitude to God and to justice ye receive or have sancti
fication itself (or sanctity and purity of life,) and its
continuation and increase.
To 1 Cor. c. 1, v. 30, where Christ is said to be “made
to us by God . . . justice and sanctification,” I answer;
that the Apostle there either signifies the same thing by
the different words of justice and sanctification, in order
to express the thing itself more fully and clearly, which
the sacred writers, as every one knows, are wont often to
do without any tautology: or, if distinct things are sig
nified, as some of the ancients hold (to pass over in silence
the interpretations of moderns) understanding by the
word justice, forgiveness of sins, and by sanctification that
which is commonly so called—as S. Chrysostom" perhaps,
for neither does he fully and clearly support this in
terpretation; certainly the words of Theodoret", the great follower of S. Chrysostom, of Theophylact" the abbreviator of S. Chrysostom, and of CEcumenius', are not
express: those of S. Bernards are quite express—yet this
only can thence be gathered, that in this passage by the
word ‘justice' we are not to understand the whole benefit
of our justification, but that the name of the whole is
attributed kar ééoxiv to its principal part, the other being
not excluded but expressly mentioned; which is not unfre
quently done by Scripture in other matters also.
To the third passage, 1 Cor. c. 6, v. 11, I answer, either as above, that the same thing is signified and expressed by the divers words of washing, sanctification,
and justification, for greater emphasis and to magnify
the benefit received through Christ; as we have above"
observed from Protestants themselves, Zanchius and Bul
linger: or, if these are to be distinguished, that a dis
tinction of the parts and the whole is alone to be admitted,
so that the meaning may be, ‘ye have been washed, i.e. from
all these defilements of sins ye have been washed and
cleansed in baptism, by which all your sins have been
forgiven; “But lest,” says Estius”, “Christian justice
should be thought to consist in washing merely, i. e.,
in forgiveness of sins, he adds the other degree” or
part, “‘but ye have been sanctified, i.e. ye have obtained
purity, so as to be now truly and before God holy:” lastly,
expressing the sum of the benefit received in one word
which includes both parts, the Apostle adds, “But ye
have been justified’; and subjoins, “in the name of our"
Lord Jesus Christ;” i.e., through His merit, “and in the
Spirit of our God,” i. e. the Holy Ghost proceeding from
our God, and communicated to us through Christ.
To Rev. c. 22, v. 11, I answer: “He that is just does
not mean him who is justified by forgiveness of sins
merely, but him “who hurts no one, but renders to every
one his due,” as Francis Ribera" rightly remarks; “let him
be still more justified,” i.e., let him by thus acting go on
and advance; “and he that is holy,” i.e., pure and without
pollutions, “let him be sanctified still more,” i. e., let him
so proceed. For the Apostle here opposes “him that is
just” to rā dòukoúvri, which means, ‘him who acts unjustly,
or who injures another; and ‘him that is holy’ to rò fivróvri,
which means, “him who is defiled, or who is in pollu
tions, i.e., hurting no one save himself; as is most evi
dent from the text, and as (besides Ribera and many
others) Piscator" acknowledges: so that Paraeus shame
fully errs when he says, “‘He that is just, let him be
justified still more, i.e., let him persevere in the justi
fication of faith; for it cannot be understood of the infusion
or the increase of habitual justice without a manifest tautology of the following clause, “he that is holy, let him
be sanctified still more.’” Thus he, but he is wrong.
3. As to what is very frequently objected from Romans
c. 4, v. 6–8, that the Apostle, following David, places the
justification, or the blessedness or beatification of the
sinner, solely in the forgiveness of sins; truly it is of no
great weight. For those Protestants also, who contend that
justification consists not in the forgiveness of sins alone,
but also in the imputation of the justice of Christ, deny
that the whole substance of justification is fthly expressed
by those words which the Apostle quotes from David.
Beza says”, “Question, But David places blessedness in the
forgiveness of sins, why therefore do you add also . . .
the imputation of Christ's fulfilment of the law Answer,
But what if I object to you these passages, ‘Blessed are
the pure in heart,” “Blessed are the undefiled in the way,’
and others of like sort, wouldst thou thence gather
that forgiveness of sins is excluded ? by no means I pre
sume. In the same way by the word justification, sanc
tification even is sometimes meant ; since these two
entirely cohere. Why then may I not answer this also ;
that mention is sometimes made of the forgiveness of sins
only, not in order to exclude the other parts of blessedness,
but because they are tacitly comprehended with it !”
Thus he: see also the Synopsis purioris theologiae.”
So also I answer, that it does not follow from the
words of David which the Apostle quotes, that the blessed
ness or justice of a man consists solely in the forgiveness
of sins or imputation of justice, since in other places
the same Psalmist pronounces blessed those that are
undefiled in the way and walk in the law of the Lord," those
that alway keep judgment and do justice", and him who
walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in
the way of sinners"; and in this very Psalm', after the words
quoted by the Apostle, “Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth no sin,” David adds, “And in his
spirit there is no guile,” i. e. who is a man upright in
heart, as is said in the last words of this Psalm".
Therefore the whole sanctification or renewal of man
ought to be understood as comprehended in the expression
forgiveness of sins. For on account of the most close
connexion of both parts (since forgiveness of sins is never
conferred without internal sanctification of the soul) the
one often embraces the other by synecdoche; and indeed,
it is often, both in Scripture and the Fathers, called for
giveness of sins, this being the principal part; ‘This is all
the fruit, that [his] sin be taken away”; “Behold the Lamb
of God which taketh away the sins of the world";’ ‘He
shall save His people from their sins"; so also 2 Cor. c. 5,
v. 10, and many other passages of Scripture. S. Bernarde;
“‘He is made to us,’” he says, “‘wisdom, justice, &c.,"
wisdom in preaching, justice in the forgiveness of sins;”
and *; “‘The sins of my youth and my ignorances re
member Thou not”, and I am just;” and”; “It sufficeth
me instead of all justice, to have but Him propitious
against Whom alone I have sinned";” and a little
after"; “It is God’s justice not to sin, man's justice is the
indulgence of God;” and again; “God’s justice it is not
to sin, man's justice is, that sin be not imputed;” and ";
“Where there is reconciliation, there is forgiveness
of sins; and what is this [i. e. forgiveness] save justifica
tion?” in this following these very clear words of S.
Augustine", “Our justice also, although it be true, be
cause of the end to which it is referred, viz., the true
Good, yet in this life is such as to consist rather in the
forgiveness of sins, than in the perfection of virtues,” in
which words this most holy and learned Father teaches these
two things; 1, that our justice consists (that is, that we are
just) both in the forgiveness of sins and in the perfec
tion of virtues, such perfection, namely, as befits the state of this life.
2. But that forgiveness of sins is much to be
preferred to the perfection of virtues.
That S. Augustine here, as in very many other passages,
holds the first of these, is candidly acknowledged by
Chamier"; “That the virtues are not excluded, we allow,
for we know and have testified elsewhere, that S. Augus
tine in the one word ‘justification, comprehends both parts,
that is, both what we properly call justification, and also
sanctification: and so far the Jesuit" lies not.” But Paraeus"
incorrectly says, “The adversary's gloss about justice
divided into forgiveness of sins, and perfection of virtue is
without doubt false . . . for it is manifest that S. Augus
tine does not compound forgiveness of sins and perfection
of virtue as parts of the same justice, but opposes them as
different things.” but the words of S. Augustine could
scarcely be more violently wrested by any one.
The latter of the above propositions Bellarmine him
self is forced to admit"; “But this word “rather,’” he
says, “in this place does not exclude the perfection of
virtues, but gives the first place to forgiveness of sins,
so that the meaning is, that our justice which is placed
partly in the forgiveness of sins, partly in the perfection
of virtues, consists more in the forgiveness of sins than in
the perfection of virtues.” and indeed he assigns two
reasons why S. Augustine says this”; “1. Because
sins are perfectly blotted out and purged in baptism,
so that nothing at all remains which has the nature of a
fault; but infused virtues are perfect after a way of their
own, so that they ought daily to be more and more per
fected:
2. Because forgiveness of sin once granted needs
not a new infusion of virtues; but virtue once infused
needs daily a new forgiveness of sin, not of deadly sin,
which could not co-exist with justice, but of venial sin.”
The same things may be read in Leo Coquaeus, in his
Commentary on the passage of S. Augustine just
cited, copied word for word from Bellarmine. Yet
Bellarmine seems to contradict himself when he thus speaks, “The Apostle here" applies the name of justi
fication rather to internal renewal than to forgiveness of
sins, and thereby teaches that justification not only does
not consist solely in the forgiveness of sins, but that
it does not even consist principally in it.” That most
learned and excellent man Ludovicus Vives, in his Com
mentary", has very well expressed thus S. Augustine's
meaning in this passage, “So that [it consists] rather,
&c.” “For,” he says, “we are in a great measure good,
not because we live well, but because pardon of the crimes
we have committed is granted us by God.” John Hessel";
“Thejustice of this life consists principally (as S. Augustine
says") in the forgiveness of sins.” See the same writer in
his Explicatio Symboli Apostolici"; “This, therefore,” (the
forgiveness of sins), “as being that which is the princi
pal being expressed, the Apostles have understood, &c.”
See the passage.
4. Lastly, as to what is objected from many testimonies
gathered together from Scripture and the Fathers, that our
inherent justice in this life is imperfect and intermixed
with many sins, and therefore cannot endure the divine
judgment, nor we be by it deemed formally just in the
judgment of God, I answer;
1". That almost all the passages which are brought
to support this objection relate to actual justice (i. e.
that of our works,) rather than to the justice given us by
God (i.e. that which is habitual,) which is not our work, but
the work of God, (though received in us) Who at the same
time forgives our sins and infuses the gifts of faith, hope,
and love: whence also newly-baptised infants are truly
just before God, although they have done no work:
wherefore we will postpone this discussion about the
imperfection of our justice till a following book, where
with God’s help we will discuss at length the question
concerning the justice of works.
2". But even if that imperfection, which the very
gifts of the Holy Ghost communicated to us in justification
have, as long as we live here, and as long as these
gifts can, nay, ought to be increased in us, be pro
perly sin (for certainly S. Augustine does not shrink from calling it fault and sin"; “All-perfect love, which can no
more be increased, is in no one so long as he lives here;
but so long as it can be increased, certainly that which is
less than it ought to be, is of sin, from which sin there is
no [one just,” i. e. guiltless, “upon earth] who does good
and sins not”; and”; “It is sin,” he says, “either when love
is not, which ought to be, or when it is less than it ought
to be.” But whether he calls it sin in a wide sense
merely, as all Romanists and even some very learned
Protestants maintain, bringing also other passages from
S. Augustine himself to confirm their opinion, or whether
he does so even properly, as others hold, we will elsewhere"
examine;) the opinion which we have supported is not
thereby injured, since we have always joined forgiveness
of sins with the donation of justice, and contended that we
are and are called formally just before God, not by the
latter only but by the former also, nay, by it principally,
as S. Augustine has already said.
5. There are many things concerning the formal cause of
justification about which Romanists themselves dispute, as,
whether we are justified by the infused habits of virtues,"
as very many maintain, or, whether the perpetual motion
and operation of God in us be that by which we are
justified, or finally, whether neither of these precisely, but
the uprightness of the mind and will resulting from both
of them, be our formal justice: And also, whether the
justice by which we are formally justified be solely habitual,
or, whether it be actual, i.e., works truly just £ and also
some other things, about which see Stapleton", Bellarmine',
Suarez, Vasquez, and many other writers of the same sort;
men certainly most learned, but often far too subtle, not
to say too audacious, in discussing the doctrines of the faith
which are full of simplicity, and love it above all things.
Wherefore dismissing these things and all others foreign
to the plan of our design, here ending this book, let us
pass on to the other things that are controverted between
the dissentient parties. And may the God of truth and
peace look favourably on the attempt.
