Turrettin

on Justification
Francis Turrettin

2009
Doxa Digital Press
Lake Monroe, FL

Front Matter
Turrettin on Justification
Translated by George Musgrave Giger

Sixteenth Topic of Institutes of Elenctic Theology

Lake Monroe, FL
Doxa Digital Press
2009

Front Matter .................................................................................................................................. 2

1. Justification As Forensic .................................................................................................. 4
2. A False Foundation ................................................................................................................ 9
3. The True Foundation ............................................................................................................ 21
4. Remission and Adoption ...................................................................................................... 35
5. The Remission of Sins ........................................................................................................ 40
6. Adoption .................................................................................................................................. 49
7. The Justification of Faith .............................................................................................. 53
8. Justification by Faith Alone .......................................................................................... 62
9. The Time of Justification ................................................................................................ 72
10. The Unity of Justification ............................................................................................ 77

1.
Justification As Forensic
Is the word justification always used in a forensic sense in this argument, or
also in a moral and physical? The former we affirm, the latter we deny, against
the Romanists.

As in the chain of salvation justification follows vocation, Rom. 8:30, and is

everywhere set forth as the primary effect of faith, the topic concerning vocation
and faith begets the topic concerning justification, which must be handled with
the greater care and accuracy as this saving doctrine is of the greatest importance
in religion. It is called by Luther, the article of a standing and falling church; by
other Christians it is termed the characteristic and basis of Christianity not
without reason, the principal rampart of the Christian religion, and, it being
adulterated or subverted, it is impossible to retain purity of doctrine in other
places. Whence Satan in every way has endeavored to corrupt this doctrine in all
ages; as has been done especially in the Papacy: for which reason it is deservedly
placed among the primary causes of our secession from the Romish Church and
of the Reformation.
2

Although, however, some of the more candid Romanists, conquered by the

force of the truth, have felt and expressed themselves more soundly than
others concerning this article; nor are there wanting also some among our
divines, who influenced by a desire to lessen controversies, think there
is not so great matter for dispute about it, and that there are here not
a few logomachies: still it is certain that up to this time there are
between us and the Romanists in this argument controversies not verbal,
but real, many and of great importance, as will be made manifest in what
follows.
Because from a false and preposterous explanation of the word, the truth
of the thing itself has been wonderfully obscured, in the first place,
its genuine sense, and in this question most especially, must be unfolded,
which being settled we will be able the more easily to reach the nature
of the thing itself.
The verb htsdyq, to which the Greek dikaioun answers, and the Latin
justificare, is used in two ways in the Scriptures, properly and
improperly. Properly the verb is forensic, put for to absolve any one in

a trial, or to hold and to declare just, as opposed to the verb to condemn

and to accuse, Exod. 23:7, Deut. 25:1, Prov. 17:15, Luke 18:14, Rom. 35.
Thence apart from a trial it is used for to acknowledge and to praise one
as just, and that too, either deservedly, as when it is terminated on God,
in which way men are said to justify God, when they celebrate him as just,
Ps. 51:4; wisdom is said to be justified of her children, Matt. 11:19,
Luke 7:35, that is acknowledged and celebrated as such, or presumptuously,
as the Pharisees are said to justify themselves. Luke 16:15. Improperly
it is used either ministerially, for to bring to righteousness, Dan. 12:3,
where mtsdyqy seems to be exegetical of mskylym; because while the
preachers of the gospel instruct and teach believers, by this very thing
they justify them ministerially, to wit, by teaching
3

them the true way in which they can be justified, in the same sense in which they
are said to save them, 1 Tim. 4:16. Or by way of synecdoche, the antecedent being
put for the consequent, for to free, Rom. 6:7, He that is dead is justified from
sin, that is, freed. Or comparatively, Ezek. 16:51, 52, where on account of a
comparison between the sins of Israel and Samaria, Israel is said to justify
Samaria, and, the sins of Judah increasing, Judah is said to have justified Israel,
Jer. 3:11, because Israel was more just than Judah, that is, her sins were fewer
than the sins of Judah.

Hence arises the Question with the Romanists, concerning the acceptation
of this word, whether it is to be taken precisely in a forensic sense,
in this affair; or, whether it ought also to be taken in a physical and
moral sense for the infusion of righteousness and justification, if it
is allowable so to speak, either by the acquisition or the increase of
it? For they do not deny, indeed, that the word justificatio and the verb
justificare are often taken in a forensic sense, and even in this affair,
as Bellarmine, lib. i, de Justif., cap. i. Tirin., Contro. 15, nu. 1,
Tolet., ad Rom. ii., Anno 13, and many others. But they do not wish this
to be the constant meaning but that it often signifies a true production,
acquisition, or increase of righteousness, and this is especially the case,
when employed about the justification of man before God. Whence they
distinguish justification into first and second. The first is that by
which man who is unjust is made just, the second, by which a just man is
made more just. Whence Bellarmine, lib. ii, cap. 2, Justification
undoubtedly is a certain movement from sin to righteousness, and takes
its name from the terminus to which it leads, as all other similar motions,
illumination, calefaction; that is true justification, where some
righteousness is acquired beyond the remission of sin. Thomas Aquinas,
1, 2, q. 113, Justification taken passively implies a motion to making

righteous, just as calefaction a motion to heat. Now although we do not

deny that this word has
4

more than one signification, and is taken in different ways in the Scriptures, now
properly, then improperly, as we have already said, still we maintain that it is
never taken for an infusion of righteousness, but always as often as the Scriptures
speak professedly concerning our justification, it must be explained as a forensic
term.

The reasons are: 1. Because the passages, which treat of justification,

admit no other than a forensic sense, Job 9:3, Ps. 143:2, Rom. 3:28, and
4:13, Acts 13:39, and elsewhere, where a judicial process is set forth,
and mention is made of an accusing law, of accused persons, who are guilty,
Rom. 3:19, of a handwriting contrary to us, Col. 2:14, of divine justice
demanding punishment, Rom. 3:24, 26, of an advocate pleading the cause,
1 John 2:1, of satisfaction and imputed righteousness, Rom. 45; of a
throne of grace before which we are absolved, Heb. 4:16, of a judge
pronouncing sentence, Rom. 3:20, and absolving sinners, Rom. 4:5.
2. Because justification is here opposed to condemnation; Who shall lay
anything to the charge of Gods elect? It is God that justifieth. Who
is he that condemneth? Rom. 8:33, 34. As therefore accusation and
condemnation occur only in a trial; so also justification. Nor can it be
conceived how God can be said to condemn or to justify, unless either by
adjudging to punishment, or absolving us from it judicially, which Toletus
is compelled to confess on this passage; The word justification in this
place is taken with that signification, which is opposed to its antithesis,
namely, condemnation, so that it is the same in this place to justify as
to pronounce just, as a judge by his sentence absolves and pronounces
innocent. Cornelius a Lapide, who otherwise earnestly strives to
obscure the truth, still overcome by the force of the truth, acknowledges
that God justifies, that is, absolves the threatened action of sin and
the devil, and pronounces just.
5

3. Because the equivalent phrases, by which our justification is described;

such as not to come into judgment, John 5:24; not to be condemned, John
3:18; to remit sins, to impute righteousness, Rom. 4; to be reconciled,
Rom. 5:10, 2 Cor. 5:19; and the like. 4. This word ought to be employed
in the sense in which it was used by Paul in his dispute against the Jews;
And yet it is certain that he did not speak there of an infusion of
righteousness, viz., whether from faith, or from the works of the law the

habit of righteousness should be infused into man, but how the sinner could
stand before the judgment seat of God, and obtain a right to life, whether
by the works of the law, as the Jews imagined, or by faith in Christ; and
since the thought concerning justification arose without doubt from a fear
of divine judgment, and of the wrath to come, it cannot be used in any
other than a forensic sense; as it was used in the origin of those questions,
which were agitated in a former age upon the occasion of Indulgences,
satisfactions and remission of sins. 5. Finally, unless this word is taken
in a forensic sense, it would be confounded with sanctification, and that
these are distinct, both the nature of the thing and the voice of Scripture
frequently prove.
Although the word justification in certain passages of scripture should
recede from its proper signification, and be taken in another than a
forensic sense, it would not follow that it is taken judicially by us
falsely, because the proper sense is to be looked to in those passages
in which is the seat of this doctrine. 2. Although perchance it should
not be taken precisely in a forensic sense, for to pronounce just, and
to absolve in a trial, still we maintain that it cannot be taken in a
physical sense for the infusion of righteousness, as the Romanists hold,
as is easily proved from the passages brought by Bellarmine himself.
6

For, in Isa. 53:11, where it is said Christ by his knowledge shall justify
many; it is manifest that reference is made to the meritorious and
instrumental cause of our absolution with God, namely, Christ, and the
knowledge or belief of him. For the knowledge of Christ here ought not
to be taken subjectively, concerning the knowledge by which he knows what
was agreed upon between himself and the Father, which has nothing to do
with our satisfaction. But objectively, concerning that knowledge, by
which he is known by his people unto salvation, which is nothing else than
faith, to which justification is everywhere ascribed. The following words
show that no other sense is to be sought, when it is added, for he shall
bear their iniquities, to denote the satisfaction of Christ, which faith
ought to embrace, in order that we may be justified.
No more does the passage of Daniel 12:3 press us. Because, as we have
already said, justification is ascribed to the ministers of the gospel,
as elsewhere the salvation of believers, 1 Tim. 4:16, 1 Cor. 9:22. Not
assuredly by an infusion of habitual righteousness, which does not come
within their power; but by the instruction of believers, by which, as they
open the way of life, so they teach the mode, by which sinners can obtain
justification in Christ by faith. Whence the Vulgate does not translate
it justificantes, but erudientes ad justitiam.

The passage, Rev. 22:11, he that is righteous, let him be righteous still,
does not favor our opponents, so as to denote an infusion or increase of
righteousness. Because thus it would be tautological with the following
words, he that is holy, let him be holy still, for that justification would
not differ from sanctification. But it is best to refer it to the
application and sense of justification, for although on the part of God
justification does not take place successively, still on our part, it is
apprehended by us by varied and repeated actions, while by new acts of
faith we apply to ourselves from time
7

to time the merit of Christ as a remedy for the daily sins into which we fall. Nay,
although it should be granted that the exercise of righteousness is here meant, as
in a manuscript we have dikaiosynn poisat, that it may be opposed to the
preceding words. He that is unjust, let him be more unjust, the opinion of the
Romanists will not on that account be established.

The justification of the wicked, of which Paul speaks, Rom. 4:5, ought
not to be referred to an infusion or increase of habitual righteousness,
but belongs to the remission of sins, as it is explained by the apostle
from David. Nay, it would not be a justification of the wicked, if it were
used in any other sense than for a judicial absolution at the throne of
grace. I confess that God in declaring just, ought also for that very
reason to make just, that his judgment may be according to truth. But man
can be made just in two ways, either in himself, or in another, either
from the law, or from the gospel. God therefore makes him just whom he
justifies, not in himself as if from a sight of his inherent righteousness
he declared him just, but from the view of the righteousness, imputed,
of Christ. It is indeed an abomination to Jehovah to justify the wicked
without a due satisfaction, but God in this sense justifies no wicked one,
Christ having been given to us as a surety, who received upon himself the
punishment we deserved.
Although certain words of the same order with justification denote an
effecting in the subject, there is not the same reason for this, which
otherwise barbarous has been received into latinity, to express the force
of htsdyq and dikaioun, neither of which admit a physical sense. Thus we
magnify and justify God, not by making him great from small, or just from
unjust, but only declaratively celebrating him as such.

2.
A False Foundation
Is the impulsive and meritorious cause, on account of which man is justified in
the judgment of God, inherent righteousness infused into us, or good works? We
deny against the Romanists.

Since it is evident from the preceding question that the word justification is
forensic, and is taken judicially here, because it relates to the manner in which
sinful man can stand before the bar of God, and obtain the pardon of sin with a
right to life; we must inquire before all things, what is the foundation of this
justification, or what is the true and proper meritorious cause, in view of which he
is absolved by God from sin and adjudged to life. Concerning this we must firstly
treat negatively according to the Pauline method, in order that we may see, in
what it does not consist; secondly, affirmatively, in what it does consist.

We must, however, premise here, that God, the just judge, cannot pronounce
any one just, and give him a right to life, except on the ground of some
perfect righteousness, which has a necessary connection with life; but
that righteousness is not of one kind. For as there are two
10

covenants, which God willed to make with men, the one legal, and the other of
grace, so also there is a two-fold righteousness, legal and evangelical, according to
which there is also a double justification, or a double method of standing before
God in judgment, legal and evangelical. The former consists in ones own
obedience, or a perfect conformity with the law, which is in him who is to be
justified; the latter in anothers obedience, or a perfect observance of the law,
which is rendered by a surety in the place of him who is to be justified. The
former in us, the latter in Christ. Concerning the first Paul treats, Rom. 2:13, Not
the hearers, but the doers of the law shall be justified, and 10:5, Moses
describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those
things, shall live by them. Concerning the other, Rom. 1:16, 17, The Gospel is the
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, for therein is the
righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall
live by faith. And 3:24, Being justified freely by his grace, through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Concerning both, Phil. 3:9, That I may be
found in Christ, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that
which is through the faith of Christ, and Rom. 9:30, 31. Whence a twofold
justification flows, one in the legal covenant by ones own righteousness

according to the clause, Do this and live, the other in the covenant of grace, by
anothers righteousness, Christs imputed to us, and apprehended by faith
according to the clause, Believe and thou shalt be saved. Each demands a perfect
righteousness, but the former requires it in the man to be justified, but the latter
admits the vicarious righteousness of a surety. That could have place in a state of
innocence if Adam had remained in innocence. But because after sin it became
impossible to man, we must fly
11

to the other, that is, the gospel, which is founded upon the righteousness of
Christ.

This being established, the question is not concerning legal

justification; for we confess that in it inherent righteousness is its
meritorious cause, nor can it be obtained by the perfect obedience of man.
But because, the law having now become weak by sin, this method of
justification is impossible, we treat of the evangelical, proposed to us
in the covenant of grace, which we deny to be founded in inherent
righteousness.
The question is not, whether inherent righteousness is infused into us
through the grace of Christ, by whose intervention we are made partakers
of the divine nature, 2 Pet. 1:4, and obtain a true and real holiness
pleasing and acceptable to God, by which we are properly denominated just
and holy. For whatever the opponents may calumniously charge upon the
orthodox, to wit, that we allow of no inherent righteousness as Bellarmine,
lib. ii. de Justifi., cap.1, and others after him, it is surely a most
foul calumny, the falsity is proved from the writings of our divines
whether public or private, in which everywhere and with common consent
they teach that the benefits of justification and sanctification are so
indissolubly connected with each other, that God justifies no one, without
equally sanctifying him, and giving inherent righteousness by the
creation of a new man in true righteousness and holiness. But the question
is, whether that inherent righteousness, such as exists in believers on
earth, enters into our justification, either as its cause, or as a part,
so that it constitutes some part of our justification, and is the
meritorious cause and foundation of our absolving sentence in the judgment
of God. For the Romanists, as they pretend that justification consists
of two parts, remission of sin, and internal renovation of mind, so they
assert that the cause on account of which God justifies us is the
righteousness of God, which, infused into us,
12

constitutes us internally righteous. For although they do not appear to exclude

entirely the righteousness of Christ, inasmuch as they hold that by it he merited
that God should communicate to us by the Holy Spirit internal righteousness, and
thus it is a condition of the formal cause, that is, of inherent righteousness, that it
may be given to man; still they maintain that the right to seek life depends upon
inherent righteousness, and that on account of it God justifies us.

This is evident from the Council of Trent, Sess. 6. cap. 4, where the
justification of the wicked is said to be the translation from that state
in which man is born a son of the first Adam, into a state of grace and
the adoption of the sons of God by the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our
Saviour. This translation indeed, after the promulgation of the gospel,
cannot be made, without the washing of regeneration, or a desire for it
and so forth. And cap. 7, Justification itself follows this disposition
or preparation, which is not only the remission of sin, but also
sanctification and the renovation of the inward man by a voluntary
reception of grace and gifts, by which a person who was unjust is made
just, and instead of an enemy becomes a friend, so that he is an heir
according to the hope of eternal life, etc. and afterwards, The formal
cause of it is the righteousness of God, not that by which he is himself
righteous, but that by which he makes us righteous; and by which, bestowed
upon us as his gift, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and are
not only accounted, but are truly called, and are righteous, receiving
each of us righteousness in ourselves according to our measure, which the
Spirit distributes to every man as he wills, and according to the peculiar
disposition and co-operation of every man. And Canon 11: If any man
shall say that men are justified solely by the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, or solely by the remission of sins to the
exclusion of grace and charity, which is shed abroad in our hearts by the
Spirit, and is inherent in them, or even that the grace by which we are
justified is only the favor
13

of God, let him be accursed. From these declarations it is evident that the
Council held that inherent righteousness is the cause on account of which we are
justified. Nor ought we to be deceived by their seeming distinction between the
formal and the meritorious cause; the one indeed being Christ, but the other
infused righteousness. Because since they speak of justification before God, the
formal cause cannot be distinguished from the meritorious, because in this
respect the formal cause is nothing else than that in view of which God frees us
from condemnation, and receives to eternal life.

The orthodox, on the other hand, think far differently. For although they
do not deny that inherent righteousness was purchased for us by the merit

of Christ, and by his grace conferred upon us, so that by it we are and
can be denominated truly just and holy; still they deny that it enters
into justification in any way, either as a cause, or as a part, so that
justification may be said to be placed in it, and by and on account of
it man may be justified before God; since the righteousness of Christ alone
imputed to us is the foundation and meritorious cause, upon which our
absolutory sentence rests, so that for no other reason does God bestow
the pardon of sin and the right to life, than on account of the most perfect
righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and apprehended by faith. Whence
it is readily gathered that we have not here a mere dispute about words
as some falsely imagine but a controversy most real, and indeed of the
highest moment, as in it we treat of the principal foundation of our
salvation, which being overthrown or weakened, all our confidence and
consolation both in life and in death must necessarily perish.
This appears more clearly when we come to the thing itself, and the
controversy is not carried on coldly and unfeelingly in scholastic cloud
and dust as if from a distance, but
14

in wrestling and agony, when the conscience is placed before God, and terrified by
a sense of sin, and of the divine justice it seeks a way to stand in the judgment and
to flee from the wrath to come. It is indeed easy in the shades of schools to prattle
much concerning the worth of inherent righteousness and of works to the
justification of men; but when we come into the sight of God, it is necessary to
leave such trifles, because there the matter is conducted seriously, and no
ludicrous disputes about words are indulged in. Hither our eyes must be
altogether raised up, if we wish to enquire profitably concerning true
righteousness, in what way we may answer the heavenly judge when he shall have
called us to account. Truly while among men the comparison holds good, each
one supposes he has what is of some worth and value. But when we rise to the
heavenly tribunal judge, not such as our intellect of their own accord imagine, but
as he is described to us in Scripture, namely, by whose brightness the stars are
darkened, at whose strength the mountains melt, by whose anger the earth is
shaken, whose justice not even the angels are equal to bear, who does not make
the guilty innocent, whose vengeance when once kindled penetrates even to the
lowest depths of hell; then in an instant the vain confidence of men perishes and
falls, and conscience is compelled, whatever it may have proudly boasted before
men concerning its own righteousness, to deprecate the judgment, and to confess
that it has nothing, upon which it can rely before God, crying out with David,
Lord, if thou markest iniquity, who can stand? And elsewhere, Enter not into
judgment with thy servant, because no flesh will be justified in thy sight.

There then is the true state of Controversy; when the mind is thoroughly
terrified with the consciousness of sin, and a sense of Gods wrath, what
is that thing on account of
15

which he may be acquitted before God, and be reckoned a righteous person; what
is that righteousness, which he ought to oppose to the judgment of God that he be
not condemned according to the strict demand of the law, but may obtain
remission of sins, and a right to eternal life. Is it righteousness inhering in us and
inchoate holiness, or the righteousness and obedience of Christ alone imputed to
us? Our opponents hold the former, we the latter, which we are about to
demonstrate distinctly, 1. As to inherent righteousness. 2. As to imputed. Of the
latter we will treat in the next Question. Of the former we now speak.

That inherent righteousness cannot be the meritorious cause of our

justification, we prove. 1. Because no one is justified by an imperfect
righteousness; since the judgment of God is according to truth, and in
it there is no room for a gracious acceptation; nor can deception consist
with his law and justice. But inherent righteousness is not perfect, nor
actual nor habitual; not actual, because in many things we all offend,
James 3:2, and there is no one that sinneth not, 1 Kings 8:46, which
Bellarmine himself does not deny, lib. ii. de Justif., cap. 16; not
habitual, because the perfection and imperfection of an act depend upon
the perfection or imperfection of the habit; and our regeneration is
always imperfect; here, 1 Cor. 13:12, and Gal. 5:17. Not ought it to be
objected, either that this absolute perfection was required under the
law, but is not under the gospel. Because the relaxation made under the
gospel does not extend so far that an imperfect righteousness can be
accepted for a perfect; for God cannot be satisfied except by a perfect
righteousness; but in this that the vicarious and the alien righteousness
of a surety is admitted for our own. Or, that righteousness is properly
said to be perfect, because it belongs to the works of God, which must
be perfect, because the work
16

of the Rock is perfect, Deut. 32:4. For the works which God does immediately by
himself, which are rightly called perfect absolutely, differ from mediate works,
which are performed by the intervention of creatures, such as the work of
regeneration, because God operating according to our capacity promotes and
perfects them little by little.

2. Because our justification takes place without works, therefore also

without inherent righteousness, which consists wholly in works, or in
habits from which works spring, the passages are obvious, for scarcely

anything has been oftener said, and more constantly asserted, nothing
certainly more fully argued: Rom. 3:20, By the deeds of the law, there
shall no flesh be justified, and 3:28, We conclude, that a man is
justified by faith without the deeds of the law. This the apostle
confirms in 4:6, and Gal. 2:16, and in many other places. Nor should it
be replied here, that all works are not absolutely excluded, but certain
ones only, to wit, ceremonial: or if moral are excluded, those only are
meant which precede faith and grace, and which are done by the strength
of free-will, not those which are done from faith and grace. Because since
the apostle absolutely and simply excludes all works without any exception,
it does not become as to limit, what he does not limit. And the thing itself
proves this; for he antithetically opposes faith to works in this matter,
whence it appears that all works entirely of whatsoever kind, and not some
particular ones, are excluded; otherwise he could not have simply opposed
one working and one believing, to do and to believe, but a certain kind
of working to other kinds.
This is demonstrated in particular, 1. as to ceremonial works. For that
law with its works is understood to be excluded by the apostle, by which
is the knowledge of sin, Rom. 3:20, and the whole world has become exposed
to
17

condemnation, 3:19, concerning which it is said, The man that doeth them shall
live in them, Gal. 3:12, and from the curse of which Christ redeemed us, 3:13;
which must be understood of the whole law, and especially the moral, not the
ceremonial. 2. If the ceremonial law only would be excluded, not the moral, since
it is the less principal part of the law, justification would have to be ascribed,
rather than denied to the law, by reason of the moral law, which is much prior. 3.
This objection is rejected by many Romanists, Lombard, Thomas, Toletus,
Pererius, Justinian, Salmero, and others, as their commentaries clearly show.
Lombard on Rom. 3, Without any works of the law, even the moral. Thomas,
Lect. 4. on this passage, Without the works of the law, not only ceremonial,
which do not bestow grace, but signify it, but also without the works of the moral
precepts according to this, Tit. 3:5, Not by works of righteousness which we have
done. Augustine teaches expressly, lib. de Spiritu et Litera, cap. viii., that Paul
speaks of the whole law. Nor if the controversy between Paul and the
false-apostles arose from the use of circumcision and the observance of the
ceremonial law, which they urged as necessary to justification, does it follow that
the apostle speaks of it alone, when he excludes the works of the law from it.
Because he passes from a part to the whole, this hypothesis of the false-apostles
drawing with it a necessity of observing the whole law, as we see in Acts 15:5, and
Paul himself testifies, Gal. 5:3, when he says that he, who presses circumcision as
necessary, is a debtor to do the whole law, because the law demands not a partial,

but a perfect obedience in all. Whence because he saw that believers would thus
slide back to the Old Covenant, and depart from the New, he inveighs with so
much warmth against this error as most pestilential.

No better do others answer, that it treats of works of the moral law done
before faith and grace. 1. Because Paul excludes all works which are
opposed to faith; and yet all works without distinction are here opposed
to faith, as working and believing,
18

Rom. 4:5. 2. There was no necessity to exclude the works of the unregenerate,
since it was acknowledged they were sins, as being done without faith, Rom. 14:23.
3. The examples of Abraham and David, adduced by Paul, Rom. 4, inasmuch as
they had been already converted and were believers, prove that works performed
even after faith are excluded; as the apostle speaking of himself now a believer, 1
Cor. 4:4, says, I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified. 4. All those
works are excluded, which could leave any reason for boasting to man, Rom. 3:27.
And yet such are works done by faith, which they hold to be meritorious. 5. The
works of believers are effects, which follow justification, not the causes which
precede it. 6. The design of the apostle in the Epistle to the Galatians was to
dispute against the false-apostles, who joined together in justification, faith and
works, the grace of Christ and their own merits. 7. If he had wished to exclude the
works of nature only, and not of grace; why does he so often and so carefully
oppose works to faith absolutely? Why does he never oppose the works of nature
to the works of grace, which would have greatly assisted in refuting the calumny
of his adversaries, by which they assailed his doctrine as if by excluding works
from justification he would open the door to sin, Rom. 6:1, Shall we continue in
sin, that grace may abound? And yet that inference would be founded upon no
foundation at all, if Paul had wished to exclude only works done before faith; for
who otherwise would gather that sin must not be indulged in after faith on this
account because works antecedent to faith do not justify in the least! Now both
kinds of works being excluded, it was easy to object this very thing, which the
Romanists of the present day object to us; to wit, that it is useless to do good
works, if there is no merit in works, nay, we should rather sin that grace may
abound. This objection of
19

the profane the apostle did not refute by a distinction between antecedent and
subsequent, which assuredly he ought to have done according to the hypothesis of
our opponents; but by an explanation of sanctification, and its indissoluble
connection with justification.

Thirdly, because our justification is free, by the grace of God, through

the redemption of Christ, Rom. 3:24, where the grace of God cannot denote

the infused habit of love, as Bellarmine holds, but the favor and
benevolence of God, both because we are said to be justified by his grace,
that is, as the leading and meritorious cause is placed in the redemption
of Christ, the false is rejected by the particle freely, which excludes
all merit in us. 2. This grace is opposed to works and boasting, Rom. 11:6
and Eph. 2:9. 3. We cannot be justified by the redemption of Christ,
otherwise, than by the imputation of his righteousness, which is
incompatible with inherent righteousness, in the matter of justification;
for if we are justified in another, we cannot be justified in ourselves.
4. Pererius confesses that charin here denotes rather the gratuitous
goodness and kindness of God towards men, which is elsewhere called
kindness and love toward men. Tit. 3:4. Nor if the benevolence of God works
in men good-pleasure, that is, the good which he wills for them, does it
follow that he gives inherent righteousness, that we may be justified by
it; because God does that good by distinct acts, the good indeed of imputed
righteousness by the act of justification, of inherent by the act of
sanctification, as he has made Christ into us both righteousness and
sanctification, 1 Cor. 1:30.
Fourthly, because justification consists according to Paul, Rom. 4:8, in
the remission of sins. Nor can it be done otherwise, since a sinner is
concerned. And yet he, whose sin is freely pardoned, cannot be justified
by inherent righteousness; nor
20

is inherent righteousness remission of sins. Nor does he escape who says that it is
not indeed remission of sins, but still it is connected with it in justification.
Because it involves a contradiction that man is justified at the same time by
inherent righteousness and by remission of sins, as it is most absurd for one to be
justified in himself, and in another, by a personal and by anothers obedience.

Fifthly, if justification were by inherent righteousness, justification

will be of the law, not of the gospel, and the two covenants will be
confounded, which are nevertheless constantly opposed as diametrically
opposite to each other. Because legal justification takes place in no
other way than by inherent righteousness, whether actual or habitual;
while the gospel justification is to be sought not in us, but in another.
This the apostle clearly teaches, Phil. 3:9, when he wishes to be found
in Christ, to wit, in the judgment of God, not having his own
righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith
of Christ; that is, not an inherent righteousness, arising from an
observance of the law, and which is perfected by our actions, but the
righteousness of God and Christ, imputed to us and apprehended by faith.

Sixthly, because this derogates from the merit of Christ, and is an

argument for glorying and pride. For if Christ most fully suffice for our
justification, why are human merits sewed on? Is not injury thus done to
Christ, and material given to man for glorying in himself with God? Nor
is this absurdity removed by saying that all this righteousness depends
on Christ, who obtained that also for us, and gave to it the power of
meriting. Because besides the gratuitous assumption that Christ merited
for us the power of meriting, as will be seen in the proper place, whatever
good man receives from God by grace, according to their hypothesis, does
not exclude the concourse of free-will, by
21

whose intervention man may have some material for glorying in himself while we
must glory in the Lord alone. The Pharisee is no less condemned although, giving
thanks to God, he professes that he has all that he has, from him, not from
himself, Luke 18.

Seventhly, because remission of sin requires the removal of guilt by the

payment of the ransom due. And yet inherent righteousness can neither
remove the offence to God, or the guilt springing from it, nor compensate
for the injury to the Divine majesty. For besides that it looks to the
future, that man may perform his duty, not to the past, that he may
compensate for the defect of duty by giving a satisfaction, it is
impossible by a quality of finite virtue, and worth for an offence of
infinite indignity to be blotted out and compensated for.
Eighthly, we cannot omit here the remarkable testimonies of two Cardinals,
who, overcome by the power of the truth, agree with us. The first is
Cardinal Contarenus, who in his tract de Justif., thus expresses himself.
Since, he says, we reach a twofold righteousness by faith, a
righteousness inherent in us, and the love and grace by which we are made
partakers of the divine nature; and righteousness of Christ given and
imputed to us, since we are planted in Christ, and put on Christ; it remains
to inquire, on which of these we ought to rest, and to think ourselves
justified before God, that is, reckoned holy and righteous. I truly think
it to be said piously and religiously, that we ought to rest, I say rest
upon a stable thing, which can certainly sustain us, upon the
righteousness of Christ bestowed upon us, and not upon the holiness and
grace inherent in us. For this our righteousness is inchoate and imperfect,
which cannot keep us from offending in many things and from constantly
sinning. Therefore we cannot in the sight of God on account of this our
righteousness be esteemed righteous and good, as it becomes the sons of
God to be good and holy. But

22

the righteousness of Christ given to us is a true and perfect righteousness, which

is altogether pleasing in the sight of God, in which there is nothing that offends
him, that does not in the highest degree please him. We must therefore rest upon
this alone, sure and stable, and on account of it alone we must believe that we are
justified before God, that is, considered righteous and called righteous. From
him Bellarmine does not differ much, lib. v. de Justific., cap. 7, who after exerting
all his strength in a defence of human merit, pressed by the consciousness of the
truth, at length is brought to say, that on account of the uncertainty of personal
righteousness, and the danger of vain glory, it is the safest to place our entire
confidence in the mercy and kindness of God alone, etc. To this proposition
answers this clause of his will. And I pray, him to admit me among his saints and
elect, not as an estimator of merit, but as a bestower of pardon.

Christ by his obedience is rightly said to constitute us righteous, not

by inherent righteousness, but by imputed, as is taught in Rom. 4:6, and
gathered from the opposition of the antecedent condemnation, 5:19. For
they are not the less constituted righteous before God, who on account
of the obedience of Christ imputed to them are absolved from deserved
punishment, than they who on account of the disobedience of Adam are
constituted unrighteous, that is, are exposed to death and condemnation.
Nor if Adam constituted us unrighteous effectively by a propagation of
inherent depravity, on account of which we are also exposed to death in
the sight of God; does it follow equally that Christ constitutes us
righteous by a forensic justification at the bar of God by inherent
righteousness given to us by him. Because the design of the apostle, which
is alone to be regarded, does not have this direction, but he only wishes
to disclose the foundation of the connection between exposedness to death
and the right to life, from our union with, the first and
23

second Adam, as to the thing, although the mode is different on account of the
difference in the subject. The abundance of grace and of righteousness, 5:17, does
not denote habitual grace, or inherent righteousness, but the abundance of divine
mercy, and the infinite treasury of righteousness, which believers obtain in the
obedience of the Mediator. And this gift is said to be greater than the sin of Adam,
because the grace of God giving us the righteousness of Christ, not only took away
the guilt of one transgression, but of all actual sins, as Aquinas well remarks on
this passage. Nor does it press us more that we are said to receive abundance of
grace, 5:17, because we receive it by the hand of faith, not that it becomes ours by
way of infusion, or of inhesion, but by way of imputation.

In 1 Cor. 6:11, justification is not set forth as a genus, embracing under

itself ablution and sanctification; but on the contrary ablution, which

is adumbrated in Baptism, as the more general word is set forth in the

first place, containing under it justification and sanctification, as two
species, as frequently both these benefits are wont to be described by
the one word, ablution, as much justification, Ps. 51:2, 1 John 1:7, as
sanctification, Heb. 9:14. What is added, however, concerning the name
of Christ, does not properly denote an invocation, which is made by it,
but the power and efficacy of it, so that to be justified in the name of
Christ, is nothing else than to be justified by and on account of Christ,
because there is no other name by which we can obtain salvation.
Paul does not say, Tit. 3:57, that we are justified by regeneration,
nay, since he ascribes justification to the grace of God, and takes it
away from works, he shows that he is unwilling to ascribe it to
righteousness inhering by regeneration, which is rather the fruit than
the cause of justification.
24

But his intention is to point out how God will have us saved by two benefits which
he bestows upon us, regeneration, of which the Holy Spirit is the author in us,
and justification, which we obtain by Christ, by which we are made heirs of
eternal life; That denotes the way of salvation, this its cause.

The conformity to the image of Christ, to which we are predestinated, Rom.

8:29, means indeed that we are made partakers of inherent holiness and
righteousness like his; but it does not mean that we are justified by that
inherent righteousness, as he was; since both our preceding sin and the
imperfection of this righteousness in us, renders such a justification
impossible. For it cannot happen, that they, who are the children of wrath
by nature, and who are never without sin, can be justified in the same
manner, in which he was justified, who knew no sin, and in whose mouth
no guile was found.
Although Abel and Noah were righteous and did good works, still they were
not on that account justified by their own inherent righteousness and good
works. Nay, Paul, Heb. 11, testifies that they were righteous by the
righteousness of faith: Abel, indeed, while by faith he offered a more
excellent sacrifice by which he also obtained witness that he was
righteous, 11:4; Noah became heir of the righteousness which is faith,
11:7, which is no other than the righteousness which God imputes through
faith, Rom. 4:5, 6. Whence flowed the good works which they performed.
Since justification is described in the Scriptures by remission of sins
and the imputation of righteousness, it cannot be called a motion from
sin to righteousness, such as occurs in illumination and calefaction. And

this is the prton pseudos of our opponents, who convert a forensic and
judicial action, which takes place before God, into a physical or moral
action, which takes place in us.
When believers seek of God to be justified according to their
righteousness, Ps. 7:8, and 17:1, and 18:20, we must not
25

understand it of a personal righteousness, which they elsewhere confess they are

destitute of, Ps. 130:3, and 143:2, but of a righteousness of the cause, which they
maintained and on account of which they suffered persecution from the wicked;
or if personal righteousness is understood by it, it is not a universal and absolute,
which is found in no mortal but particular as to certain acts, in which they can
conduct themselves well by the grace of God, such as was the action of Phinehas,
which was imputed to him for righteousness, and comparative, not relatively to
God, but to the wicked who undeservedly slandered them.

The proportion of man to the highest good is either from the prescription
of the law, Do this and live, or from the assistance of grace. In the former
sense man in innocence would have had a proportion to the highest good.
But by sin that way having been shut up, another was to be sought in Christ,
who by fulfilling the law for us, acquired for us a right to the highest
good or eternal life. When therefore life is said to be given to the pious
and righteous, the quality or disposition of the subject is denoted, which
ought to profess life, not, however, the cause of such a good; that is,
how happy they ought to be, not why and on account of what.
Although in those, to whom the satisfaction of Christ is imputed, the habit
of righteousness is also infused, which advances little by little from
small beginnings to perfection, which we reach only in the other life;
and by this habit we begin to be righteous morally and inherently; still
we cannot be called righteous relative to the divine judgment. For so far
only are we constituted righteous in the divine court, as we can remove
the accusation, with which we are charged, of sin past as well as present.
Now such an inchoate habit of righteousness cannot remove such an
accusation, whether by making it false, because it is evident that we
always have sinned and so are guilty, or by expunging it through a
suffering of the punishment due, because it cannot have the relation of a
satisfaction for sins committed, by which their guilt may be taken away, for it
tends to this, that we may not sin hereafter, but it cannot make us not to have
sinned, and so we do not need anothers righteousness imputed to us for our
justification.

27

3.
The True Foundation
Is the righteousness and obedience of Christ, imputed to us, the meritorious
cause and foundation of our justification with God? We affirm against the
Romanists and Socinians.

The false and pretended impelling and meritorious cause of our justification,
which is placed by the Romanists in inherent righteousness, having been rejected,
the true and genuine cause must now be exhibited from the Scriptures, to wit, the
righteousness and obedience of Christ imputed to us by God. That the truth and
mode of this may be the more clearly seen, and more strongly retained against the
cavils of our opponents, the following things must be premised.

Firstly, we suppose that justification is a forensic act of God, as has

already been proved, not as a creditor and a private person, but as a ruler
and judge giving sentence concerning us at his bar. 2. That it is the act
not of a subordinate judge, who is bound to the formula of the law, but
of a supreme magistrate and prince, to whom alone belongs in virtue of
his autocratic right the showing of
28

favor to the guilty, and the relaxation of the rigour of established laws. 3. That
God does not here sit on the throne of Justice, that he may act according to the
strict justice of the law, but on the throne of grace, that he may act according to
the gospel forbearance. 4. That he so acts from mercy as not to do injury to his
justice, which, since it cannot suffer his laws to be violated with impunity, and sin
to go unpunished, requires necessarily some satisfaction to be made to it.

Whence it follows, 5. That God cannot show favor to, nor justify any one
without a perfect righteousness. For since the judgment of God is
according to truth, he cannot pronounce any one just, who is not really
such. Since, however, no mortal after sin has such a righteousness in
himself, nay, by sin he has been made a child of wrath and become exposed
to death, it must be sought out of us in another, by the intervention of
which man, sinful and wicked, may be justified without personal
righteousness. Human courts, indeed, often justify the guilty, either
through ignorance, when the wickedness is not known and lies concealed,
or by injury, when it is not attended to, or by iniquity, when it is
approved. But in the divine court, in which we have to deal with the most

just judge, who neither holds the guilty as innocent, nor the innocent
as guilty, this cannot occur. So that he who is destitute of personal
righteousness, ought to have anothers by which to be justified. For
although God, as the supreme Arbiter of affairs, and the sovereign Lord
of all, has the power to remit the punishment of sinners; still he cannot,
because he is most just, thus favor the sinner, unless a satisfaction is
first made, by which both his justice may be satisfied and punishment taken
of sin: and since this could not come from us who are guilty, it was to
be sought in another, who constituted a surety in our place, by receiving
upon himself the punishment
29

due to us, might bestow the righteousness of which we were destituted.

The gospel teaches that what could not be found in us, and was to be sought
in another, could be found nowhere else than in Christ the God-man, who,
taking upon himself the office of surety, most fully satisfied the Justice
of God by his perfect obedience, and thus brought to us an everlasting
righteousness, by which alone we can be justified with God, in order that
covered and clothed with that garment, as it were, of our first born, like
Jacob, we may obtain under it the eternal blessing of our heavenly Father.
Further, because as long as Christ is without us, and we are without Christ,
we can receive no fruit from anothers righteousness: God willed to unite
us to Christ by a twofold bond, one natural, the other mystical, in virtue
of which both our evils might be transferred to Christ, and the blessings
of Christ pass over to us, and become ours. The former is the communion
of nature by the Incarnation, by which Christ, having assumed our flesh,
became our Brother and a true Goel, and could receive our sins upon himself
and have the right to redeem us. The latter is the communion of grace,
by Mediation, by which having been made by God a surety for us, and given
to us for a head, he can communicate to us his righteousness, and all his
benefits. Hence it happens that as he was made of God sin for us by the
imputation of our sins, so in turn we are made the righteousness of God
in him by the imputation of his obedience, 2 Cor. 5:21.
Just as Christ sustains a twofold relation to us, of surety and head, of
surety, to take away the guilt of sin by a payment made for it, of head,
to take away its power and corruption by the efficacy of the Spirit, so
in a two-fold way Christ imparts his blessings to us by a forensic
imputation, and a moral and internal infusion. The former flows from
Christ as surety, and is the foundation of our justification.
30

The latter depends upon him as head, and is the principle of sanctification. For on
this account God justifies us, because the righteousness of our surety, Christ, is
imputed to us. And on this account we are renewed, because we derive the spirit
from our head, Christ, who renews us after the image of Christ, and bestows upon
us inherent righteousness.

Because, however, we treat here of the imputed righteousness of Christ,

we must remark further, that the word impute, which is in Hebrew chshbh,
in Greek logizesthai or ellogein, can be taken in two ways, either properly
or improperly. That is said to be imputed to any one improperly, which
he himself has done, or has, when on that account a reward or punishment
is decreed to him. As sin is said to be imputed to the wicked, 2 Sam. 19:19,
when the reward of iniquity is imputed to them, and the judgment exercised
by Phinehas was counted unto him for righteousness, Ps. 106:31, that is,
it was pleasing to God, and gained for him the praise of holy zeal, and
the covenant of a perpetual priesthood. Properly is to hold him, who has
not done a thing, as if he had done it; and in turn not to impute, is to
hold him who has done a thing as if he had not done it; as Paul desires
the fault of Onesimus to be imputed to him, which he himself had not
committed, Phm. 18, and asks that the fault should not be laid to the charge
of those who forsook him, which they had committed, 2 Tim. 4:16. From this
two fold acceptation of the word, a twofold imputation arises, concerning
which Paul speaks, of grace and of debt, Rom. 4:4, 5, Now to him that
worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that
worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith
is counted for righteousness, viz., of grace; for the foundation of
imputation, is either in the merit and dignity of the person, to whom a
thing is imputed, or it is out of it in the grace and mercy alone of the
one imputing: The first is the legal mode, the other is the evangelical.
Whence we
31

gather that this word is forensic, which is not to be understood physically of an

infusion of righteousness, but judicially and relatively, of gratuitous acceptance in
the judgment of God, which also appears from the force of the word logizesthai,
and ellogein, which is drawn from accountants.

But here we must accurately distinguish between imputed and putative or

fictitious, in order to meet the calumny of our opponents, who traduce
this imputation, as a mere fiction. Since it is a thing no less real in
its own order, to wit, judicial and forensic, than infusion in a moral
or physical order, as the imputation of a payment made by a surety, to
the Debtor, is in the highest degree real, to wit, by which he is freed
from the debt, and delivered from the right which the Creator had over

him. Whence it is evident that this Judicial act of God does not want truth,
because he does not pronounce us righteous in ourselves, which would be
false, but in Christ, which is perfectly true; nor justice, because there
is granted a communion between us and Christ, which is the solid foundation
of this imputation.
When, therefore, we say that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to
us for justification, and that we are just before God through that imputed
righteousness, and not through any righteousness inherent in us, we mean
nothing else than that the obedience of Christ rendered in our name to
God, the Father, is so given to us by God, that it is reckoned to be truly
ours, and that it is the sole and only righteousness on account of, and
by the merit of which, we are absolved from the guilt of our sins, and
obtain a right to life, and that there is in us no righteousness nor good
works, by which we can deserve such great benefits, which can bear the
severe examination of the divine court, if God willed to deal with us
according to the rigour of his law; that we can oppose nothing to it except
the merit and satisfaction of Christ, in which alone,
32

terrified by the consciousness of sin, we can find a safe refuge against the divine
wrath, and peace to our souls.

Now although we hold that there is nothing in us which can be opposed at

the bar of God for justification, still one would improperly conclude from
this, what our opponents falsely and slanderously charge upon us, that
we recognize no inherent righteousness, in believers, and by reason of
which they are truly reckoned righteous and holy with God; and thus to
teach that believers always remain wicked and unjust in themselves, and
that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us solely to cover our sins
and not to take them away. Whence they take occasion to traduce our
doctrine concerning the imputation of Christs righteousness, as impious
and execrable. Because, as we just now said, we hold these two benefits
to be inseparable; and that no one is justified by Christ, who is not also
sanctified, and gifted with inherent righteousness, from which believers
can truly be denominated holy and righteous, although not perfectly in
this life.
From these principles the state of the Question can be readily gathered.
Firstly, against the Socinians it is inquired: Are the righteousness,
obedience and satisfaction of Christ imputed to us for righteousness? For
as they deny that the obedience and satisfaction of Christ were rendered
for us; so they reject the imputation and application of that obedience
and satisfaction and explode it as a human invention, Socinus, tract. de

Justifi., Ostoradorus, Instit. cap. 36, 37, Smalcius, Disp. de

Justificatione. The orthodox, however, think the obedience and
satisfaction of Christ are imputed to us for righteousness, inasmuch as
it is reckoned ours by the gratuitous mercy of God, and on account of it
we are absolved from sin in Gods court and pronounced just.
But against the Romanists the question is not, 1. Is the righteousness
of Christ the formal cause of our justification, that is, Is it the form,
by which man is constituted just inherently, as the Romanists understand
it, describing justification
33

by the infusion of righteousness? For since we have already proved that it is a

forensic, not a physical act, fruitless is the question concerning the internal
formal cause, which pertains to the blessing of sanctification. But the question is
concerning the meritorious and impulsive cause of the divine judgment of our
absolving sentence; not, Is the righteousness of Christ our formal and inherent
righteousness, subjectively, but Is our righteousness real and sufficient
imputatively, by which, if we are not formally righteous by inherent righteousness,
still we are formally justified by the imputation of it, so that except it there is no
other material of our righteousness before God?

2. The question is not: Is the righteousness and merit of Christ imputed

to us? For this the Romanists do not dare to deny. The Council of Trent,
Sess. 6, cap. 8, says, Christ by his most holy suffering on the cross
merited justification for us, and satisfied God, the Father, for us, and
no one can be just, unless he to whom the merits of the suffering of our
Lord Jesus Christ are communicated. Hence Vasquez, in i. 2. q. 114, disp.
222. cap. 1, We grant, says he, there are imputed to us for a certain
effect, not only those things that are in us, as sin, faith, and
righteousness, but also some things that are without us, as the merit and
obedience of Christ, because not only the things that are in us but also
those without, in view of which something is given to us, are said to be
reckoned among our things for some effect as if they were truly ours.
This Bellarmine also acknowledges, lib. ii. de Justif. cap. 7, If the
Protestants mean only this, says he, that the merits of Christ are
imputed to us, because they are given to us of God, and we can offer them
to the Father for our sins, since Christ undertook the burden of satisfying
for us, and reconciling us to God, the Father, their opinion is correct.
And yet we mean nothing less: for what he adds, that we wish the
righteousness of Christ to be so imputed to us that by it we are called,
and are formally righteous, this he supposes falsely and
34

gratuitously, from his perverse and preposterous hypothesis concerning moral

justification. But the question is, To what is that Imputation made? To
justification and life? as we maintain, or only to the infusion of internal grace and
inherent righteousness? as they hold. That is, are the merits of Christ so imputed
and communicated to us as to be the sole meritorious cause of our justification,
and that there is no other righteousness on account of which we are acquitted in
the sight of God? which we contend for; or, Are they so imputed as to be the
conditions of a formal cause, that is of inherent righteousness, so that man can be
gifted with it, or of an extrinsic cause, which deserves the infusion of
righteousness, by which man is justified; so that not the merit of Christ properly,
but inherent righteousness acquired by the merit of Christ, is the proper and true
cause on account of which man is justified; which they maintain so limiting the
benefit of the imputation of Christs merits to obtaining the effect of infused grace,
that this imputation is made for no other end, than to merit for us infused grace,
in virtue of which we obey the law, and being righteous in ourselves are justified;
as Vasquez in the passage cited, c. iii. observes. Whence Bonaventure, in 3. Sent.
Dist. 19. q. 1., denies not the causality of justification, or of the remission of sins,
properly belongs to the death or resurrection of Christ, but only by way of
intervening merit, which is reduced to the material cause, while he determines
the formal cause to be infused love. From these it is evident that the question here
is, Are the righteousness and satisfaction of Christ so imputed to us by God, as to
be the only foundation and meritorious cause, in view of which alone we are
acquitted before God of our sins and obtain a right to life? Our opponents deny,
we affirm.

There is, however, no need to remark that by the righteousness of Christ

we do not understand here the essential righteousness of God dwelling in
us, as Osiander with
35

Swenkfeld dreamed, opposing himself to Stancar his colleague, who

acknowledged Christ as Mediator only according to his human nature; which
error was exploded and perished with its author. Because that righteousness
could not be communicated to us subjectively and formally, which is an essential
attribute of God, without our becoming Gods also. And the Scripture everywhere
refers the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to us, to the obedience of his
life and the suffering of his death, by which he answered the demands of the law
and perfectly fulfilled it. Nor if we had the need of an infinite righteousness,
should it be such in essence, but only in value and merit. If Christ is Jehovah, our
righteousness, and if he is made to us righteousness by the Father, this is not said
with respect to essential righteousness, but to the obedience, which is imputed to
us for righteousness; this is called the righteousness of God, because it belongs to
a divine Person, and so is of infinite value, and is highly pleasing and acceptable
to God. By this righteousness, then, we understand the entire obedience of Christ,

of his life as well as of his death, active as well as passive, as we have already
proved, Topic 14. Quest. 13.

Now that this righteousness of Christ is the foundation and meritorious

cause of our justification, we prove 1. Because by the righteousness and
obedience of one, Christ, we are constituted righteous: As by the
offense of one, says Paul, Rom. 5:18, 19, guilt came upon all men to
condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one supply, the blessing
redounded upon all men into justification of life. For as by one mans
disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many
be made righteous. Where it is clear that the one transgression is
opposed to the one righteousness, and the disobedience of one man, by which
men are constituted sinners and guilty before God by the imputation of
that sin, to the obedience of one,
36

Christ, by which the elect are justified before God, not assuredly by inhesion, but
by imputation. 1. Because the act of one cannot be made the act of many, except
by imputation. 2. Because the righteousness, upon which justification of life rests,
demands a perfect and absolute righteousness, which cannot be said of inherent
righteousness. 3. Because the condemnation, to which the justification of life is
opposed, is not a physical, but a forensic and judicial act. In vain does Bellarmine
maintain that the obedience of Christ is indeed the efficient cause of justification,
but not the formal, as the disobedience of Adam constituted us sinners, not
formally but efficiently. Because we are not treating of an infusion of
righteousness, nor of renovation, as we have just said; but of a juridical
constitution, which cannot take place except by imputation, since it is of anothers,
not of a personal righteousness. Again, Bellarmine himself testifies the contrary,
lib. iv. de Amiss. Gra., cap. 10., when he says, The sin of Adam is so imputed to
his posterity, as if we had all committed the same sin. And, lib. v. cap. 17, The
sin of Adam is communicated to us in the manner in which what passes over can
be communicated, to wit, by imputation; for it is imputed to all who are born of
Adam. Nor if we are constituted unrighteous and guilty by sin propagated from
Adam, ought we at once to be justified by inherent righteousness communicated
to us through regeneration by Christ, because there is a very different reason for
each. And Paul here institutes the comparison between the first and second Adam
in the thing, and not as to the manner of the thing.

Secondly, because faith is said to be imputed to us for righteousness.

Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness,
Rom. 4:3; not the act of faith itself or the act of believing formally,
as if it was righteousness with God, as the Remonstrants hold, against
whom we will hereafter dispute,

37

because thus justification would not be without works, since faith itself is a work;
but objectively and relative to the righteousness of Christ, which faith apprehends,
and applies to itself, which the apostle calls the righteousness of faith, which is
through the faith of Christ, Phil. 3:9, in which alone he wishes to be found, viz., at
the bar of God, because it is to be sought no where else than in Christ, who is
Jehovah, our righteousness, and who is made unto us of God righteousness. It is
confirmed by this that Paul in the same place explains the imputation of faith for
righteousness by the imputation of righteousness without works, Rom. 4:6.
Hence it is surely evident, 1. That justification consists in the imputation of
righteousness, that no one may suppose this phrase was invented by us. 2. That
this righteousness cannot be inherent; given to us by infusion, both because it is
said to be without works, and because what is inherent is opposed to what is
imputed. On that account it is opposed by Paul in the passage cited, Phil. 3:9, to
his own righteousness which is of the law, and is elsewhere called the
righteousness of God, which is manifested without the law, Rom. 3:21, 22, both
because it is subjectively in a divine person, and so of infinite value, and originally
because it is from God, since it is given to us freely by God, and terminatively,
because it leads to God, and is approved by him, and can alone sustain the
examination of his judgment. Therefore whoever by faith applies that
righteousness to himself, is said not to come into judgment, but to have already
passed from death to life, John 5:24, that is, to be justified.

Thirdly, because Christ is the righteousness by which we are justified.

For on this account he is said to be made of God unto us righteousness,
1 Cor. 1:30; and 2 Cor. 5:21, we are said to be made the righteousness
of God in him: God hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that
we might be made the righteousness of God in him. From this it is
38

evident, 1. That Christ is our righteousness before God, not surely inherently,
because the righteousness of one cannot pass over into another, but imputatively.
2. We are made the righteousness of God in him just as he is made sin for us. Now
Christ was made sin for us, not inherently or subjectively, because he knew no sin,
but imputatively, because God imputed to him our sins, and made the iniquities
of us all to meet on him, Isa. 53:6; therefore we also are made righteousness, not
by infusion, but by imputation, which Augustine, Enchir. c. xli., finely expresses,
He therefore was sin, that we might be righteousness, nor ours, but Gods, nor in
us, but in him, as he demonstrated sin, not his own, but ours, nor in himself, but
in us constituted in the likeness of sinful flesh, in which he was crucified.
Fruitless is the objection, that Christ is said to have been made wisdom, and
sanctification, not surely imputatively, but effectively. For even if he was equally
made to us of God all these as to merit, because he acquired all these blessings for
us; still he was not made in the same manner as to bestowal, but diversely

according to the diversity of the gifts, and the nature of the thing demands this.
For if he was made righteousness in no other way than sanctification, that is,
effectively, Paul would be guilty of tautology, since in this way justification and
sanctification would not differ. Therefore he is made wisdom and sanctification to
us effectively, by illuminating and regenerating us; but righteousness
imputatively, by imputing to us his righteousness. Bellarmine cannot deny this,
when he says that Christ can rightly be said to be made righteousness
meritoriously, because he satisfied the Father for us, and gives and
communicates that satisfaction to us, when he justifies us, so that he can be called
our satisfaction and righteousness; as if we ourselves had satisfied God, this he
confirms, on the passage 2 Cor. 5:21, The righteousness of Christ, says he, is
imputed to us as to the satisfaction,
39

which he made for us. Nor can that, which our opponent adds in the same place,
help his cause, when he says, But not on this account can we be reckoned
righteous, if the stains and corruption of sins truly inhere in us. For if the
righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, as he had already confessed, then
certainly we are considered righteous in him; for on one imputes righteousness to
him, whom he does not count righteous. And if the satisfaction of Christ is
imputed to us, then our debts for which he satisfied, are not imputed, but are
remitted. Falsely also he holds that the righteousness inhering in us is here
called the righteousness of God, because it is given to us of God, or also, because
it is the image and effect of the righteousness of God. For the little clause, in him,
stands in the way; for how could it be said to be in Christ, if it was in us? This
Contarenus acknowledges, The righteousness of God in him, says he, since his
righteousness is made ours, is given and imputed to us.

Fourthly, because justification takes place on account of the suretyship

of Christ, and the payment made for us by him, which cannot be done without
imputation. For as a payment made by a surety for a debtor cannot help
him except by imputation, inasmuch as the payment made by a surety is
applied to him as if it had been made by himself; whence follows the
cancelling of the debt, and the deliverance of the debtor, so since Christ
undertook to be our surety, and paid in our place, who does not see that
the payment made by him, and the ransom given, is imputed to us for full
absolution, that is, is considered by God as if it had been given by us?
In this sense we are said to be justified by the death and blood of Christ,
Rom. 5:9, because the merit of his obedience and death was that in view
of which God was reconciled and gave to us the pardon of sin. In the same
sense he is said, to have been made a curse and sin for us, that we might
be made a blessing and righteousness in him, Gal. 3:13, 2 Cor. 5:21,
40

because the curse and punishment of sin which he received upon himself in our
stead secures to us blessing and righteousness with God, in virtue of that most
strict union between us and him, by which, as our sins are imputed to him, so in
turn his obedience and righteousness are imputed to us. Just as under the law,
the punishment which the victims suffered in place of sinners, was imputed to
them for the expiation of sin and their liberation.

Fifthly, because Christ justifies us by that, by which he frees us from

the condemnation of the law, and fulfills in us its right to life. For
what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned
sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled
in us, etc., namely, our justification by the law having become
impossible through sin, God restored this benefit to us in Christ, while
being made like to sinful flesh, yet without sin, he offered himself for
us as a victim for sin, and having made a most full satisfaction condemned
sin, that is, perfectly expiated it, in the flesh, for this end, that the
condemnation of sin might give place to our justification, and the
righteousness of the law, that is, the right which it has, whether as to
obedience or as to punishment, is fulfilled in us, not inherently, but
imputatively, while what Christ did and suffered in our place, is ascribed
to us, as if we had done that very thing; thus we are considered in Christ
to have fulfilled the whole righteousness of the law, because in our name
he most perfectly fulfilled the righteousness of the law, as to obedience
as well as to punishment.
Sixthly, because our justification is a justification of the ungodly, Rom.
4:5, But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. A justification
of the ungodly cannot be made by infusion, but by imputation. For although
he that is justified
41

does not remain wicked, but is renewed by the grace of Christ, he cannot be said
to be justified by that renovation, which is the effect, following justification, not
the cause which precedes it. And faith, by which man is justified, and is made
righteous in Christ, does not prevent him from being, and being called wicked in
himself, inasmuch as he is opposed to the one working, as he who has nothing
upon which he can rely before the divine tribunal for his justification, and so is
ungodly, partly antecedently, partly with respect to justification; not however
concomitantly, still less consequently.

Various testimonies of the Fathers could be gathered together here, who

approve our opinion by their vote, which we omit from a desire to be brief.

It will be sufficient to quote the words of Bernard, because he often

asserted this saving doctrine with exceeding skill: Epist. 19, ad
Innocent., Anothers righteousness is assigned to him who wanted a
personal. And a little after, If one died for all, therefore all are
dead; that the satisfaction of one might be imputed to all, as that one
bore the sins of all. And Serm. 61, in Cantic., My merit then is the
compassion of the Lord; I am not wholly destitute of merit, as long as
he is not wanting in mercy. And a little after, Shall I sing of my
righteousness? O Lord, I will make mention of thy righteousness alone,
which is also mine. Shall I fear that the righteousness is not enough for
both? It is not a short garment, which according to the prophet cannot
cover two. And Serm. 27, Not to sin is the righteousness of God; the
righteousness of man is the indulgence of God.
Christ ought not only to restore the goods lost in Adam, but also to remove
the evils contracted through Adam. Now there were two, guilt and
corruption of nature, to which two goods should be opposed: the imputation
of righteousness to take away guilt before God, and a renovation of nature,
to heal inherent corruption. Again, Christ did not
42

restore only the lost goods, but a far more excellent: we lost mutable
righteousness, but an immutable is restored to us; we lost only an inherent, and
there is given us an imputed with an inherent, without which we could not be
made partakers of the inherent: otherwise, if nothing was restored in Christ than
what had been lost in Adam, pardon of sin would not be given to us in Christ,
because it was not lost in Adam.

What is imputed to any one by a mere gracious acceptation, that is not

really paid, but is considered as paid; but what is imputed on account
of a true payment made by another, supposes the thing to be paid. Now the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, of which we speak, is not to
be understood in the first sense, which is the improper, for an imputation
which takes place without any payment at all, whether of the debtor or
of the surety; but in the latter, inasmuch as it is founded in anothers
payment, that of Christ the surety.
Although we are justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ, it does
not follow that we are not less righteous than Christ, and are thus
considered like Christ, Saviours and Redeemers of the world; and that
Christ on account of our unrighteousness imputed to him can be called a
sinner. Because the dignity of the head ought always to remain his own,
that the members may be conformed to the head, but in their order, and
not that they should become the head. Thus although as to imputation we

are truly righteous in the sight of God, still Christ is righteous in a

far more perfect manner; for we are such relatively in him, and indeed
precariously, and dependently; Christ, however, infinitely, originally,
inherently, and subjectively. 2. We can, indeed, on account of Christs
righteousness imputed to us be said to be redeemed and saved passively,
but not to be redeemers actively, because he only can be a redeemer, whose
43

righteousness is imputed to another, not he who needs the imputation of another.

3. Christ cannot, on account of our sin having been imputed to him, be called a
sinner, which implies inherent corruption, but only a victim for sin, who received
on himself the punishment due to sin, and so guilt was to be taken away, not its
pollution.

Where two contrary physical forms and qualities exist under the same genus,
there it is certain that the denomination should be made from the intrinsic,
which affect the subject more, than from the extrinsic. Now inherent
righteousness, and imputed righteousness are not under the same genus;
the former indeed is in the class of relation; but the latter under the
class of quality; so that nothing is to hinder the subject from being
denominated from both under a different respect. For when the inherent
quality is regarded, he is said to be a sinner and wicked, but when the
external and forensic relation is considered, he is said to be righteous
in Christ. It is indeed true that no one can be called righteous inherently
by anothers righteousness, because if it is inherent, it is no longer
anothers. But still he can be said to be justified imputatively, since
every day among men a debtor on account of the payment made by a surety
is said to be free and discharged. This Augustine beautifully explains,
lib. xxiii., de Trinit. cap. 14: It is surely just, that they whom the
devil held as debtors, should be discharged believing in him whom he killed
without any debt. Whence it is evident that the example of the Ethiopian
adduced by Bellarmine, who is to be denominated rather from the blackness
of his body than from the whiteness of his garments, is improper; since
we are not speaking here of an inherent quality, or of an adhering garment,
but of a juridical relation given to him by the judge. Besides the
Ethiopian always remains an Ethiopian in the same manner; but the believer
does not remain wicked, but is converted.
44

Although God justifies us on account of the imputed righteousness of

Christ, his judgment does not cease to be according to truth, because he
does not pronounce us righteous in ourselves subjectively, which would
be false, but in another, imputatively and relatively, which is perfectly

true. Thus God truly estimates the thing, and judges it as it is, not in
itself and in its own nature, but in Christ.
The spouse, in Song 4:7, is said to be all fair in two ways. 1. In her
head and husband imputatively, when all her pollutions are so covered by
his righteousness that there is no more condemnation in her, nor does God
see in her anything as to practical and penal knowledge, which he can
reprehend. 2. In herself inherently, because she has been perfectly
renewed by the Spirit, if not with a perfection of degrees, still with
a perfection of parts and of grace, which will at length be crowned by
a perfection of glory.
Although the imputed righteousness of Christ is maintained by us to be
the foundation of our justification with God, it does not on that account
cease to be purely gratuitous on the part of us; because it is a mere gift
of Gods mercy, because the Sponsor is given to us of God, and was
substituted in our place, and because his obedience and righteousness,
which we ourselves ought to have rendered from the rigor of the law, is
reckoned ours and imputed to us by God; and what is more, the righteousness
of the law is fulfilled in us, Rom. 8:4, and justification thus ceases
to be of the works of the law performed by us, that still it is not made
against it, but in accordance with it, and the law is not only not made
void but is rather established by faith, Rom. 3:31.
Although justification can be called extrinsic objectively, inasmuch as
it is the imputation of righteousness, which is formally without us, still
it is ours terminatively; nor is it more absurd for the righteousness of
Christ to be extrinsic to us, and yet to be imputed to us, than it is absurd
for our
45

sins to be extrinsic to Christ, and yet to be imputed to Christ for punishment, or

(argumentum ad hominem) than it is absurd for the satisfactions of saints to be
imputed to others, as the Romanists maintain.

As the disobedience of Adam truly constituted us sinners by imputation,

so also the righteousness of Christ truly justifies us by imputation. Thus
imputed is properly opposed to inherent, but not to true, because we do
not invent an imputation, consisting in a mere opinion and fiction of law,
but which is in the highest sense real and true, but this truth belongs
to imputation, not to infusion, is juridical, not moral.
The righteousness of Christ is rightly said to be imputed to us for
righteousness, not that it may be reckoned righteousness, which was

already so before, but that what was before anothers may be made ours,
and that on account of it we may be pronounced righteous and received to
eternal life.

47

4.
Remission and Adoption
Does justification consist only in the remission of sins, or does it embrace also
adoption and the right to life? The former we deny, and affirm the latter.

We have discussed the meritorious cause, or the foundation of justification; we

must now treat of its form or parts, concerning which the opinions of theologians
vary.

Some contend that the whole of justification is comprehended in the

remission of sin alone, so that God is to be considered as justifying us
then, when he pardons our sins and absolves us from all punishment. And
they hold this opinion, who maintain that Christs passive righteousness
alone is imputed to us. Others however make justification to consist of
two parts, remission of sin and imputation of righteousness; the former
removing punishment from the sinner, the latter rendering him worthy of
the reward, or of life.
But neither opinion seems to us to explain this subject with sufficient
accuracy. Not the first, because, as we shall afterwards see, absolution
from punishment is not sufficient for a
48

full justification, but the communication of a right to life is also required. Nor if
the orthodox sometimes assert that justification is contained in the remission of
sins alone, does it follow that they do not also acknowledge the right to life under
it; because they speak thus against the Romanists, who hold that to justification
pertains not only the remission of sins, but also an internal renovation of the soul
and an infusion of righteousness; against whom they well maintain that the whole
of justification consists in the remission of sins under which they embrace also
the right to life, exclusive of the renovation of man, or the infusion of
righteousness.

But neither can the second opinion be received simply, because in it are
falsely joined the remission of sins and the imputation of righteousness,
as if they were parts answering to each other; remission indeed the first,
imputation of righteousness another; since however they do not in turn
correspond with each other as a part to a part, but as a cause to an effect,
and a foundation to that which rests upon it. For if we wish to philosophize

rightly, God does not remit our sins and afterwards impute righteousness,
but he first imputes righteousness, and afterwards on account of that
imputed righteousness, remits our sins. For a satisfaction and a ransom
must necessarily intervene, in order that remission may be granted by God
without detriment to his justice, and that it may be the foundation of
the absolving sentence, which is made in favor of the elect. Because if
by the imputation of righteousness theologians mean nothing else than the
bestowal of a right to life, as it is certain many do, they hold that indeed
truly, but do not express themselves with sufficient accuracy.
Thus then we believe the thing can be more readily and clearly conceived:
Christ having been destined and given of God to us as a surety and head,
in virtue of this union it happens that whatever was done by him, or endured,
for the
49

perfect fulfillment of the law, as well as to its precepts as to its penal sanction, is
reckoned ours, as done in our place, and is imputed to us by God, as if it had been
performed by ourselves. From this imputation of his most perfect righteousness
flow two benefits, both remission of sins and the bestowment of a right to life, or
adoption, in which two the whole of justification is contained. So that the
imputation of righteousness is the foundation and the meritorious cause of
justification, while adoption and absolution are two parts of justification and
effects of the imputation of righteousness, which are inseparable from each other.
For as pardon of sin cannot be granted nor a right to life be conferred, unless on
the supposition of the imputation of righteousness, by the intervention of which
God can without prejudice to his justice free from punishment and bestow life; so,
such imputation being posited, both these benefits flow necessarily from the
double property of this righteousness, inasmuch as it has a satisfactory and
meritorious power at the same time; by reason of the former imputed
righteousness is the foundation of the remission of sins, by reason of the latter it
is the cause of the right to life.

Now many reasons prove that these two benefits must be joined together
here, whether we attend to the law, which was to be fulfilled, or regard
our necessity, or the nature of things, or the voice of Scripture. For
as the law contains a sanction of two parts, on the one side the punishment
of death to transgressors, on the other the reward of life to the obedient:
so the righteousness of the law which by the justification of Christ is
fulfilled in us, cannot be obtained except with the remission of sins,
which involves a liberation from punishment; we have a right to life, which
Christ acquired for us most perfectly by his obedience.

Secondly, the necessity of salvation demanded this very thing. For as two
evils were derived into us by sin, 1. That we were
50

made guilty before God. 2. That we were made enemies and aliens from God, the
fountain of life; the guilt of death into which we enter, and the privation of life
which we lost; so we could not be restored to integrity, except the guilt of death be
taken away by the remission of sins, and a right to life be given by adoption. And
as happiness is placed not only in a privation of evil, but most especially in the
possession of good, it was not enough to be delivered from evil or death, unless
the right to good or life had been conferred.

The nature of the thing proves it. Because it is one thing to redeem from
punishment, another, to assign a reward also; one thing to deliver from
death, another, to bestow life and happiness; to bring out of prison, and
to seat upon a throne. The former takes away evil, but the latter superadds
also good; as if a fugitive slave should not only be acquitted of the
punishment due, but also raised to the dignity and right of a son. For
although these two things are connected together indissolubly from the
covenant of grace, still from the nature of the thing they could be
separated; as Adam although innocent from the beginning of his creation,
and worthy of a reward, until he had perfected the round of obedience:
so it was not absolutely necessary that he whose sins have been remitted,
and who is delivered from the guilt of death, should straightway be gifted
with a crown of immortality, since, if it pleased God, he might have
afterwards directed man to work, by which he should obtain the reward.
Liberty indeed necessarily follows deliverance from prison, but not at
once the crown and throne. Joseph freed from his chains ought not on that
account to be set over Egypt. Mephibosheth brought out from squalor and
thirst, was not at once to be carried to the Kings table. Thus two things
must be distinctly conceived of in this benefit, the pardon of
51

sin committed, with a deliverance from the curse of the law, and a bestowment of
the reward, or of the blessing.

Scripture in many places connects and distinguishes these, Gal. 4:4, 5,

Christ was made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law,
to wit, as to the curse, that we might receive the adoption of sons, that
is the right to life, which flows from adoption. This Paul elsewhere, Acts
26:18, confirms, by which faith, says he, we receive forgiveness
of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified, that is, a
right to eternal life with other saints. Here belongs the gradation
between peace and glory which he weaves together, Rom. 5:1, 2, when he

says that being justified we have peace with God, and rejoice in hope of
the glory of God: peace has reference to deliverance from punishment, and
glorying supposes the bestowal of a right to life, which is the foundation
of our hope. On this account, Rom. 5:9, 11, he joins together the being
saved from wrath and glorying in God. This very thing Daniel had already
intimated, chap. 9, when he ascribes to the Messiah, who was about to come,
the propitiation of iniquity, by whom remission would be obtained, and
the bringing of an everlasting righteousness, by whose power a right to
life would be given. Nor does Christ mean anything else, when he promises
believers a transition from death to life, that is, not only deliverance
from death, but also the possession of life. John means the same thing,
when he says, that Christ not only washes us from sin by obtaining their
pardon, but also makes us kings and priests, who obtain the right to
happiness and glory, Rev. 1:5, 6.
Whence it appears that they are deceived, who hold that the remission of
sins and the imputation of righteousness differ only by reason of the
diverse terms from which and to which, as it is not the covering of
nakedness and the putting on of a garment, for this reason that sin and
52

righteousness are contraries, one of which being posited the other is taken away.
For it is far otherwise with these things, as we have already said, they are so to be
joined together, as still not to be confounded, but to be distinguished, as really
differing from each other; or if the imputation of righteousness is put for a right
to life, it is with respect to remission after the manner of a part, constituting with
it the form of justification. Whence they are not to be compared with each other
as the covering of nakedness and the putting on of a garment which are really one
and the same thing; but as deliverance from punishment and royal dignity in a
guilty person.

Sin and righteousness are indeed direct contraries; but not the
righteousness, which signifies perseverance in righteousness and
perfection itself. For it is one thing to be free from pravity, but another
to have persisted in duty and to have acquired merit; Adam had the former,
not the latter. Thus between death and life there is no medium, but between
eternal death and a happy life the medium is the mortal and animal life,
a pious and holy life, but on earth, not in heaven, under the obligation
of meriting by obedience. So many things could come in still between the
flames of hell and the joys of heaven, deliverance from punishment, and
the possession of the reward, the punishment of slaves and the dignity
of sons. Who, therefore, confer upon us adoption and an inheritance, who
were slaves adjudged to eternal punishment, will he not also wonderfully
increase the benefit? It was much for us to be manumitted and to be made

freedmen; now to be pronounced children and heirs, this is the climax and
crowning blessing of mercy.
When Paul, Rom. 4:57, argues from the remission of sins to the imputation
of righteousness, he does not do this on account of their equivalency,
as if these two do not differ
53

from each other, and signify one and the same thing. But on account of the
undivided connection between both, because remission of sins can be given to no
one, except on account of the imputation of righteousness, and imputation of
righteousness is given to no one, without his sins being forthwith pardoned.

Although he, who obtains the remission of all his sins, of omission as
well as of commission, is freed from the punishment, which he deserved
on account of those sins, and thus far can be pronounced righteous, or
rather justified and acquitted; still, accurately speaking, he cannot on
that account be considered to have omitted nothing really good, and to
have committed nothing evil. God by remission reckons a man not
unrighteous, not because he judges him never to have sinned and to be
without a stain, but because he condones and pardons the guilty whatever
evil he has committed. To pardon, however, and on account of rectitude
of conduct to reckon worthy of a reward and to honour, are far different.
See what was said in Topic 14. Question 13. Th. 28 and the following.

55

5.
The Remission of Sins
Does remission of sins consist in an absolute removal of them, or in the pardon
of them? And, after the guilt is remitted, is a certain punishment retained, or is it
wholly remitted? The former we deny, the latter we affirm, against the
Romanists.

Because various questions are wont to be agitated concerning the remission of

sins, we must touch briefly upon them under three propositions.

The First, remission of sins does not consist in a removal of the

corruption or depraved quality, but in a gratuitous pardon of the
criminality and guilt arising from it, is opposed to the Romanists, who
to support their hypothesis concerning physical justification by infusion,
maintain that remission of sin consists in a real taking of it away, as
well as to corruption, as to its guilt: so that an infusion of
righteousness always succeeds remission, as light always follows the
scattering of the clouds of darkness.
But the following arguments prove the falsity of this opinion: 1. The mode
of speaking, and the proper signification
56

of remission among men, which does not imply the extinction of sin, but only the
pardoning of it; as a prince by remitting a crime does not take it away but only
pardons it and frees from the punishment due on account of it. 2. The
synonymous phrases of Scripture teach the same thing, when remission is
expressed by a covering, Ps. 32:1, not that they are not, but that in the sight of
God the judge they do not come into condemnation, for which reason we ought to
put on Christ, that his righteousness may cover our sins before God; by a not
imputing, ver. 2, that on account of them we be not punished as we deserve; by a
not remembering, Jer. 31:34, that God may not deal with them practically
according to his justice in punishing them; by a blotting out, Ps. 51:1 and Ps. 103,
Acts 3:19, Col. 2:14, not of the corruption, but of the guilt, as a creditor expunges
from his account-book a debt, from which he wishes to release the debtor, by
destroying and blotting out the very handwriting, that it may have no longer any
force; so God destroys the sins which are written in his book and for which we are
accountable, when he pardons them, by freeing us from the guilt, which attached
to us on account of them; by a casting of them behind his back, and throwing

them into the sea, Mic. 7:19, that they may no more come into judgment; by a
purging, by way of propitiation and of offering, Heb. 1:3, and 9:14, that the guilt
of sin, which makes us hateful and abominable to God, may be cleansed, in
allusion to the sprinkling of the old sacrifices, which did not take away inherent
pollution, but adhering guilt; by a turning away of his face, Ps. 51:9, and a putting
away, 2 Sam. 12:13, and similar phrases, which rightly mean a juridical pardoning
of guilt, not a real removal cf pollution.

3. If remission of sin was the taking away of inherent pravity; as the

former is perfect, so also the latter ought to
57

be perfect, which is repugnant to Scripture, which testifies that sin always

remains in us, and belongs to the experience of saints, who always complain of
the struggles of the flesh and the Spirit. 4. If not to impute sin is to expel it and to
infuse righteousness; from the opposite to impute sin will be to infuse sin. The
falsity of this appears from the case of Christ, to whom sin was imputed, but not
infused.

Although by remission of sins actual guilt, or the obligation to

punishment is taken away, not forthwith is potential guilt taken away,
or the intrinsic merit of sin which flows from its inherent corruption,
because remission consists only in this, that the guilty person is freed
by the judge from the actual punishment due to him, not however immediately
from all vitiosity. Whence Paul indeed says, Rom. 8:1, there is no
condemnation to them which are in Christ, but not there is nothing
condemnable, or worthy of condemnation, because as long as sin remains
in us (now it remains as long as we live,) there is always something
condemnable, although on account of the interceding act of grace of the
judge it does not any more actually condemn us.
There is a theoretical covering of sinners, which belongs to omniscience,
according to which it is certain that nothing can be covered by God, except
what he wholly destroys and abolishes, and another practical, which has
respect to the exercise of justice, and thus can be covered by him, what
is still in the subject, when God does not see it so as to notice it, blots
it out of his book so that it may not come into account. Thus sins are
said to be covered before God not because they are absolutely taken away,
as they are not, but because they are not allotted to punishment. Whence
Augustine on Ps. 32, Concil. 2, Therefore why does he say his sins are
covered? In order that they might not be seen. For what was it for God
to see sins, unless to punish them?
58

Although the remission of sins is expressed by various phrases, which

denote a real taking away, it does not follow that they imply a total
abolition of sin, because in remission there is something real, since by
it the actual obligation to punishment and the punishment itself are
really and truly taken away from the person. Again, these phrases, such
as to take away, to bear away, to remove, to wash out, to purge sins, are
partly explained by others, which signify the removal of guilt, not
however the non-existence of sin, and are partly drawn from the effect
of sacrifices, which was the propitiation and purgation of sin, not by
a removal of its corruption, but by a taking away of its guilt and
condonation of the punishment.
Although we do not deny that sin is really abolished in those to whom it
is remitted; it does not follow on that account that remission itself
consists in that abolition. Because the former is concerned only with the
guilt of sin, the latter with its pollution; the former considers sin with
its relation or obligation to punishment, the latter as a quality inherent
in the subject; that is performed at the same time and at once, this little
by little and successively. Nor does an infusion of righteousness
forthwith follow remission of sin from the nature of the thing, as he who
remits anothers debit, ought not at once to give a new sum of money to
him: and we pardon the sins of others, nor on that account do we expel
them from them. Since there is one action which is done concerning some
one and about him objectively, another which is done in some one
subjectively.
Second proposition: remission of sin is total and absolute, as well as
to guilt as to punishment. This also is against the Romanists, who urge
a partial and not a total remission, of guilt, but not of punishment, or
of eternal, but not of temporal punishment. Concil. Trid. Sess. vi. c.
30, If any one says that after justification is received, criminality
is so remitted to any penitent
59

sinner and the guilt of eternal punishment destroyed, that no exposedness to

temporal punishment to be taken away either in this world or in the future
remains, before he can gain access into the kingdom of heaven, let him be
accursed.

For guilt to be remitted, while the punishment is not remitted, is absurd,

because there is no punishment without guilt, and remission of guilt is
nothing else than deliverance from punishment. 2. It is repugnant to
Scripture, which nowhere speaks of the remission of sin unless on the
supposition that no punishment of it is exacted, otherwise a great

disturbance would be introduced into the Scriptures, and nothing could

be considered fixed and certain in them; and great darkness would be poured
over both the divine promises and threatenings, as often as either
remission of sin is promised, or denied, whether it is only of the guilt,
or also of the punishment, and whether of all or of a certain part of each.
Again, how could God be said to cast behind his back, not to impute, to
destroy, not to remember, if he still exacts the punishment of them, that
is, recollects and imputes them to punishment? 3. The common manner of
speaking does not suffer it to be said that his sin has been remitted from
whom some punishment of sin is exacted; for thus any one might be said
at the same time and at once to let go and to keep hold of something, which
is a contradiction, as no one would say that a debt had been remitted to
a person from whom the payment of it is still required. 4. The nature of
remission, which is entirely gratuitous, cannot allow this, because what
is obtained by the payment of any price, cannot be called gratuitous. 5.
The justified cannot have peace with God according to Paul, Rom. 5:1, if
they are still to be disturbed by punishments properly so called, either
in life, or after death. 6. In believers, after the reception of
justification there is no condemnation, Rom. 8:1. Therefore no punishment
remains, since condemnation is the devoting to punishment.
60

7. This hypothesis supposes either that Christ has not fully satisfied,
for us, or that God demands the payment of the same debt twice, both of
which are impious and blasphemous. Nor can it be replied, Subordinates
are not at variance; because the satisfactions of men depend upon
Christs satisfaction, and from it have the power of satisfying; that
Christ satisfied immediately for the guilt and exposedness to eternal
death, mediately, however, for temporal punishment also, inasmuch as he
furnishes the grace, by which we ourselves make satisfaction to God.
Because, 1. It is gratuitously supposed that our satisfactions can be
subordinated to Christs satisfaction, since they are expressly opposed
to it; for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Gal. 2:21. 2. This mediate satisfaction is unheard of in Scripture, which
never says that Christ satisfied that he might acquire for us the power
to satisfy; but by himself made expiation for sins, and thus reconciled
us to God, and freed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for
us. Now how could Christ be said to have borne our sins in his own body
on the tree, that is, their punishment, and to have freed us from the curse,
and to have blotted out and taken out of the way the handwriting which
was against us, Col. 2:14, and by one offering to have perfected forever
them that are sanctified, Heb. 10:14, if believers are still bound by the
guilt of some punishment, for which they are yet to make satisfaction?

Finally, the mode of speaking does not suffer it to be said that he made
satisfaction for us, unless he has canceled our debt with his own money.
Not less absurd is the answer, Our satisfactions are required, that the
satisfaction of Christ and the remission acquired by him may be applied
to us. Because although the satisfaction of Christ must be applied to
particular believers to avail them, this ought to be done by the word and
sacraments externally, by the spirit and faith internally, but it
61

cannot be done by satisfactions, which ought to be offered to God, not to men; nor
have we ever heard it said that the remission of a debt is applied by an exaction of
it, and that this rests upon the debtor in order that he may enjoy the payment
made for him by his security, so that the money which the sponsor paid for him,
he also should pay out of his own funds to the creditor afterwards, or certainly
some part of it. Again, if, in order that Christs satisfaction for temporal
punishments may be applied to us, our satisfactions are required, why are they
not equally necessary, in order that the same may be applied for guilt and eternal
punishment? Of if they confess that they are not required for that application,
why should they be required for the other, since no reason for the difference can
be assigned? Finally, if Christs satisfaction ought to be applied by our satisfaction,
our satisfaction again would have to be applied by another satisfaction, and so on
to infinity.

What Scripture sometimes says of the exercise of judgment against the

church and believers, as 1 Pet. 4:17, 1 Cor. 11:32, and elsewhere, does
not favor the error of the Romanists. Because the judgment of a vindictive
judge is one thing, the judgment of paternal chastisement is another: The
one is legal, the other evangelical; the one proceeding from wrath and
hatred, the other from love and mercy; the one for destruction and death,
the other for correction and salvation: the one is exercised against the
wicked and rebels, the other towards the pious and believers, not to
destroy, but to teach, and make more cautious afterwards. Whence Augustine,
Sermo. de Poenit., What you bewail is medicine, not a punishment;
chastisement not condemnation; be unwilling to repel the rod, if you do
not wish to be repelled from the inheritance. The former is incompatible
with remission, not the latter.
Although afflictions of themselves and in their own nature are truly the
punishment of sin according to the threatening
62

of the law, Lev. 26, still on account of our gratuitous reconciliation with God in
Christ they cease to be punishments. And they become either fatherly

chastisements, 1 Cor. 11:32, Heb. 12:8, or necessary evidences, that we may be

manifested to ourselves and to others, James 1:2, 3, or witnesses or testimonies
concerning the truth of doctrine, Acts 5:41. On this account they are reckoned
even among the blessings of God, Ps. 94:12, Job 5:17, Phil. 1:29, Heb. 12:6, 7. And
they are connected with joy, Acts 5:41, James 1:2, Heb. 12:11. And they have
glorying as an attendant, Rom. 5:2, 3. If therefore, they are still called
punishments after the remission of sin, this is not said properly, because they are
without the formal reason of punishment, to wit, that it should be inflicted from
the wrath of the judge as the avenging of sin and the destruction of the sinner; but
improperly, both because they were of themselves the punishment of sin, and
because they tend to the destruction of the flesh and of the old man.

This full and total remission of sins being established, the treasury of
Papal indulgences sinks and that most foul trafficking of the mystery of
iniquity is swept away. For if the remission granted to believers is entire
and total, freeing them from all guilt and punishment, why are necessary
satisfactions further invented, either personal, or anothers for the
taking away of punishment, if not eternal, at least temporal? I dismiss
the various arguments, which prove not only the weakness but also the
falsity of that error, concerning which we will speak in the proper place,
from which it will appear that this comment is not only unwritten, but
also contrary to what is written, and unreasonable, and filled with
innumerable contradictions and impieties. Whence it should not seem
wonderful if this occasioned, as is well known, the work of the Reformation
in the year 1519; at Zurich by Zuingle in the year
63

1517, at Wittenberg by Luther, who could not endure that most disgraceful traffic
in sacred things.

Nor ought we to recur to the indulgences of the Fathers, which have nothing
in common with the modern Papal; as they cannot be ignorant, who have any
knowledge of the ancient discipline. Since it is evident that in the
ancient church very severe Canonical punishment and satisfactions were
imposed upon public sinners by penitential Canons, specimens of which can
be seen not only in the Canons of the Elibertine, Ancyran and Nicene
Councils, but also in the decree of Burchard, Yuon, and of Gratian, which
were not rendered properly to God in the court of heaven as a satisfactory
punishment for their sins, but only to the church itself for the extinction
and reparation of the scandal, by which it was injured. But since on
account of that rigor many were reduced to desperation and relapsed into
Gentrilism, a modification of indulgences was introduced, which sinners
obtained either by the intercession of martyrs, or received from their
Bishops, their serious grief being regarded, lest they should be swallowed

up of sadness, by which, the severity being relaxed, they were restored

to the communion before the time required by the Canons, and a dispensation
of Canonical punishments was granted to them, as may be seen in Cyprian,
Epist. lib. iii., Epist. xv., xvi., xvii., and Can. v., and xi., of the
Council of Nice, and xxi., xxii., of Ancyran, and xxxvii. Council.
Agathensis. Afterwards most persons withdrawing from the yoke of the
penitential Canons, partly changes and partly redemptions of Canonical
satisfactions were introduced. Whence by Poenitentiali Rom. apud
Burchardum, a fast of three days was redeemed by a recitation of fifty
Psalms, and by the feeding of some destitute person, or by three denarii
from him who did not know the Psalms. This gate of redemptions, however,
being once opened, the sale of indulgences at length began in the eleventh
century under Urban II, and to make them
64

of greater importance, various comments were devised concerning their value and
efficacy, not only in the court of earth, as to Canonical punishment, but also in the
court of heaven, and as to the satisfaction to be rendered to divine justice for sins.
Whence it is evident how much these indulgences differ from the ancient, which
were nothing else than relaxations of Canonical punishments, and dispensations
from their severity for the consolation of private persons and the common
edification of the church. The modern, however, are held to be relaxations of the
satisfactory punishments of divine justice.

Third proposition: Remission is extended to all the sins entirely of

believers, of whatever kind they may be, future as well as past and present,
but in their own order. This question is moved with regard to future sins.
Are they also remitted at the same time and at once with the past and
present sins? For there are some even of our theologians of great
reputation, who think that, in the justification of the sinner, all his
sins, the future equally with the past are at the same time and at once
remitted, both because the righteousness of Christ, which is the
foundation of our justification, is wholly, however great it is, imputed
at once and at the same time to us, and because justification ought to
leave no room for condemnation, Rom. 8:1. Nay, being justified they have
peace with God, Rom. 5:1, and are called blessed, Ps. 32:1, which could
not be said, if they could still be subjected to condemnation on account
of future sins not remitted.
We think the difficulty can be overcome by a distinction. All sins, future
as well as past, cannot be said to be remitted at the same time and once
formally and explicitly, because as they are not accidents of a nonentity,
so as long as the sin is not, punishment is not due to it, and since it

is not due, it cannot be remitted; as a debt not yet contracted cannot

be canceled. Besides for the remission of sin there is
65

required a confession and repentance of it, which cannot be made unless it has
been committed. Whence we are ordered to seek remission of sins every day,
which is to be applied to sins committed, not to anticipate their perpetration. But
because in justification the righteousness of Christ is applied to us, which is the
foundation upon which the remission of all our sins rests, and because from the
covenant of grace God promises that he will not remember our sins; nothing
prevents us from saying that in this sense sins are remitted eminently and
virtually; because in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us is the foundation of
that remission. And thus all our sins are remitted by God whether past, or present,
or future, but with respect to the time in which they are committed, so that past
and present are actually remitted, the future when they are committed will most
certainly be remitted according to Gods promise. Thus the state of justification
remaining undisturbed, and the acceptation of the person remaining
uninterrupted, and the general remission of sins already committed, the following
and future as to particular absolution are not actually pardoned before their
commission; nay, before they have been repented of, either generally or
particularly.

I confess if we regard the eternal purpose of God, in which all things,

even the future, appeared to God as present, Acts 15:18, and the merit
and acquisition of Christ, who offered to God a perfectly sufficient
ransom for the expiation of all sins, so that as to the promise given by
God in the covenant of grace concerning their remission, remission under
this relation can be said to be extended to all sins whether past or future.
But if the actual remission itself is regarded, which is made by an
intimation of the absolving sentence in the heart of the believer and
penitent, it can be referred only to sins already committed; so that to
take away the guilt of subsequent sins there is required a particular
66

application of remission, not only as to the sense and assurance of remission, but
also as to the true and real forgiveness itself.

As the person, whose sins are pardoned, can be considered, either as to

the state of grace, in which he is constituted by justification, or as
to the particular acts, which he can afterwards commit; so remission can
be viewed in two aspects: Either generally as to state, according to which
God receives the believing and penitent sinner into grace on account of
Christ, and bestows upon him the pardon of all the sins of which he is
guilty; or specially as to particular acts of sin, into which he afterwards

falls, for taking away the guilt of which a particular absolution is needed.
Not that the state of justification into which he is translated can be
dissolved; or remission once bestowed be abrogated; because God remains
always his Father, but a Father angry on account of sins recently committed,
which although they cannot constitute him a child of wrath, on account
of the immutability of vocation and justification; still they make him
a child under wrath, so that he deservedly incurs the fatherly indignation
of God, and has need forthwith of a new justification, or particular
remission of these sins through faith and repentance.
Although the justified believer has not as yet the formal remission of
future sins, he does not cease to be happy and free from actual
condemnation, because he has the foundation from which he can infer with
positive certainty that it is prepared for him according to Gods promise.
Nor if the whole righteousness of Christ is at the same time imputed, does
its entire fruit flow out to us at once, but successively in proportion
to the inrushings of sin, for the remission of which the believer ought
to apply that ransom to himself every day.

67

6.
Adoption
What is the adoption which is given to us in justification?

The other part of justification is adoption, or the bestowal of a right to life,

flowing from Christs righteousness, which acquired for us not only deliverance
from death, but also a right to life, by the adoption with which he endows us. For
on this account he is said to have been made under the law by an economical
subjection, that he might redeem us from the bondage of the law, and confer
upon us the adoption or the right of sons, Gal. 4:4, 5, on which the right to life
depends, because if children, then heirs, Rom. 8:17; and John 1:12 says, to them
who received him, that is, who believed on his name, he gave power to become
the sons of God. Where exousia does not signify authority or power, because it
has reference here to inferiors, nor faculty or potency, by which a person can
make himself a son, but axima, that is, the dignity and right of sons.

Adoption here, however, is not taken by us, as it is elsewhere, for an

external calling and reception into the covenant, such as was formerly
the case with the Jews, whose is said to be the adoption, Rom. 9:4. Nor
for the sense
68

and use of adoption, which is made by emancipation, such as belongs to believers

of the New Testament, who because they are made adults and are no longer
minors, are said to have received the Spirit of adoption, and are no longer called
servants, nor are held in the manner of servants, but are sons and heirs, who
rejoice in this right, Gal. 4:5. Nor for the full manifestation of adoption, which will
be in the resurrection, in which sense believers are said to wait for the adoption,
that is, the resurrection of their body, Rom. 8:23. But for a juridical act of God, by
which from his mere mercy, he adopts through faith in Christ, those whom he
elected to salvation from eternity, into his family and bestow upon them the name
and right of sons as to inheritance.

As, however, the word adoption is derived from a custom received among
men; so the action itself has a multiplied analogy with civil adoption,
although it differs also in various things and is better. Adoption is
defined by lawyers as a lawful act imitating nature, introduced for the
consolation of those who have no children. So that there is required here,
firstly an adopter, who can have the authority of a father, who, destitute

of children, supplies the defect of nature by law, and receives a stranger

into his own family, and promises to him paternal favor. 2. The person
adopted, who passes from his fathers family into another, and, state
being changed, changes his name and life, and has a right to the paternal
goods and especially to the inheritance; and in turn binds himself to all
the duties of filial obedience. Thus in this matter, adoption is not an
act of nature, but of a gracious will, which our heavenly Father wished
to exercise toward us, in which sense, James 1:18, he is said to have
begotten us of his own will, and the very name adoption denotes this
voluntary and most free disposition of God. By it God transfers us
strangers and foreigners, who were the servants and slaves of Satan, from
the family of the old Adam
69

and the power of darkness, and admits us into his own family and the kingdom of
light, and gives us the dignity of sons, in which he not only bestows upon us the
glorious name of dearly beloved sons, 1 John 3:1, Rev. 2:17, and 3:12, with the
distinctions and honors pertaining to them, but also gives us a right to all his
goods of grace as well as of glory, all of which come under the name of inheritance,
as acquired not by any merit, but are given by the mere grace of the Father to us
in virtue of our adoption by him. And we in turn, answering by faith to this great
love, bind ourselves to filial worship and obedience to him, 2 Cor. 6:18, 1 Pet. 1:15,
16, Mal. 1:6, 8.

Of whatever kind may be the analogy, still a great and remarkable

difference always intervenes. For what the law does among men; this is
a work of mere goodwill. That was sought out for the solace of
childlessness to supply a defect of nature; but this was made for our
consolation only, not for Gods, who was perfectly well-pleased with his
only-begotten Son. That was ordained for the succession to the goods of
a deceased father, but this only for a participation in the goods of a
Father living forever. That can give the name, the titles, and
distinctions of sons, but not the mind and qualities. But in this God by
adopting changes the heart, and to whom he graciously gives the right of
sons, he also impresses upon them the mind and character of sons by the
spirit of adoption. That does not make them good, but supposes them to
be so, for neither would a man adopt any one as a son, unless he perceived
in him something lovely. But this is a work of mere grace, which does not
suppose anything good in us, who were enemies, rebels and most corrupt;
thus God adopts us, not because we are good, but to make us good.
Here belongs the testamentary disposition, which the Father is said to
have instituted for giving us the inheritance, which is nothing else than
the final and immutable will sealed in

70

the Scriptures, and confirmed by the blood and death of Christ, by which he
pronounces elect believers his heirs, which Christ, Luke 22:29, clearly intimates,
I appoint (or give by a will) unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed
unto me. And Heb. 9:15, And for this cause he is the mediator of the new
testament, says Paul, that by means of death, for the redemption of the
transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might
receive the promise of eternal inheritance. The goods left by this testament do
not pertain only to the inheritance of this world, Rom. 4:13, according to which all
things are ours, 1 Cor. 3:21, but it is especially the inheritance of heaven or of the
kingdom of heaven, Matt. 25, James 2:5. And so of God himself, who, as he is the
highest Good, is often called our portion and inheritance, Gen. 15:1, Ps. 16:5, Jer.
10:16, as believers are the portion and inheritance of God, Ps. 33:12.

Now although this privilege as to the thing is common to all the believers
of the Old Testament, no less than to those of the New, who were both sons
of God, and had a right to the heavenly inheritance, to which after death
they were admitted; still it is certain that the condition of believers
of the New Testament as to the mode is far better in this respect; who
are no longer in an infantile age, held like slaves under teachers and
the rudiments of the world, when they were not able to have either the
sense or the use of their right, animated by the spirit of bondage, but
now being adults and emancipated by Christ, they are admitted to the
sanctuary of the Father, and have a full sense and fruit of their right,
the Spirit of adoption being received, in virtue of which they can
confidently cry out, Abba Father. To this Paul refers entirely, when he
says, Gal. 4:4, 5, Christ was made under the law, to redeem them that
were under the law, to wit, under the curse of the moral law and under
the yoke of the ceremonial,
71

that we might receive the adoption of sons, not that only, by which we are
separated from the children of wrath and of the devil, but also that, by which we
far excel infants who do not differ from slaves. This is more copiously proved in
Topic 12. Cov. of Grace, Ques. 10.

From these positions it is gathered that to no purpose do some anxiously

ask here, how justification and adoption differ from each other, and
whether adoption is by nature prior to justification, as some hold, who
think it is the first and immediate fruit of faith, by which we are united
and joined to Christ, or whether posterior to and consequent upon it, as
others. For since it is evident from what has been said that justification
is a benefit, by which God, being reconciled to us in Christ, absolves
us from the guilt of sins, and gives us a right to life, it follows that

adoption is included in justification itself as a part, which with the

remission of sins constitutes the whole of this benefit; nor can it be
distinguished from adoption, unless inasmuch as it is taken strictly for
remission of sins, since in its formal conception it includes also
acceptation to life, which flows from the imputation of Christs
righteousness.
Nor is adoption here to be confounded with our union to Christ. For
although it necessarily flows from it, as its cause and foundation, since
from union with Christ depends the communion of all his benefits, both
of justification, and of sanctification, and of glory: still it cannot,
if we wish to speak accurately, be identified with it; but stands related
to it as an effect to its cause. For hence it is that, being united to
Christ as our head and the first-begotten of God, his most perfect
righteousness becomes ours by the imputation of God, and the reception
of faith, upon which depends both absolution from sins, and the adoption
or acceptation to life and the inheritance, which is the right of sons.
For as many as obtain that dignity, are not only received into Gods
family, to be members of his house, Gal. 6:10, to be always
72

under the fatherly protection of God, depending upon him for nutrition,
education and perpetual conservation, but have a right to the inheritance, Rom.
8:17, that is, the possession of all the goods of the Father, and the enjoyment of
God himself, which is our inheritance.

From this adoption springs Christian liberty; which is not an immunity

from all laws, divine and human, and a license to live according to our
pleasure, and to indulge the lusts of the flesh, as the Libertines profess,
changing liberty into licentiousness; not an exemption from the evil
obligation of subjection, and from the tributes and jurisdiction of
magistrates as the various Anabaptists maintain, and which the Romish
clergy claim for themselves against the express teachings of Scripture.
But it is a spiritual and mystical manumission, obtained for us by the
blood of Christ, by which from the spiritual bondage of the law, of sin,
of the world and Satan, by whose chains we were before bound, we are brought
into the liberty of the sons of God, concerning which it is treated in
John 8:32, 36, Rom. 6:15, 22, and 8:2, 3, Gal. 3:13, and 4:6, 26, and 5:1,
Heb. 2:15, and elsewhere, through which being called into fellowship with
God, as our Father, and with Christ, as our Brother, we obtain dominion
over the creatures, and are heirs of the kingdom of heaven.

73

7.
The Justification of Faith
Does faith justify as properly and by itself, or only relatively and instrumentally?
The former we deny, the latter we affirm, against the Socinians, Remonstrants
and Romanists.

Since justification can be viewed, either actively, on the part of God who justifies,
or passively, on the part of man who is justified, a twofold handling of it can also
be adopted: either with respect to the benefit itself conferred upon us by God, and
of the righteousness imputed to us, or with respect to its reception and
application made by faith, of which we now treat.

Here, however, it is not controverted, whether faith justifies, for

Scripture so clearly asserts this that no one dares to deny it. But it
is enquired concerning the manner in which it justifies, in describing
which there is a wonderful discrepancy of opinions.
All our opponents agree in this, that faith justifies properly and by
itself, and so is our very righteousness: but with some differences. For
the Socinians maintain that faith or the
74

act of believing is the cause of our justification, so that there is no other

immediate and formal righteousness by which we are just before God than our
faith; and justification is a universal affection of faith; Not because faith contains
in itself the power of effecting righteousness and life; but because it is considered
such by the gracious acceptation of God; by which it pleased him to reckon faith
for perfect righteousness, or for a perfect fulfillment of the law, no otherwise than
formally under the legal covenant, the perfect obedience of the law was that
universal righteousness upon which life depended. As Socinus, de Servato.,
frequently expresses it, Smalzius in Disput. cont. Frani., Volkelius, lib. iv. cap. 3.
With them the Remonstrants agree on this point, in their Confession, c. 21.

The Romanists hold that faith is the disposing and sine qua non cause,
which not only disposes to righteousness, but also begins and merits
righteousness itself. Concil. Trident. Sess. vi. cap. 6, If any one says
that the wicked are justified by faith alone, so that he understands
nothing else to be required to co-operate for obtaining the grace of
justification, and is necessary from no part, to be prepared and disposed

with the motion of his own will, let him be accursed. And Bellarmine,
lib. i. de Justifi., cap. 13, Faith, says he, justifies as the
beginning and root of justification, because it is the first motion
towards God, for it behooves one approaching God to believe that God is.
This opinion is founded upon a false hypothesis, as if justification
consists in an infusion of righteousness, and is a certain physical motion,
which demands previous dispositions in the subject before the
introduction of the form.
The Orthodox, however, differ wholly from them. Since they teach that
faith is the organic and instrumental cause of our justification, and that
justification is ascribed to it, not properly and by itself, inasmuch as
it is a work, or as if it was the righteousness itself, by which we are
justified before God, or as if by its own worth or by the indulgence of
God it deserves justification in whole or in part; but improperly and
metonymically, inasmuch as Christs righteousness, which
75

faith apprehends, is the foundation and meritorious cause on account of which we

are justified. So that it is said to justify relatively and organically: relatively,
because the object of faith is our true righteousness before God; organically,
because faith is the instrument for receiving on our part, and for applying to
ourselves, that righteousness.

Two things therefore must be done by us here. Firstly, negatively, the

false mode of the justification of faith, introduced by the Socinians and
Romanists, must be put out of the way. Secondly, affirmatively, the true
and genuine sense must be established. As to the former, faith, or the
act of believing, is not considered as our righteousness with God by a
gracious acceptation: 1. Because what is only the instrument for receiving
righteousness cannot be our righteousness itself formally. Now faith
holds here only the relation of an instrument, as is evident both from
its proper act, which is instrumental, and consisting in the reception
of Christ, John 1:12, and the acceptance of righteousness, Rom. 5:17, and
of the remission of sins, Acts 26:18; and from the subordination of the
causes of justification to the same effect, to wit, the grace of God, the
redemption of Christ, and faith, which is alluded to by Paul, Rom. 3:24,
where faith cannot sustain any other meaning than that of an instrument,
since the grace of God holds the relation of an efficient principle, and
the redemption of Christ that of the meritorious cause.
2. Because faith is distinguished from the righteousness itself, which
is imputed to us, both because it is said to be of faith, and by faith,
Rom. 1:17, and 3:22, Phil. 3:9, and because Christ with his obedience and

satisfaction is that righteousness, which is imputed to us, Isa. 53:11,

Jer. 23:6, 1 Cor. 1:30, 2 Cor. 5:21, Gal. 3:13, 14, which faith indeed
apprehends as its object, but with which it cannot be identified. Whence
Scripture nowhere says that God willed to count our faith
76

for righteousness, but that he made Christ unto us righteousness, that he is

Jehovah our righteousness, and that we are the righteousness of God in him.

3. Because we are not justified except by a perfect righteousness. Since

we have to deal with the strict justice of God, which cannot be deceived.
Now no faith here is perfect. Nor can it be said that it is not indeed
a perfect righteousness of itself, but is admitted as such by God, and
considered such by a gratuitous lowering of the laws demands. Because
in the court of divine justice, which demands an adequate and absolutely
perfect payment, there cannot be room for a gracious acceptation, which
is an imaginary payment. Again, since our justification is a forensic and
judicial act, where God shows himself just, Rom. 3:25, it does not admit
of a gracious acceptation, which never proceeds from the authority and
sentence of the judge, but from the voluntary and private stipulation of
the parties.
4. If faith is counted for righteousness, we will be justified by works,
because thus faith cannot but have the relation of a work which justifies.
And yet it is clear that in this business Paul always opposes faith to
works, as incompatible, and two antagonistic means, by which man is
justified either by his own obedience and in himself, by the law, or by
anothers obedience by the gospel. Nor does the difference between these
modes of justification consist in this, that in the former a perfect
obedience and in the latter an imperfect is accepted of God as perfect.
Since the mode of justification would be always the same, by works. But
in this, that since in both cases a perfect righteousness is required,
in the former from the strictness of the law God demands a personal, here
from the forbearance of the gospel he admits anothers, to wit, the
righteousness of Christ. Thus faith cannot be said to justify properly
and
77

by itself, unless we slide back to the Old Covenant and return to legal justification.

The faith of Abraham, it is said, was imputed to him for righteousness,

Gen. 15:6, and Rom. 4:3. Not properly, because in this way he would have
been justified by works, which the apostle denies in the same place. But
1. Relatively and metonymically, so that faith is taken for its object,

Gal. 3:25, that is, for that which faith believes, to wit, that promise
concerning the Seed, not so much bodily, as spiritual, from Gal. 3:16,
which he received by faith, was the foundation of his justification. This
is confirmed by the circumstance that what does not inhere and what is
contradistinguished from works is here said to be imputed. Thus in this
sense faith is said to be imputed for righteousness, by a hypallage,
because righteousness is imputed by faith, as the apostle declares in
equivalent terms, ver. 5, 6, and 3:22. Nor is this to wrest the Scriptures,
and to express coldly the power and efficacy of faith, as Forbes, in consid.
pacif. de justif., c. iv., falsely charges upon our Divines. Nay not more
clearly and truly can the genuine sense of that imputation be set forth.
For since that thing, which is imputed to us for righteousness, ought to
be our righteousness before God, that is, that on account of which God
justifies us; nor can faith be that, as we have already said, and as he
himself does not deny, when he recognizes it to be the instrumental cause;
it is clear that this phrase cannot be taken properly, but only
metonymically with regard to the object. Nor is anything more usual in
Scripture than for a faculty to be taken for its object. This does not
prevent2. faith from being said to be imputed for righteousness
organically, because it is the instrumental cause, which apprehends the
righteousness of Christ, by a metonymy of the effect for the efficient,
as it is elsewhere called eternal life, John 17:3, and 12:50, that is,
the instrumental cause of life.
78

In vain, however, does Arminius contend that the righteousness of Christ

is not imputed for righteousness, since it is that very righteousness
itself, to wit, supposing that is not properly righteousness which is
imputed to us for righteousness. Because he falsely confounds, to impute
for righteousness by gracious acceptation that which is not a
righteousness, and to impute to a person for righteousness that which he
did not have. The first sense has no place here, but only the latter,
according to which what Abraham had not, is said to be imputed to him for
righteousness, and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, that is,
reckoned ours, which was not ours. Thus imputation does not deny the truth
of the thing, or the perfection of the righteousness, but only the truth
of the possession, by ascribing to a person what was not properly his.
What is said concerning any one in Scripture ought to be altogether in
him, but according to that manner, which itself teaches. Now the manner
in which justification and salvation are ascribed, to faith, does not
consist in its own proper efficiency, as if our faith wrought or effected
them, but they are placed only in its fiducial apprehension and
application. Nor otherwise are we said to please God by faith, Heb. 11:6,

and to be purged of sin, Acts 15:9, than because it applies to us the

righteousness and blood of Christ, who purges us from sins and makes us
acceptable to God.
It is one thing for blessings to be conferred according to faith, that
is, under the condition of faith, under which they are promised in the
Word, which we acknowledge with the Scriptures: Another, for faith to
justify properly and by itself, or to count faith itself for righteousness,
and thus to impute it for righteousness to the believer. There faith holds
the relation of an instrument. Here, however, that of a principal cause
and foundation, which we deny.
79

Secondly, against the Romanists we prove that faith does not justify
dispositively, or meritoriously, as the beginning and root of
righteousness: 1. Because the Holy Spirit nowhere ascribes to faith the
beginning, or only a part, or disposition to justification. 2. Because
thus the antithesis of the apostle between works and faith would not hold
good, since faith would always justify like a work. 3. Because
justification as being a forensic act takes place at once and in a moment,
nor can it admit of a beginning and progress. 4. Because thus we could
be said to be justified on account of faith. This the Scripture never says,
but always either by faith, or through faith, as by an instrument. Nor
if in various passages these prepositions, by, and through, have a
causality properly so called, as when they are connected with the death
and blood of Christ, does it follow that they have the same force when
used concerning the justification of faith. Nay, since it is evident that
a man cannot be justified by two righteousnesses, one in himself, the other
in Christ; if the righteousness and blood of Christ is the proper cause
of his justification, this cannot be ascribed to faith, but only the
instrumental cause. 5. This opinion falsely supposes that justification
is a physical motion inhering in the subject, which needs previous
dispositions by which it may be acquired, so as to be introduced into the
subject, since it is a forensic act, as was proved before, to which man
holds himself objectively, not subjectively. And although faith is
required on the part of man for receiving this benefit, it does not follow
that it has the relation of a disposition, by which the sinner is disposed
to the infusion of righteousness.
Faith is viewed in different lights, either in the act itself of
justification, or in the person of the justified, or in the effect of
justification. In the person of the justified, it is well called the
beginning of righteousness, not imputed but inherent,

80

because it is the root of all virtues. Thus in the effect of justification it is the
principle and cause of new obedience. But in the act of justification, it can be
nothing else than an instrument apprehending and applying to man that which
justifies, so that he is justified not by the merit of faith, but only by it as a means.

Although justification is drawn away from works as to merit, and a

properly-called efficiency, it does not follow that the same is ascribed
to faith in the same manner. Nay, because it is taken away from works,
it cannot for the same reason be ascribed to faith, because it would thus
justify as a work, nor could we be said to be justified without works.
It suffices, therefore, in order to save the opposition of the apostle,
that faith should be substituted by him in the place of works, because
by faith we most surely obtain, what the Jews in vain sought in works,
although it acts here not meritoriously, but only instrumentally.
Faith is said to save us, Luke 7:50, not by meriting something in order
to justification, but only receptively and organically, because it was
the instrument receptive of that benefit: and nothing is more frequent,
than by a metalepsis to ascribe to an instrument the effect of the
principal cause; as when the gospel is said to be the power of God unto
salvation, Rom. 1:16, the diligent hand is said to increase the house,
the plough to enrich the farmer, the hand of the giver to relieve the poor,
and the like. Nor if elsewhere the greatness of the faith of the
Canaanitish woman is extolled, Matt. 15:28, to whom Christ granted the
sought for blessing, is its merit and efficiency on that account denoted,
believing indeed she was healed, because faith being the medium God
bestowed this blessing upon her, but believing he healed her, not on this
account, that faith properly speaking either effected or merited the
healing.
81

Therefore the true mode of the justification of faith, is no other than

instrumental. 1. Because its proper act consists in the reception of
Christ, and his righteousness, as was said before. 2. Because it justifies
in no other manner than by its being directed to the death and obedience
of Christ, to wit, by apprehending and applying Christ to itself, as a
ransom given for us, and a propitiation for sin, 1 John 2:2. 3. Because
faith in the Scriptures is described by eating, looking, and touching,
which have only an instrumental causality, not a proper efficiency, as
the looking at the serpent did not of itself cure, but relatively to the
brazen serpent, nor does eating nourish except by food thrown into the
mouth. 4. Because justifying faith stands related in no other way to

justification, than the faith of miracles to the working of miracles, not

effectively, but organically, by apprehending the special promise given
concerning them.
Not without reason, however, is this ascribed above all other things to
the believers, because it alone of all the virtues can subsist with grace,
as consisting in the mere reception and apprehension of an object placed
beyond itself; whence it is said to be of faith that it might be by grace,
Rom. 4:16, to wit, as man owes this entire blessing to God, he has no reason
for glorying in himself. For if he were justified by works, or inherent
righteousness, he would seem to have something in which to glory, but when
he is justified by faith, which gives nothing to God, but only receives,
all glorying is excluded. This Toletus, in 3, Rom. Ann. xvii., well
explains, when he gives the reason why the Scripture ascribes
justification to faith alone: Namely, because, says he, in faith
it is more manifested, that man is justified not by his own virtue, but
by the merit of Christ. For as in beholding the serpent God placed healing
in the desert, because the looking indicated more that the men were healed
by the virtue of the serpent, not of any personal work, or of any medicine;
thus faith shows that sinners are justified
82

by the virtue and merit of Christ, in whom believing they are saved, not by any
virtue and merit of their own. And it is the reason, why justification is ascribed to
faith especially by Paul, who strives to exclude from justification the works of the
law, and human merit or efficacy, and to place it in the virtue and merit of Christ
alone; therefore he makes mention of faith in Christ. This neither repentance, nor
love, nor hope have, for faith is carried more immediately and distinctly to it, by
whose virtue we are justified, etc.

Although the sacraments are external means and instruments applying on

the part of God the promise of grace and justification, this does not
hinder faith from being called the internal instrument and means on the
part of man for receiving this benefit offered in the word and sealed by
the sacraments.
What justifies as an instrument, does not forthwith justify as a work,
although that instrument is a work. Because it is one thing for it to be
a work, and another to justify as a work: what justifies as a work, ought
to be the meritorious cause of justification, but what justifies as an
instrument, does not justify meritoriously, but only apprehensively and
receptively, not by giving, but by receiving. The action of faith,
therefore, justifies us, but not as an action simply, as if it were our
righteousness with God, but in relation to its object, inasmuch as it

receives Christ. As the extension of the beggars hand is indeed the act
of the beggar prescribed by the rich man, still as an act it does not enrich
the beggar, but inasmuch as in this way he applies to himself and makes
his own the gift of the rich man.
Although faith is called the work of God, John 6:29, it does not follow
that it justifies as a work. Because although it is enjoined by God, and
in this sense is called the work of God, and is due from man that he may
obtain life: it is not on this account due as the meritorious cause of
that life, but only as
83

a means and instrument receptive of the righteousness of Christ, which is the true
cause of life. And thus it is called by Christ imitatively; and by allusion to the
Jewish sense, who sought life by the works of the law: What must we do, said they,
that we may work the works of God? To this legal question Jesus answers, not
legally, but evangelically, yet in a legal style, taking the legal phrase from the
expression of the Jews, and applying it to his discourse, This is the work of God,
that ye believe, intimating that no further work was necessary to acquire salvation,
but that faith was substituted in the place of all works for the reception of it; as if
he said, Work earnestly, only believe, this is work, this is labor. Evidently as to a
sick man seeking by what medicine he is about to be healed, if the physician
answers, This is the medicine, which I prescribe to you, Keep quiet and confide in
me: he does not wish to intimate that that rest and confidence are any remedies
to cure him, but he means only this, that there is no need of medicine. Thus the
Scripture often ascribes the names of things, to which men attribute falsely a
great efficacy and value, to those things which are truly efficacious and valuable,
as the gospel is called law, because what the law sought, the gospel gives; what the
Jews vainly sought in the law, is obtained by the gospel. Thus regeneration is
called circumcision, Phil. 3:3, believers sons of Abraham, love and piety fasting,
Isa. 58, and faith a work.

But we think it ought not to be anxiously inquired, whether faith stands

here in the relation of an instrument, or also of a condition, as some
think. Because both may be ascribed to it: provided the condition is not
understood as that in view of which God justifies man in the legal covenant:
for in this sense it cannot be called a condition, unless we agree with
the Socinians and Remonstrants, who hold that faith, or the act of
believing, is admitted by God by a gracious acceptation
84

for a perfect righteousness, which we have just now refuted; but broadly, for all
that is required on our part to obtain this benefit, whether it has the relation of a
cause properly-so-called, or only instrumental. For thus as that condition has the

relation of an instrument; so the instrument has the relation of a condition on our

part, without which justification cannot be granted. Moreover concerning the
manner in which faith concurs to justification, and concerning its threefold act,
dispository, justificatory and consolatory, see what was said in Topic 15. Quest. 12.
Th. 4.

85

8.
Justification by Faith Alone
Does faith alone justify? We affirm against the Romanists.

This question also lies between us and the Romanists, who not only corrupt the
true mode of the justification of faith, by making the instrumental cause
meritorious, or at least dispositive, but by connecting with it the other virtues
both as attendants and companions in this act. Whence arose the controversy
concerning faith alone justifying, which as it is of no less importance than the
preceding, so it is agitated with no less warmth of spirit.

This question is not of recent birth; but even from the very beginning
of the Christian religion, by the false apostles, or Judaizing Christians,
who did not with full front attack the faith as the Pharisees, but on the
side, by a deadly mixture associating the law with the gospel, Moses with
Christ, and faith with works in the matter of justification, so that man
should be justified not by faith alone, but at the same time by works also.
Against them the apostle disputes in his Epistles to the Galatians,
Philippians, and
86

Colossians. This is urged by the Romanists of this day, who hold that with faith,
hope, love, penitence, the purpose of a new life concur to justification. Canon, ix.
Concil. Trident., If any one shall say that the wicked are justified by faith alone,
so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate for the obtainment
of the grace of justification and is necessary from no part, that he should be
prepared and disposed by a motion of his own will, let him be accursed. This is
more fully set forth in chap. v. and vi., where the mode and necessity of
preparation for justification are treated of.

But that the state of the question may be more easily understood, we must
remark, that a twofold trial can be entered into by God with man; either
by the law, inasmuch as he is viewed as guilty of violating the law by
sin, and thus comes under the accusation and condemnation of the law; or
by the gospel, inasmuch as he is accused by Satan of having violated the
gospel covenant, and so is supposed to be an unbeliever, and impenitent
or a hypocrite, who has not testified by works the faith he has professed
with his mouth. Now to this twofold trial a twofold justification ought
to answer, not in the Romish sense, but in a very different: The first,

by which man is absolved from the guilt of sin on account of the

righteousness of Christ imputed to us and apprehended by faith. The other
by which he is freed from the charge of incredulity and hypocrisy, and
declared to be a true believer and child of God, who has fulfilled the
gospel covenant, if not perfectly as to degree, still sincerely as to parts,
and answered to the divine call by the exercise of faith and piety. The
first is justification properly so called; the other is only a declaration
of it. That is justification of cause a priori, this is justification of
sign, or of effect a posteriori declaratively. In that, faith alone can
have a place because it alone apprehends the righteousness of Christ, by
whose merit we are freed from the condemnation
87

of the law; in this, works also are required, as the effects and signs of faith, by
which its truth and sincerity are declared against the accusation of unbelief and
hypocrisy. For as faith justifies a person, so works justify faith.

The question is not concerning justification a posteriori and

declaratively in the fatherly and gospel trial, whether faith alone
without works concurs to it: for we confess that works come in here with
faith, yea, that works only are properly regarded, because it is concerned
with the justification of faith, which can be gathered from no other source
more certainly than by works as its effects and indubitable proofs. But
concerning justification a priori, which frees us from the legal trial,
which is concerned with the justification of the wicked and the perfect
righteousness, which can be opposed to the curse of the law, and acquire
for us a right to life, whether works come into consideration here with
faith, as the Romanists hold, or whether faith alone, as we maintain?
2. The question is not, whether faith alone justifies to the exclusion,
either of the grace of God, or the righteousness of Christ, or the Word
and sacraments, by which the blessing of justification is presented and
sealed to us by God, which we maintain are necessarily required here; but
only to the exclusion of every other virtue and habit on our part. Whence
the Romanists have no reason for accusing us of confusion in this argument,
as if we ascribed justification at one time to the grace of God, at another
to the blood of Christ, and then again to faith. For all these as they
are mutually subordinated in a different class of cause, consist with each
other in the highest degree.
3. The question is not, Whether solitary faith, that is, separated from
the other virtues, justifies, which we grant could not easily be the case,
since it is not even true and living faith, but whether it alone concurs
to the act of

88

justification, which we assert: as the eye alone sees, but not when torn out of the
body. Thus the article alone does not determine the subject, but the predicate,
that is, faith only does not justify, but faith justifies alone: the coexistence of love
in him who is justified is not denied, but its coefficiency or cooperation in
justification. 4. The question is not, whether the faith which justifies works by
love, because otherwise it would not be living but dead; but whether by which it
justifies, or in the act itself of justification it is to be considered under such a
relation which we deny.

Whence the question returns to this, Does faith justify, not as it is

objectively the doctrine of salvation, but subjectively as it assents to
that saving doctrine and applies it to itself; not as we promise to do
something, but as we rest upon the promises in Christ as sufficient, but
in respect to function, or efficiency; not by way of preparation with other
virtues, or of merit, but relatively after the manner of an instrument,
apprehending the satisfaction of Christ, and judicially applying it. The
Romanists deny, we assert.
Firstly, because man is justified by faith without works, therefore by
faith alone. The reason of the consequence is manifest, because there are
not more modes of justifying than these two, by faith and by works, and
thus, one being removed, the other must not only necessarily be left, but
also alone, otherwise the enumeration would not be legitimate. Now why
could the apostle so often and so expressly institute an antithesis
between faith and works in this matter, if works could concur with faith
in any way to the act of justification? Would he not in this particular
have occasioned believers to err, by removing works absolutely and simply
from it, if they contribute anything towards it? Let the various passages
in
89

which exclusives are employed, be carefully examined, and the thing will be
clearer than the mid-day sun. Rom. 3:28, We conclude that a man is justified by
faith without the deeds of the law, Eph. 2:8, By grace are ye saved, through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works; And more clearly,
Gal. 2:16, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the
faith of Jesus Christ; where it is certain that the particle is adversative and
exclusive, as often elsewhere, (Matt. 12:4 and 24:36, Mark 13:32, John 17:12, Rev.
9:4 and 21:27) from the force of the immediate opposition of faith and works,
which mutually displace each other. Nor can the Romanists themselves deny this.
Estius says, the most learned interpreters follow this opinion; which Salmero,
Justinian and others confirm. To no purpose, therefore, do others pretend that
ean m is here exceptive, with the meaning, that a man is not justified by works,

except faith in Christ approaches to works. Because this is the very thing which
Paul opposes against the false-apostles, who maintained that not works alone
could justify a man, but mingled faith with works, so that justification might be
ascribed partly to faith, and partly to works, which Paul frequently asserts is
inconsistent as Salmero and Estius acknowledge. No better is the explanation of
Cornelius a Lapide, who thinks that only the works of the law are excluded here,
but not the works of hope, fear and love, which faith begets and produces, which
are under faith, as daughters under a mother. Because we have seen above that all
works are entirely excluded by Paul, not only the ceremonial, but also moral, not
only those performed before grace, but also from grace in the renewed.

Secondly, because by that alone are we justified, by which the

righteousness of Christ is applied to us, who satisfied the law for us.
Now this is done by faith alone; nor does it belong to
90

love, or to hope. Not to hope, which does not apprehend but expects the promised
thing. Not to love, which is concerned with the fulfillment of a command, not with
the apprehension of a promise.

Thirdly, because we also are justified in the same way in which Abraham,
the father of believers, was justified, because what was written
concerning him, pertains not only to him but to us also, Rom. 4:24. And
yet Abraham was justified by faith alone, Gen. 15:6, Abraham believed
in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness, not of debt,
on account of works preceding faith, or subsequent to it, but of grace,
so that he might not have whereof to glory. For if Abraham were justified
by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God, Rom. 4:2, to
wit, he hath not matter for glorying, which is to be drawn from the
preceding verses. The argument is from the destruction of the consequent
to the destruction of the antecedent; if Abraham was justified by works,
he hath whereof to glory in himself, as if he had contributed something
of his own, to which a reward was due in the judgment of God. And yet he
hath not whereof he can glory in himself before God; therefore, he was
not justified by works. Nor can it be said that works preceding faith are
excluded, not those done from faith, on account of which he could have
had glory before God, as he is called a friend of God. Because this is
to gainsay openly and to contradict Paul to his face, who expressly
testifies that Abraham had not whereof to glory before God. For it is
gratuitously and most falsely supposed that only works antecedent to faith
are excluded; because he excludes all works entirely without distinction,
and indeed the works of Abraham not only as an unbeliever, but also a
believer, since this was said of him when he was already a believer and

renewed. Again, he excludes all debt, 4:4; therefore, also every work.
Finally, if he had wished not to exclude
91

works done from faith, he ought not to have opposed one working to one
believing simply, but one working without faith to one working from faith, which,
however, he nowhere does.

Fourthly, because we are justified gratuitously and by the grace of God:

therefore by faith alone, because faith alone can consist with grace, Rom.
3:24, 25. Nor is Bellarmine to be listened to, who wishes the particle,
freely, not to exclude merits absolutely, but proper merits, or which are
from us, not from God; because merits arising from prevenient grace, which
are called by them merits of gratuity, are not opposed to grace, unless
we wish grace to contend with grace; nor that it follows hence, that a
man who is justified freely, is justified by faith alone, because as
gratuitous justification does not exclude faith, because it is by grace,
so neither ought it to exclude repentance and love, which are from grace.
For as we have already remarked, the particle, freely, excludes entirely
all merits; for whatever is freely given, that is acquired by no merit.
Nor can the grace which is undue subsist with merit, which makes the pay
due: Whence Rom. 11:6, If by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise
grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace:
otherwise work is no more work. Now although faith is not excluded in
justification, it is not on that account from grace, for thus works done
from grace would not have to be excluded, but because it alone above other
virtues has a power receptive of and applicatory to the righteousness of
Christ, and so supposing man to be a sinner and destitute of all
righteousness, excludes all merit.
Fifthly, because the righteousness of God is said to be revealed from
faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith; Rom.
1:17, where the apostle intends to prove that the gospel is the power of
God, that is, the sole most efficacious instrument for salvation, in
opposition to the weakness of the law, Rom. 8:3,
92

and Heb. 7:19, because in the righteousness of God, not formally and subjectively,
which is in God, but effectively, which God gives to us, not inherent, because it is
said to be manifested without the law by faith, Rom. 3:21, and to be imputed
without works, Rom. 4:6, but imputed, which is opposed to mans righteousness
and his own works, Rom. 10:3, 4, Phil. 3:9. To wit, the most perfect righteousness
of Christ, which alone can bear the scrutiny of the divine trial, as being divine and
infinite, which is the cause and foundation of life and salvation, is revealed from

faith to faith, that is, is announced by the gospel, so as to be apprehended by faith

alone, because nothing besides faith can concur in the reception of it. Whence he
does not say from faith to works, but from faith to faith, so that to faith alone this
office is wholly ascribed. That Paul may prove this doctrine to be neither absurd
nor new, he confirms it by the prophecy of Habakkuk, 2:4, where he says, The
just shall live by his faith. Now although this prophecy refers also to a temporal
blessing, viz., deliverance from the Babylonish captivity, which they would obtain
by the intervention of faith in the divine promise: hence it is referred to by Paul in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 10, to support believers in afflictions; still
because the declaration of the prophet is general concerning faith in the promises
of God, it is rightly applied specially to faith in Christ; and on this account the
more, that the prophets and pious Jews regarded the promise of the Messiah, as
the foundation of all promises. Hence Paul as best knowing the mind of the Holy
Spirit refers it in the Epistle to the Galatians, chap. 3, and in this place to
justification, in order to teach that by faith alone man obtains the righteousness
which brings eternal life to him: The just shall live by faith, whether the by
faith be referred to the just, with this meaning, He who by faith is just, or to life,
meaning the just lives by faith; for they amount to the same and each is true, that
both he
93

who by faith is just, obtains salvation, and again, he who is just, obtains salvation
by faith. In vain, therefore, is it said that Paul understands a living faith and that
it alone is not such, but with works. Because although living faith is never alone in
the person who is justified, still it is alone in the very act of justification, to the
production of which the other virtues can contribute nothing, faith alone claiming
this privilege for itself, as we have before said. Nor better do others wish that life
to be referred to the works, by which faith proves itself alive. Because the design
of the prophet is to teach that faith alone is the means of obtaining salvation, both
temporal and spiritual. And Paul says that this righteousness by faith is
manifested without the law, which cannot be said of the righteousness of works,
but only of the righteousness of faith, which is said of the man believing, not of
one working.

It is one thing for love and works to be required in the person who is
justified, which we grant, another in the act itself, or causality of
justification, which we deny. Nor if works are required as concomitants
of faith, are they on that account determined to be causes of justification
with faith, or to do the very thing which faith does in this matter.
Although the whole force of justifying on the part of man is in faith,
as to the act of apprehension, so that other virtues contribute nothing
to it with faith; it does not follow that faith can justify when they are
absent as well as when they are present, yea, even when the opposite vices
are present; because it is one thing to justify without virtues, that is

separated from them which we deny, another for it to justify alone, but
not separated from them. As it does not follow, the hand alone writes,
the eye alone sees; therefore, as such when torn from the head and the
other members as in the body; the sole force of respiration is in the lungs;
the lungs can respire torn out from the liver and other viscera, equally
as well as when connected with them, which everyone
94

sees to be absurd. There are hundreds of things of this kind, which have a certain
proper efficacy and effect, which still, when separated from their adjuncts, lose all
their power. Natural potencies are connected as to existence, but disjoined as to
operation. Light and heat in the sun are most closely connected together, but still
the light alone illuminates, the heat alone warms. Although, therefore, the other
virtues do not justify with faith, still faith cannot justify in their absence, much
less the opposite vices being present; because faith cannot be true, unless in
connection with the virtues, which if they do not contribute as to justification, still
contribute to the existence and life of faith, which the presence of vices would
destroy.

It is one thing for the love of the sinner to be the cause of the remission
of sins a priori; another, to be the effect and proof a posteriori. The
latter is affirmed, Luke 7:47, not the former, as we gather1. From the
scope of the parable, which is to demonstrate which of two debtors, whose
debt the creditor had canceled, ought to love the creditor most, to wit,
in token of gratitude. 2. From the answer of Simon, I suppose that he,
to whom he forgave most, where love is placed as following, not as going
before remission. 3. From the end, ver. 47, where a small remission is
put as the cause of a small degree of love, To whom little is forgiven,
the same loveth little. 4. From verse 50, where salvation is ascribed
to the faith, not to the love of this woman, Thy faith hath saved thee;
nor does the particle hoti stand in the way, because, as is known, it is
often only ratiocinative, not causal, the cause of the consequent, not
of the consequence, so as to intimate that thence is known and gathered
that many sins were forgiven her, because she loved much.
When John says, 1 John 3:14, We know that we have passed from death unto
life, because we love the brethren; he teaches that love is a proof and
sign of our justification,
95

from which we know that we have passed from death unto life, because he who is
in love is in God, who is love, and he who is in God, cannot be in death; but he
does not mean that love is the cause of that translation, which is elsewhere
ascribed to faith, John 5:24. Whence Lorimus and Gagnaeus on this passage well

remark that the causal article denotes the cause, not of the thing but of the
knowledge. On this account even the more, that since God loved, not we God, 1
John 4:10, the justification by which God loved us, ought to precede our love.

Christ, John 14:23, promises the love of the Father, to those who love
him, not affectively, and as to its beginning, as if the love of the Father
than begins, since he loved us before, 1 John 4:10, but effectively, and
as to continuance and increase, because he will prove his love by
distinguished blessings, and console them by a new manifestation of
himself; but this has nothing to do with justification, because to love
Christ and to keep his commands, belongs to a man already constituted in
grace and justified.
The fear of the Lord, to wit, filial and reverential is a consequent of
justification, not a previous disposition to it. Not is it called the
beginning of wisdom, Ps. 111:10, as if it initially disposes to wisdom,
but because it is its head and perfection, as it is said to be in Eccles.
12:13, which begins from it, Prov. 9:10, and ends in it. If it is said
in Sirach 1:21, aptheisthai hamartmata, this ought not to be understood
of a positive expulsion, as if it introduced either meritoriously, or
dispositively remission of sins, but of a negative, because he, who fears
God, does not indulge in sins, nor give ear to their solicitations.
It is one thing for hope to concur to salvation; another to justification.
The former is asserted in Rom. 5:5, and 8:24, when hope is said not to
make us ashamed, yea, also to save us: because the expectation of salvation
is founded
96

upon a hope so certain to be fulfilled in its own time, as if we already possessed

salvation itself: but not the latter; because the object of hope is not the remission
of sins, but the fulfillment of the promised salvation.

Although remission of sins is promised to repentance, because it ought

to accompany faith, and be in him who is justified as a certain condition
requisite from him, because God cannot pardon sin to an impenitent; it
does not follow that it can be said to justify with faith, because it
contributes nothing, neither meritoriously, nor instrumentally, to the
act of justification.
It is one thing for eternal life and the heavenly inheritance to be
referred to works as meritorious causes, or instrumental, of our
justification; another, as effects of faith, and qualities and
dispositions requisite in the subject to be glorified. As it is one thing

to seek why life is given to believers, another, upon what, or what

qualities it depends. The former we deny, because our works of whatever
kind cannot merit life, nor have they the relation of an instrument for
apprehending it. But the latter we grant. Nor is anything different
gathered from Matt. 25:34, 35, where works are not adduced by the judge
as the foundations of the right which they obtain to eternal life, because
the proper cause of that right is indicated in the preceding verses when
they are called ye blessed of my Father, who ought to inherit the kingdom,
that is, possess it by a title of inheritance; but as arguments and
testimonies indubitable a posteriori, from which the truth of their faith
could be proved, and the equity of the sentence pronounced, as the particle
gar is not causal, but only ratiocinative.
Since Paul and James were inspired by the same Spirit, they cannot be said
to oppose each other on the doctrine of justification, so that one should
ascribe justification to faith
97

alone, and the other to works also. The reconciliation is not difficult, if the design
of each be considered, and the nature of faith, and of justification, concerning
which both treat, be attended to. Paul disputes against the Pharisees, who urged
the merits of works; James against the Libertines and Epicureans, who content
with a profession of faith alone, denied not only the merits of works, but also their
necessity. Against the former Paul rightly urges faith alone for justification.
Against the latter, James properly commends the necessity of works for the
confirmation of justification. Paul speaks of living and efficacious faith, James of
an idle and dead, which cannot be demonstrated by works, chap. 2:18; Paul of
justification a priori and constitutively, James of the same a posteriori and
declaratively, Paul properly constitutes the former in faith alone. James rightly
places the latter in works, by which the reality of our faith and justification is
declared not only before men, but also before God. When, therefore, faith is said
to have wrought with works in Abraham, and by works to have been made perfect,
ver. 22, this ought to be understood in relation to the efficacy of faith, which
exerted itself by works, by which also it was consummated and made perfect; not
essentially, for this it has by its own nature, but declaratively, because it is proven
to be perfect and sincere, just as the power of God is said to be made perfect in
our weakness, 2 Cor. 12:9, that is, known and declared to be perfect. See what else
belongs to this point in our disputation, De Concoritia, Jacobi et Pauli, etc.

It is one thing for works to be connected with faith in the person of the
justified, another, however, in the matter of justification. The former,
we acknowledge, and will afterwards prove, when we discuss the necessity
of good works; but the latter we deny, with Paul, nay, we maintain that
they are wholly incompatible with faith.

Rightly says Augustine, lib. de Fide et Operibus, Good works do not

precede the one to be justified, but follow the one justified. Because
since a person is
98

justified freely by faith without works, Rom. 3:24, nay, justification is of the
wicked, Rom. 4:5, and 5:6, no good works can be granted, which precede his
justification, as causes, but only which follows, as the effects and fruits springing
from the faith of remission, Luke 7:47, and 1 Tim. 1:5. Nor if vocation, by which
faith and holiness are infused, is prior to justification, does it follow that holiness
no less than faith is prior to it; because holiness is indeed infused, but in its own
order and by faith, Acts 15:9, faith however concurs to justification before it does
to sanctification. If remission is sometimes promised to repentance, this is indeed
to it, as a condition not antecedent or concomitant by reason of contradiction, but
only consequent as to new obedience.

99

9.
The Time of Justification
Was justification made from eternity, or is it made in time? And, is it an
individual act, taking place at one and the same time?

The opinions of theologians about this question vary. Some maintain that it is an
immanent act in God, which was performed from eternity; others that it is
transient terminating in us, and which takes place only in time and in this life.
And there are some who hold that it is postponed to the last and decretory day, in
which all must stand before the solemn and public tribunal of Christ to hear the
sentence of absolution or of condemnation from his lips. Now although there is
an agreement on both sides in the substance of the thing, and a disagreement
only in the mode of the thing, still it is of no little importance to the accurate
knowledge of the subject, to know what is the true opinion to be held here.

The first opinion is that of those who hold that justification preceded
our birth, and was made in eternity, because they conceive it to be an
immanent and internal act in God.
100

As, however, nothing new can happen to God in time, they think it was made in
him from eternity, and is ascribed to faith only as to cognizance and sense,
because it leads us into the knowledge of him and makes us certain of it.

But although we do not deny that our justification was decreed even from
eternity, as nothing takes place in time, which was not constituted by
him from eternity; still we do not think, speaking accurately,
justification itself can be called eternal. Because the decree of
justification is one thing, justification itself another, as the will to
save and sanctify is one thing, salvation and sanctification itself
another. The will or decree to justify certain persons is indeed eternal,
and precedes faith itself; but actual justification takes place in time
and follows faith.
Secondly, Paul expressly confirms this in the chain of salvation,
enumerating in order the benefits flowing to the elect from the eternal
love of God, where he puts vocation before justification, as something
antecedent, Rom. 8:30, whom he called, them he justified. Nor have those
various passages a different meaning, in which we are said to be justified

through and by faith, then that faith is a something prerequisite to

justification. This could not be said, if justification was done from
eternity. For it is weak and foreign to the meaning of Paul to refer these
things to the sense of justification only.
Thirdly, the nature of the thing itself proves this. For, since
justification, or remission of sins, necessarily involves a deliverance
from the obligation to punishment which sins deserved, and no one can
obtain it without faith and repentance, it is evident that such a
justification could not have been made from eternity but only in time,
when the man actually believes and repents. Otherwise it would follow that
he, who is justified and consequently has passed from death unto life,
and become a child of God, and an heir of eternal
101

life, still remains in death and is a child of wrath; because he, who is not yet
converted and lies in sin, remains in death, 1 John 3:14, and is of the devil, 1 John
3:8, and in a state of condemnation, Gal. 5:21.

Finally, since justification is a blessing of God, while a blessing cannot

pass to us, and be actually bestowed upon us, except in time, it is clear
that it is not to be conceived of after the manner of an immanent and
internal act in God; but after the manner of a transient, arising from
God, and passing ever and terminating upon the creature, not that it may
subjectively inhere in him, as the Romanists falsely hold, because this
pertains to sanctification; but that it may adhere to him, and the creature
has an objective relation to it, while the absolving sentence is intimated
to him by the Holy Spirit. If grace is said to have been given to us in
Christ before the world began, 2 Tim. 1:9, by reason of destination,
because from eternity God decreed to give it to us in time, it does not
follow that it can be said to have been really bestowed, because the decree
indeed causes us to obtain in time a right to life certainly and infallibly,
but not that we can say we already obtained it actually; it causes that
we should be justified, but not to be already justified.
But as justification cannot be conceived to have taken place from eternity,
before the ages, so neither ought it to be thrown forward to the
consummation of the world, as others hold, as if God only then exercises
properly the act of a judge, both in the pardon of believers, and in the
condemnation of the wicked. For thus the declaration of justification is
falsely confounded with justification itself. For although the heavenly
judge, we are told, will then sit on his throne of glory, to exercise the
last solemn act of judgment, as much in grace as in justice, in the sight

of heaven and earth, this does not prevent that judgment from commencing
in the present life. Nay, this must necessarily be supposed, since
102

that final judgment is nothing else than a public and solemn manifestation of
preceding judgments. And as Scripture everywhere sets before us the examples of
Gods judgments, public as well as private, over the wicked and rebellious, such as
the flood, the destruction of Sodom, the overthrow of the Egyptians, and the like:
to refer these to mere chastisements of God, tending towards the improvement
and salvation of those upon whom they were sent, is to contradict the whole tenor
of Scripture, and rashly to confound the medicinal chastisements of believers,
which are sent upon them for instruction by God, as a merciful Father, with the
punishments of the wicked, which are inflicted by God, as an angry judge, to
punish and avenge himself of their sins, which has thus far been unheard of in
theological schools. So that he is evidently a stranger to the Scriptures, who does
not know that God is often set forth as justifying believers in this life, as is evident
from the examples of Abraham, Gen. 15:6, of David, Ps. 32:1, 2, 5, Rom 4:6, 7, of
the sinful woman, Luke 7:48, of the publican, Luke 18:14, and of all believers,
Rom. 5:1. Not to say now that that opinion is hurtful to the consolation of
believers, which springs from no other source more certainly than from a sense of
the grace of God and his justification. For how otherwise could they have the
confidence in which they glory and exult on account of their justification, and
enjoy unspeakable peace and joy?

This opinion, then, being dismissed, we embrace the middle one, which
makes justification to take place in this life in the moment of effectual
calling, by which the sinner is transferred from a state of sin to a state
of grace, and is united to Christ, his head, by faith. For hence it is
that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to him by God, by whose merit
apprehended by faith he is absolved from his sins, and obtains a right
to life: which absolving sentence the Spirit pronounces
103

in his heart, when he says, Be of good courage, son, thy sins are pardoned.

Further, this justification can be regarded in different ways. 1. Actively,

in the part of God intimating by the Spirit the absolving sentence in the
heart of the believer, and judicially from the throne of grace, Heb. 4:16,
pronouncing it upon us, and passively, on our part, inasmuch as we admit
and receive that absolving sentence delivered in the court of conscience
by the Holy Spirit with faith, joy, and the protestation of gratitude.
Secondly, universally as to state, when we are first received into union
with Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us, passing from a state

of sin into a state of grace, the guilt of all preceding sins is actually
taken away, and a remedy given to us in the righteousness of Christ against
future sins, and specially as to particular acts of sins, into which we
afterwards fall, which also need a particular absolution: which as often
as it is intimated to us in the court of conscience, so often the believer
is by repentance turned again to God, and by faith applies to himself
Christs righteousness. In this sense we are commanded to seek remission
of sins every day, not only with regard to the sense, but also with regard
to the thing itself, because sins cannot be forgiven unless committed,
as we remarked before.
Thirdly, justification can be viewed in a twofold aspect, either as to
the eternal destination in the decree, in which sense grace is said to
have been given to us in Christ before the world began, 2 Tim. 1:9, and
God is said to have predestinated us unto the adoption in time; which again
can be regarded, either as to obtainment, which was made by the death of
Christ on the cross, referred to in Rom. 5:9, 10, we were justified and
reconciled to God by the blood of Christ,
104

and Christ reconciled all things to God through the blood of the cross, Col. 1:20.
And elsewhere Christ is said to have been raised again for our justification, Rom.
4:25, because as in him dead, we are dead, so in him raised and justified, we are
justified, that is, we have a sure and indubitable pledge and foundation of our
justification, because for no other cause was he justified by the Spirit, 1 Tim. 3:16,
except that we might be justified in him. Nor in a different sense does Paul say, 2
Cor. 5:19, God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing
their trespasses unto them, to wit, inasmuch as in Christ dying the Father had
the foundation of reconciliation, by which he was made more propitious to the
world of the elect, collected as well from Jews as from the Gentiles, so that he
does not impute to them their sins, which he imputed to Christ, but by absolving
them from their sins, he may justify them also in him. Or as to application, which
is made in the heart by an intimation of the absolving sentence, referred to in
Matt. 9:2. Or in general as to the state of the believer, when he is first called, or in
particular as to the act, when he obtains the pardon of particular sins. Or as to the
sense and certainty of it, arising in us from a reflex act of faith, called consolatory.
Or, finally, as to its declaration, which should be made immediately after death,
Heb. 9:27, and publicly on the last day, which is not so much justification as a
solemn declaration of the justification once made, and an adjudication of the
reward, in accordance with the preceding justification.

Hence it is evident, in what sense justification can be called an

individual act; not on our part, and with respect to the sense of it, which
is produced by various and repeated acts, according as this sense can be

interrupted, or increased, or diminished, by reason of interfering sins;

but on the part of God, not only by reason of his decree, by which our
justification
105

was decreed, and by reason of his merit, by which he obtained it, but also by
reason of the application, when the absolving sentence is intimated to us, which is
done by a unique act, not by many successively, just as inherent righteousness is
wont to be infused into us; although this act is often applied to particular
every-day sins.

107

10.
The Unity of Justification
Unity, perfection and certainty are the three principal adjuncts of justification,
concerning which disputes exist. Of these we must speak briefly, because we have
elsewhere discussed them partially.

Unity can be regarded in two ways, either relatively to believers among

themselves, or absolutely, with respect to him who is justified. In the
former sense it is said to be one in species, or equal in all believers
of all times and places, because God justifies all believers in the same
manner, viz., by his grace, and the merit of Christ through faith. Seeing
it is one God, says the apostle, Rom. 3:30, which shall justify the
circumcision by faith and the circumcision through faith, that is, who
justifies the Jews as well as the Gentiles by faith. For since all are
obnoxious to sin and condemnation, ver. 19, and destitute of the glory
of God, ver. 23, there is no other method of justification than by faith,
as the apostle proves fully in the same place, and confirms by the examples
of David and of Abraham, Rom. 4, as also of all the saints of
108

the Old Testament mentioned in Heb. 11, who by faith are said to have pleased
God, ver. 6, and so have obtained that they were righteous, ver. 4, and to have
become heirs of the righteousness which is by faith, ver. 7. Nor either in the Old
or New Testament can there be found any dissimilar example of a person justified
in another way. Whence Peter says, Acts 10:43, To him give all the prophets
witness that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission
of sins and Acts 15:11, through the grace of Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Because Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, Heb. 13:8. He is the Way,
and the Truth and the Life, and no one can come to the Father except by him,
John 14:6.

For the objections brought forward here by the Socinians against the
identity of the justification of the believers of the Old and New Testament,
see Topic 12. Question 5. The Unity of the Covenant of Grace, where they
are discussed.
Now although the same benefit as to substance was common to the believers
of the Old Testament no less than to those of the New, as they had true
remission of sins in and on account of Christ, still, there was a

multiplied difference as to degree and sense, inasmuch as it is far more

clearly revealed and more fully and efficaciously felt by us now, as was
proved in the same place, and in Question 12.
Secondly, the same justification is one numerically in individuals.
Because it is not promoted successively after the manner of sanctification
by repeated acts, but is finished in one judicial act, and brings to the
believer the remission of all sins. Whence the Romanists from their
fictitious hypothesis concerning physical justification by an infusion
of righteousness, falsely make it two-fold, the first, by which a man from
being unjust is made just by an infusion of righteousness, the second,
by which from being just he is made more just by the increase of
righteousness; because the foundation having been
109

once overturned, as was done above, whatever is built upon it falls. Nor does the
passage in Rev. 22:11 favor this error, because, as we have already said, it does not
treat of the infusion of righteousness, but either of the sense and declaration of
righteousness once gained, which is retained by the exercise of righteousness, or
of its special application to every-day sins.

The distinction between active and passive justification points out

indeed the truth of the terms from which and to which, viz., of God who
justifies, and of man who is justified, but does not change the degree
or species. For by the same sentence by which God justified us, while he
intimates it to the conscience, we are also passively justified, when it
is received by us through faith.
The blessing of justification and the right to it differ from the feeling
and the knowledge of it. There is no cutting off or renewal of the former,
because it is a gift without repentance. The latter, however, may be
interrupted and restored, according to the various increases and
decreases of sanctification. And although that sense may be interrupted
in grievous sins, and be recovered by various and repeated acts, still
the blessing of justification remains in him always the same.
Although our justification will be fully declared on the last day, our
good works also being brought forward as the sign of proof of its truth,
Matt. 25, still falsely would any one maintain from this a two-fold gospel
justification, one from faith in this life, which is the first, and the
other and second from works on the day of judgment, as some hold, agreeing
too much with the Romanists on this point. Because the sentence to be
pronounced by the supreme judge will not be so much a new justification,
as the solemn and public declaration of a sentence once passed, and its

execution by the assignment of the life promised with respect to an

innocent
110

person from the preceding justification, so that it is nothing else than an

adjudicatory sentence of the possession of the kingdom of heaven from the right
given before through justification. And if works are then brought forward, they
are not adduced as the foundation of a new justification to be obtained then, but
as signs, marks and effects of our true faith, and of our sole justification by it.

It is one thing to apply justification often and to extend it to sins of

daily occurrence, in which sense we are commanded to seek remission of
sins every day; another, to repeat and renew justification often. The
former we grant, but not the latter. Nor is there need that a new
justification should take place as often as the believer falls into a new
sin. It is sufficient that the justification once made, which if not
formally, contains virtually and generically the remission of all sins,
be applied and extended specifically and determinatively to this or that
sin, by an intimation of the Holy Spirit, and the apprehension of faith.
Although remission of sins ought to be applied often to daily sins, yet
falsely would anyone thence gather that sins once discharged revive and
return again by subsequent sins, as some of the Romanists hold; since it
is an unchangeable gift of God. Nor does the parable of that ungrateful
servant, who, after a greater amount had been yielded to him by his lord,
wished to deal cruelly with his fellow-servant, who owed him far less,
and who on that account was delivered to the tormentors till he should
pay all that was due unto him, which is recorded in Matt. 18:2335, prove
this. Because it pertains to nothing else than to show that the remission
of sins proposed conditionally does not belong to him, in whom the
condition is wanting. The design of the parable, which is to be regarded
here simply, is no other than to teach that the mercy of God is not
exercised towards the unmerciful, nor are sins pardoned by God, except
to those who
111

forgive the offences of others, and to show this the more efficaciously, the lord is
opposed here to his servant an immense sum to a minute, and the highest
clemency to extreme inhumanity.

2. Perfection belongs to justification, according to which it is so full

and absolute intensively, both with respect to evils taken away and
blessings acquired, that it is free as to itself from increase or decrease,
nor does it admit of more and less, although as to the apprehension and

sense of it, our faith advances so gradually as to have even its

progressions and defects. Nor if the faith by which we are justified is
active and remitted, does it follow that justification itself is equally
intermittent, because it does not justify by itself and properly, but only
instrumentally and relatively, as the beholding of the brazen serpent did
not cease equally to heal, although some looked at it more intently and
strongly than others.
3. Its certainty is twofold: one, of the object in itself by the
immutability and perseverance, by which God never recalls the pardon once
given, on account of the immutability of his grace, justice and promise
confirmed by an oath, Heb. 6:17, 18. For the gifts of God bestowed upon
the elect, and the calling according to his purpose, are without
repentance, Rom. 11:29. Whence God never condemns and disinherits those
whom he has once justified and made heirs. The other is the certainty of
the subject, which refers to the sense of justification, which although
it is possible from the nature of faith, yea, even necessary to bring peace
and consolation to our souls, still is not always in the same degree, but
more perfect or imperfect according to the proportion of faith, so that
there never was a believer, not even excepting Abraham, Gen. 17:17, nor
David, Ps. 42:5, 11, who did not have to struggle with doubts concerning
grace. Now each of these certainties belong to justification has already
been shown fully, when we discussed the perseverance and certainty of
faith, Topic 15. Questions 16 and 17.