Calvin, Institutes, Vol.3, Part 12
(... continued from part 11)
Chapter 11.
11. Of justification by Faith. Both the name and the reality
defined.
In this chapter and the seven which follow, the doctrine of
Justification by Faith is expounded, and opposite errors refuted.
The following may be regarded as the arrangement of these chapters:
- Chapter 11 states the doctrine, and the four subsequent chapters,
by destroying the righteousness of works, confirm the righteousness
of faith, each in the order which appears in the respective titles
of these chapters. In Chapter 12 the doctrine of Justification is
confirmed by a description of perfect righteousness; in Chapter 13
by calling attention to two precautions; in Chapter 14 by a
consideration of the commencement and progress of regeneration in
the regenerate; and in Chapter 15 by two very pernicious effects
which constantly accompany the righteousness of works. The three
other chapters are devoted to refutation; Chapter 16 disposes of the
objections of opponents; Chapter 17 replies to the arguments drawn
from the promises of the Law or the Gospel; Chapter 18 refutes what
is said in support of the righteousness of faith from the promise of
reward.
There are three principal divisions in the Eleventh Chapter. I.
The terms used in this discussion are explained, sec. 1-4. II.
Osiander's dream as to essential righteousness impugned, sec. 5-13.
III. The righteousness of faith established in opposition to the
righteousness of works.
Sections.
1. Connection between the doctrine of Justification and that of
Regeneration. The knowledge of this doctrine very necessary for
two reasons.
2. For the purpose of facilitating the exposition of it, the terms
are explained. 1. What it is to be justified in the sight of
God. 2. To be justified by works. 3. To be justified by faith.
Definition.
3. Various meanings of the term Justification. 1. To give praise to
God and truth. 2. To make a vain display of righteousness. 3.
To impute righteousness by faith, by and on account of Christ.
Confirmation from an expression of Paul, and another of our
Lord.
4. Another confirmation from a comparison with other expressions, in
which justification means free righteousness before God through
faith in Jesus Christ. 1. Acceptance. 2. Imputation of
righteousness. 3. Remission of sins. 4. Blessedness. 5.
Reconciliation with God. 6. Righteousness by the obedience of
Christ.
5. The second part of the chapter. Osiander's dream as to essential
righteousness refuted. 1. Osiander's argument: Answer. 2.
Osiander's second argument: Answer. Third argument: Answer.
6. necessity of this refutation. Fourth argument: Answer.
Confirmation: Another answer. Fifth and sixth arguments and
answers.
7. Seventh and eighth arguments.
8. Ninth argument: Answer.
9. Tenth argument: Answer.
10. In what sense Christ is said to be our righteousness. Eleventh
and twelfth arguments and answers.
11. Thirteenth and fourteenth arguments: Answers. An exception by
Osiander. Imputed and begun righteousness to be distinguished.
Osiander confounds them. Fifteenth argument: Answer.
lo. Sixteenth argument, a dream of Osiander: Answer. Other four
arguments and answers. Conclusion of the refutation of
Osiander's errors.
13. Last part of the chapter. Refutation of the Sophists pretending
a righteousness compounded partly of faith and partly of works.
14. Sophistical evasion by giving the same name to different things:
Two answers.
15. Second evasion: Two answers. First answer. Pernicious
consequences resulting from this evasion.
16. Second answer, showing wherein, according to Scripture,
Justification consists.
17. In explanation of this doctrine of Justification, two passages
of Scripture produced.
18. Another passage of Scripture.
19. Third evasion. Papistical objection to the doctrine of
Justification by Faith alone: Three answers. Fourth evasion:
Three answers.
20. Fifth evasion, founded on the application of the term
Righteousness to good works, and also on their reward: Answer,
confirmed by the invincible argument of Paul. Sixth evasion:
Answer.
21. Osiander and the Sophists being thus refuted, the accuracy of
the definition of Justification by Faith established.
22. Definition confirmed. 1. By passages of Scripture. 2. By the
writings of the ancient Fathers.
23. Man justified by faith, not because by it he obtains the Spirit,
and is thus made righteous, but because by faith he lays hold
of the righteousness of Christ. An objection removed. An
example of the doctrine of Justification by Faith from the
works of Ambrose.
1. I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man's only
resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering
salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what
the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The
whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of
God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we
obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by
the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an
indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we
aspire to integrity and purity of life. This second benefit, viz.,
regeneration, appears to have been already sufficiently discussed.
On the other hand, the subject of justification was discussed more
cursorily, because it seemed of more consequence first to explain
that the faith by which alone, through the mercy of God, we obtain
free justification, is not destitute of good works; and also to show
the true nature of these good works on which this question partly
turns. The doctrine of Justification is now to be fully discussed,
and discussed under the conviction, that as it is the principal
ground on which religion must be supported, so it requires greater
care and attention. For unless you understand first of all what your
position is before God, and what the judgment which he passes upon
you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or
on which piety towards God can be reared. The necessity of
thoroughly understanding this subject will become more apparent as
we proceed with it.
2. Lest we should stumble at the very threshold, (this we
should do were we to begin the discussion without knowing what the
subject is,) let us first explain the meaning of the expressions, To
be justified in the sight of God, to be Justified by faith or by
works. A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the
judgment of God he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account
of his righteousness; for as iniquity is abominable to God, so
neither can the sinner find grace in his sight, so far as he is and
so long as he is regarded as a sinner. Hence, wherever sin is, there
also are the wrath and vengeance of God. He, on the other hand, is
justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as
such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners
are condemned. As an innocent man, when charged before an impartial
judge, who decides according to his innocence, is said to be
justified by the judge, as a man is said to be justified by God
when, removed from the catalogue of sinners, he has God as the
witness and assertor of his righteousness. In the same manner, a man
will be said to be justified by works, if in his life there can be
found a purity and holiness which merits an attestation of
righteousness at the throne of God, or if by the perfection of his
works he can answer and satisfy the divine justice. On the contrary,
a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the
righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness
of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a
sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as
the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we
were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the
forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ, (see sec. 21 and 23.)
3. In confirmation of this there are many clear passages of
Scripture. First, it cannot be denied that this is the proper and
most usual signification of the term. But as it were too tedious to
collect all the passages, and compare them with each other, let it
suffice to have called the reader's attention to the fact: he will
easily convince himself of its truth. I will only mention a few
passages in which the justification of which we speak is expressly
handled. First, when Luke relates that all the people that heard
Christ "justified God," (Luke 7: 29,) and when Christ declares, that
"Wisdom is justified of all her children," (Luke 7: 35,) Luke means
not that they conferred righteousness which always dwells in
perfection with God, although the whole world should attempt to
wrest it from him, nor does Christ mean that the doctrine of
salvation is made just: this it is in its own nature; but both modes
of expression are equivalent to attributing due praise to God and
his doctrine. On the other hand, when Christ upbraids the Pharisees
for justifying themselves, (Luke 16: 15,) he means not that they
acquired righteousness by acting properly, but that they ambitiously
courted a reputation for righteousness of which they were destitute.
Those acquainted with Hebrew understand the meaning better: for in
that language the name of wicked is given not only to those who are
conscious of wickedness, but to those who receive sentence of
condemnation. Thus, when Bathsheba says, "I and my son Solomon shall
be counted offenders," she does not acknowledge a crime, but
complains that she and her son will be exposed to the disgrace of
being numbered among reprobates and criminals, (1 Kings 1: 21.) It
is, indeed, plain from the context, that the term even in Latin must
be thus understood, viz., relatively, and does not denote any
quality. In regard to the use of the term with reference to the
present subject, when Paul speaks of the Scripture, "foreseeing that
God would justify the heathen through faith," (Gal. 3: 8,) what
other meaning can you give it than that God imputes righteousness by
faith? Again, when he says, "that he (God) might be just, and the
justifier of him who believeth in Jesus," (Rom. 3: 26,) what can the
meaning be, if not that God, in consideration of their faith, frees
them from the condemnation which their wickedness deserves? This
appears still more plainly at the conclusion, when he exclaims, "Who
shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that
justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea
rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God,
who also maketh intercession for us, (Rom. 8: 33, 34.) For it is
just as if he had said, Who shall accuse those whom God has
acquitted? Who shall condemn those for whom Christ pleads? To
justify therefore, is nothing else than to acquit from the charge of
guilt, as if innocence were proved. Hence, when God justifies us
through the intercession of Christ, he does not acquit us on a proof
of our own innocence, but by an imputation of righteousness, so that
though not righteous in ourselves, we are deemed righteous in
Christ. Thus it is said, in Paul's discourse in the Acts, "Through
this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him
all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could
not be justified by the law of Moses," (Acts 13: 38, 39.) You see
that after remission of sins justification is set down by way of
explanation; you see plainly that it is used for acquittal; you see
how it cannot be obtained by the works of the law; you see that it
is entirely through the interposition of Christ; you see that it is
obtained by faith; you see, in fine, that satisfaction intervenes,
since it is said that we are justified from our sins by Christ. Thus
when the publican is said to have gone down to his house
"justified," (Luke 18: 14,) it cannot be held that he obtained this
justification by any merit of works. All that is said is, that after
obtaining the pardon of sins he was regarded in the sight of God as
righteous. He was justified, therefore, not by any approval of
works, but by gratuitous acquittal on the part of God. Hence Ambrose
elegantly terms confession of sins "legal justification," (Ambrose
on Psalm 118 Serm. 10).
4. Without saying more about the term, we shall have no doubt
as to the thing meant if we attend to the description which is given
of it. For Paul certainly designates justification by the term
acceptance, when he says to the Ephesians, "Having predestinated us
unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according
to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his
grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the Beloved," (Eph. 1: 5,
6.) His meaning is the very same as where he elsewhere says, "being
justified freely by his grace," (Rom. 3: 24.) In the fourth chapter
of the Epistle to the Romans, he first terms it the imputation of
righteousness, and hesitates not to place it in forgiveness of sins:
"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom
God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they
whose iniquities are forgiven," &c., (Rom. 4: 6-8.) There, indeed,
he is not speaking of a part of justification, but of the whole. He
declares, moreover, that a definition of it was given by David, when
he pronounced him blessed who has obtained the free pardon of his
sins. Whence it appears that this righteousness of which he speaks
is simply opposed to judicial guilt. But the most satisfactory
passage on this subject is that in which he declares the sum of the
Gospel message to be reconciliation to God, who is pleased, through
Christ, to receive us into favor by not imputing our sins, (2 Cor.
5: 18-21.) Let my readers carefully weigh the whole context. For
Paul shortly after adding, by way of explanation, in order to
designate the mode of reconciliation, that Christ who knew no sin
was made sin for us, undoubtedly understands by reconciliation
nothing else than justification. Nor, indeed, could it be said, as
he elsewhere does, that we are made righteous "by the obedience" of
Christ, (Rom. 5: 19,) were it not that we are deemed righteous in
the sight of God in him and not in ourselves.
5. But as Osiander has introduced a kind of monstrosity termed
essential righteousness, by which, although he designed not to
abolish free righteousness, he involves it in darkness, and by that
darkness deprives pious minds of a serious sense of divine grace;
before I pass to other matters, it may be proper to refute this
delirious dream. And, first, the whole speculation is mere empty
curiosity. He indeed, heaps together many passages of scripture
showing that Christ is one with us, and we likewise one with him, a
point which needs no proof; but he entangles himself by not
attending to the bond of this unity. The explanation of all
difficulties is easy to us, who hold that we are united to Christ by
the secret agency of his Spirit, but he had formed some idea akin to
that of the Manichees, desiring to transfuse the divine essence into
men. Hence his other notion, that Adam was formed in the image of
God, because even before the fall Christ was destined to be the
model of human nature. But as I study brevity, I will confine myself
to the matter in hand. He says, that we are one with Christ. This we
admit, but still we deny that the essence of Christ is confounded
with ours. Then we say that he absurdly endeavors to support his
delusions by means of this principle: that Christ is our
righteousness, because he is the eternal God, the fountain of
righteousness, the very righteousness of God. My readers will pardon
me for now only touching on matters which method requires me to
defer to another place. But although he pretends that, by the term
essential righteousness, he merely means to oppose the sentiment
that we are reputed righteous on account of Christ, he however
clearly shows, that not contented with that righteousness, which was
procured for us by the obedience and sacrificial death of Christ, he
maintains that we are substantially righteous in God by an infused
essence as well as quality. For this is the reason why he so
vehemently contends that not only Christ but the Father and the
Spirit dwell in us. The fact I admit to be true, but still I
maintain it is wrested by him. He ought to have attended to the mode
of dwelling, viz., that the Father and the Spirit are in Christ; and
as in him the fulness of the Godhead dwells, so in him we possess
God entire. Hence, whatever he says separately concerning the Father
and the Spirit, has no other tendency than to lead away the simple
from Christ. Then he introduces a substantial mixture, by which God,
transfusing himself into us, makes us as it were a part of himself.
Our being made one with Christ by the agency of the Spirit, he being
the head and we the members, he regards as almost nothing unless his
essence is mingled with us. But, as I have said, in the case of the
Father and the Spirit, he more clearly betrays his views, namely,
that we are not justified by the mere grace of the Mediator, and
that righteousness is not simply or entirely offered to us in his
person, but that we are made partakers of divine righteousness when
God is essentially united to us.
6. Had he only said, that Christ by justifying us becomes ours
by an essential union, and that he is our head not only in so far as
he is man, but that as the essence of the divine nature is diffused
into us, he might indulge his dreams with less harm, and, perhaps,
it were less necessary to contest the matter with him; but since
this principle is like a cuttle-fish, which, by the ejection of dark
and inky blood, conceals its many tails, if we would not knowingly
and willingly allow ourselves to be robbed of that righteousness
which alone gives us full assurance of our salvation, we must
strenuously resist. For, in the whole of this discussion, the noun
righteousness and the verb to justify, are extended by Osiander to
two parts; to be justified being not only to be reconciled to God by
a free pardon, but also to be made just; and righteousness being not
a free imputation, but the holiness and integrity which the divine
essence dwelling in us inspires. And he vehemently asserts (see sec.
8) that Christ is himself our righteousness, not in so far as he, by
expiating sins, appeased the Father, but because he is the eternal
God and life. To prove the first point, viz., that God justifies not
only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves
those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change
upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be
divided into parts, so the two things, justification and
sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are
inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he
presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew
into his image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated
from its heat, are we therefore to say, that the earth is warmed by
light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the
matter in hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and
fertilizes the earth; by its rays enlightens and illumines it. Here
is a mutual and undivided connection, and yet reason itself
prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to
the other. In the confusion of a twofold grace, which Osiander
obtrudes upon us, there is a similar absurdity. Because those whom
God freely regards as righteous, he in fact renews to the
cultivation of righteousness, Osiander confounds that free
acceptance with this gift of regeneration, and contends that they
are one and the same. But Scriptures while combining both, classes
them separately, that it may the better display the manifold grace
of God. Nor is Paul's statement superfluous, that Christ is made
unto us "righteousness and sanctification," (1 Cor. 1: 30.) And
whenever he argues from the salvation procured for us, from the
paternal love of God and the grace of Christ, that we are called to
purity and holiness, he plainly intimates, that to be justified is
something else than to be made new creatures. Osiander on coming to
Scripture corrupts every passage which he quotes. Thus when Paul
says, "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," he expounds
justifying as making just. With the same rashness he perverts the
whole of the fourth chapter to the Romans. He hesitates not to give
a similar gloss to the passage which I lately quoted, "Who shall lay
any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth."
Here it is plain that guilt and acquittal simply are considered, and
that the Apostle's meaning depends on the antithesis. Therefore his
futility is detected both in his argument and his quotations for
support from Scripture. He is not a whit sounder in discussing the
term righteousness, when it is said, that faith was imputed to
Abraham for righteousness after he had embraced Christ, (who is the
righteousness of Gad and God himself) and was distinguished by
excellent virtues. Hence it appears that two things which are
perfect are viciously converted by him into one which is corrupt.
For the righteousness which is there mentioned pertains not to the
whole course of life; or rather, the Spirit testifies, that though
Abraham greatly excelled in virtue, and by long perseverance in it
had made so much progress, the only way in which he pleased God was
by receiving the grace which was offered by the promise, in faith.
From this it follows, that, as Paul justly maintains, there is no
room for works in justification.
7. When he objects that the power of justifying exists not in
faith, considered in itself, but only as receiving Christ, I
willingly admit it. For did faith justify of itself, or (as it is
expressed) by its own intrinsic virtue, as it is always weak and
imperfect, its efficacy would be partial, and thus our righteousness
being maimed would give us only a portion of salvation. We indeed
imagine nothing of the kind, but say, that, properly speaking, God
alone justifies. The same thing we likewise transfer to Christ,
because he was given to us for righteousness; while we compare faith
to a kind of vessel, because we are incapable of receiving Christ,
unless we are emptied and come with open mouth to receive his grace.
Hence it follows, that we do not withdraw the power of justifying
from Christ, when we hold that, previous to his righteousness, he
himself is received by faith. Still, however, I admit not the
tortuous figure of the sophist, that faith is Christ; as if a vessel
of clay were a treasure, because gold is deposited in it. And yet
this is no reason why faith, though in itself of no dignity or
value, should not justify us by giving Christ; Just as such a vessel
filled with coin may give wealth. I say, therefore, that faith,
which is only the instrument for receiving justification, is
ignorantly confounded with Christ, who is the material cause, as
well as the author and minister of this great blessing. This
disposes of the difficulty, viz., how the term faith is to be
understood when treating of justification.
8. Osiander goes still farther in regard to the mode of
receiving Christ, holding, that by the ministry of the external word
the internal word is received; that he may thus lead us away from
the priesthood of Christ, and his office of Mediator, to his eternal
divinity. We, indeed, do not divide Christ, but hold that he who,
reconciling us to God in his flesh, bestowed righteousness upon us,
is the eternal Word of God; and that he could not perform the office
of Mediator, nor acquire righteousness for us, if he were not the
eternal God. Osiander will have it, that as Christ is God and man,
he was made our righteousness in respect not of his human but of his
divine nature. But if this is a peculiar property of the Godhead, it
will not be peculiar to Christ, but common to him with the Father
and the Spirit, since their righteousness is one and the same. Thus
it would be incongruous to say, that that which existed naturally
from eternity was made ours. But granting that God was made unto us
righteousness, what are we to make of Paul's interposed statement,
that he was so made by God? This certainly is peculiar to the office
of mediator, for although he contains in himself the divine nature,
yet he receives his own proper title, that he may be distinguished
from the Father and the Spirit. But he makes a ridiculous boast of a
single passage of Jeremiah, in which it is said, that Jehovah will
be our righteousness, (Jer. 23: 6; 33: 16.) But all he can extract
from this is, that Christ, who is our righteousness, was God
manifest in the flesh. We have elsewhere quoted from Paul's
discourse, that God purchased the Church with his own blood, (Acts
20: 28.) Were any one to infer from this that the blood by which
sins were expiated was divine, and of a divine nature, who could
endure so foul a heresy? But Osiander, thinking that he has gained
the whole cause by this childish cavil, swells, exults, and stuffs
whole pages with his bombast, whereas the solution is simple and
obvious, viz., that Jehovah, when made of the seed of David, was
indeed to be the righteousness of believers, but in what sense
Isaiah declares, "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant
justify many," (Isa. 53: 11.) Let us observe that it is the Father
who speaks. He attributes the office of justifying to the Son, and
adds the reason, - because he is "righteous." He places the method,
or medium, (as it is called,) in the doctrine by which Christ is
known. For the word "da'at" is more properly to be understood in a
passive sense. Hence I infer, first, that Christ was made
righteousness when he assumed the form of a servant; secondly, that
he justified us by his obedience to the Father; and, accordingly
that he does not perform this for us in respect of his divine
nature, but according to the nature of the dispensation laid upon
him. For though God alone is the fountain of righteousness, and the
only way in which we are righteous is by participation with him,
yet, as by our unhappy revolt we are alienated from his
righteousness, it is necessary to descend to this lower remedy, that
Christ may justify us by the power of his death and resurrection.
9. If he objects that this work by its excellence transcends
human, and therefore can only be ascribed to the divine nature; I
concede the former point, but maintain, that on the latter he is
ignorantly deluded. For although Christ could neither purify our
souls by his own blood, nor appease the Father by his sacrifice, nor
acquit us from the charge of guilt, nor, in short, perform the
office of priest, unless he had been very God, because no human
ability was equal to such a burden, it is however certain, that he
performed all these things in his human nature. If it is asked, in
what way we are justified? Paul answers, by the obedience of Christ.
Did he obey in any other way than by assuming the form of a servant?
We infer, therefore, that righteousness was manifested to us in his
flesh. In like manner, in another passage, (which I greatly wonder
that Osiander does not blush repeatedly to quote,) he places the
fountain of righteousness entirely in the incarnation of Christ, "He
has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made
the righteousness of God in him," (2 Cor. 5: 21.) Osiander in turgid
sentences lays hold of the expression, righteousness of God, and
shouts victory! as if he had proved it to be his own phantom of
essential righteousness, though the words have a very different
meaning, viz., that we are justified through the expiation made by
Christ. That the righteousness of God is used for the righteousness
which is approved by God, should be known to mere tyros, as in John,
the praise of God is contrasted with the praise of men, (John 12:
43.) I know that by the righteousness of God is sometimes meant that
of which God is the author, and which he bestows upon us; but that
here the only thing meant is, that being supported by the expiation
of Christ, we are able to stand at the tribunal of God, sound
readers perceive without any observation of mine. The word is not of
so much importance, provided Osiander agrees with us in this, that
we are justified by Christ in respect he was made an expiatory
victim for us. This he could not be in his divine nature. For which
reason also, when Christ would seal the righteousness and salvation
which he brought to us, he holds forth the sure pledge of it in his
flesh. He indeed calls himself "living bread," but, in explanation
of the mode, adds, "my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink
indeed," (John 6: 55.) The same doctrine is clearly seen in the
sacraments; which, though they direct our faith to the whole, not to
a part of Christ, yet, at the same time, declare that the materials
of righteousness and salvation reside in his flesh; not that the
mere man of himself justifies or quickens, but that God was pleased,
by means of a Mediator, to manifest his own hidden and
incomprehensible nature. Hence I often repeat, that Christ has been
in a manner set before us as a fountain, whence we may draw what
would otherwise lie without use in that deep and hidden abyss which
streams forth to us in the person of the Mediator. In this way, and
in this meaning, I deny not that Christ, as he is God and man,
justifies us; that this work is common also to the Father and the
Holy Spirit; in fine, that the righteousness of which God makes us
partakers is the eternal righteousness of the eternal God, provided
effect is given to the clear and valid reasons to which I have
adverted.
10. Moreover, lest by his cavils he deceive the unwary, I
acknowledge that we are devoid of this incomparable gift until
Christ become ours. Therefore, to that union of the head and
members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the
mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes
ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was
endued. Hence we do not view him as at a distance and without us,
but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he
deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in
having a fellowship of righteousness with him. This disposes of
Osiander's calumny, that we regard faith as righteousness; as if we
were robbing Christ of his rights when we say, that, destitute in
ourselves, we draw near to him by faith, to make way for his grace,
that he alone may fill us. But Osiander, spurning this spiritual
union, insists on a gross mixture of Christ with believers; and,
accordingly, to excite prejudice, gives the name of Zwinglians to
all who subscribe not to his fanatical heresy of essential
righteousness, because they do not hold that, in the supper, Christ
is eaten substantially. For my part, I count it the highest honor to
be thus assailed by a haughty man, devoted to his own impostures;
though he assails not me only, but writers of known reputation
throughout the world, and whom it became him modestly to venerate.
This, however, does not concern me, as I plead not my own cause, and
plead the more sincerely that I am free from every sinister feeling.
In insisting so vehemently on essential righteousness, and an
essential inhabitation of Christ within us, his meaning is, first,
that God by a gross mixture transfuses himself into us, as he
pretends that there is a carnal eating in the supper; And, secondly
that by instilling his own righteousness into us, he makes us really
righteous with himself since, according to him, this righteousness
is as well God himself as the probity, or holiness, or integrity of
God. I will not spend much time in disposing of the passages of
Scripture which he adduces, and which, though used in reference to
the heavenly life, he wrests to our present state. Peter says, that
through the knowledge of Christ "are given unto us exceeding great
and precious promises, that by them ye might be partakers of the
divine nature," (2 Pet. 1: 4;) as if we now were what the gospel
promises we shall be at the final advent of Christ; nay, John
reminds us, that "when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we
shall see him as he is", (1 John 3: 2.) I only wished to give my
readers a slender specimen of Osiander, it being my intention to
decline the discussion of his frivolities, not because there is any
difficulty in disposing of them, but because I am unwilling to annoy
the reader with superfluous labour.
11. But more poison lurks in the second branch, when he says
that we are righteous together with God. I think I have already
sufficiently proved, that although the dogma were not so
pestiferous, yet because it is frigid and jejune, and falls by its
own vanity, it must justly be disrelished by all sound and pious
readers. But it is impossible to tolerate the impiety which, under
the pretence of a twofold righteousness, undermines our assurance of
salvation, and hurrying us into the clouds, tries to prevent us from
embracing the gift of expiation in faith, and invoking God with
quiet minds. Osiander derides us for teaching, that to be justified
is a forensic term, because it behaves us to be in reality just:
there is nothing also to which he is more opposed than the idea of
our being justified by a free imputation. Say, then, if God does not
justify us by acquitting and pardoning, what does Paul mean when he
says "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not
imputing their trespasses unto them"? "He made him to be sin for us
who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in
him," (2 Cor. 5: 19, 21.) Here I learn, first, that those who are
reconciled to God are regarded as righteous: then the method is
stated, God justifies by pardoning; and hence, in another place,
justification is opposed to accusation, (Rom. 8: 33;) this
antithesis clearly demonstrating that the mode of expression is
derived from forensic use. And, indeed, no man, moderately verdant
in the Hebrew tongue, (provided he is also of sedate brain,) is
ignorant that this phrase thus took its rise, and thereafter derived
its tendency and force. Now, then, when Paul says that David
"describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth
righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose
iniquities are forgiven," (Rom. 4: 6, 7; Ps. 32: 1,) let Osiander
say whether this is a complete or only a partial definition. He
certainly does not adduce the Psalmist as a witness that pardon of
sins is a part of righteousness, or concurs with something else in
justifying, but he includes the whole of righteousness in gratuitous
forgiveness, declaring those to be blessed "whose iniquities are
forgiven, and whose sins are covered," and "to whom the Lord will
not impute sin." He estimates and judges of his happiness from this
that in this way he is righteous not in reality, but by imputation.
Osiander objects that it would be insulting to God, and
contrary to his nature, to justify those who still remain wicked.
But it ought to be remembered, as I already observed, that the gift
of justification is not separated from regeneration, though the two
things are distinct. But as it is too well known by experience, that
the remains of sin always exist in the righteous, it is necessary
that justification should be something very different from
reformation to newness of life. This latter God begins in his elect,
and carries on during the whole course of life, gradually and
sometimes slowly, so that if placed at his judgment-seat they would
always deserve sentence of death. He justifies not partially, but
freely, so that they can appear in the heavens as if clothed with
the purity of Christ. No portion of righteousness could pacify the
conscience. It must be decided that we are pleasing to God, as being
without exception righteous in his sight. Hence it follows that the
doctrine of justification is perverted and completely overthrown
whenever doubt is instilled into the mind, confidence in salvation
is shaken, and free and intrepid prayer is retarded; yea, whenever
rest and tranquillity with spiritual joy are not established. Hence
Paul argues against objectors, that "if the inheritance be of the
law, it is no more of promise," (Gal. 3: 18.) that in this way faith
would be made vain; for if respect be had to works it fails, the
holiest of men in that case finding nothing in which they can
confide. This distinction between justification and regeneration
(Osiander confounding the two, calls them a twofold righteousness)
is admirably expressed by Paul. Speaking of his real righteousness,
or the integrity bestowed upon him, (which Osiander terms his
essential righteousness,) he mournfully exclaims, "O wretched man
that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom.
7: 24;) but retaking himself to the righteousness which is founded
solely on the mercy of God, he breaks forth thus magnificently into
the language of triumph: "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of
God's elect? It is God that justifieth." "Who shall separate us from
the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution,
or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?" (Rom. 8: 33, 35.) He
clearly declares that the only righteousness for him is that which
alone suffices for complete salvation in the presence of God, so
that that miserable bondage, the consciousness of which made him a
little before lament his lot, derogates not from his confidence, and
is no obstacle in his way. This diversity is well known, and indeed
is familiar to all the saints who groan under the burden of sin, and
yet with victorious assurance rise above all fears. Osiander's
objection as to its being inconsistent with the nature of God, falls
back upon himself; for though he clothes the saints with a twofold
righteousness as with a coat of skins, he is, however, forced to
admit, that without forgiveness no man is pleasing to God. If this
be so, let him at least admit, that with reference to what is called
the proportion of imputation, those are regarded as righteous who
are not so in reality. But how far shall the sinner extend this
gratuitous acceptance, which is substituted in the room of
righteousness? Will it amount to the whole pound, or will it be only
an ounce? He will remain in doubt, vibrating to this side and to
that, because he will be unable to assume to himself as much
righteousness as will be necessary to give confidence. It is well
that he who would prescribe a law to God is not the judge in this
cause. But this saying will ever stand true, "That thou mightest be
justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judges," (Ps.
51: 4.) What arrogance to condemn the Supreme Judge when he acquits
freely, and try to prevent the response from taking affect: "I will
have mercy on whom I will have mercy." And yet the intercession of
Moses, which God calmed by this answer, was not for pardon to some
individual, but to all alike, by wiping away the guilt to which all
were liable. And we, indeed, say, that the lost are justified before
God by the burial of their sins; for (as he hates sin) he can only
love those whom he justifies. But herein is the wondrous method of
justification, that, clothed with the righteousness of Christ, they
dread not the judgment of which they are worthy, and while they
justly condemn themselves, are yet deemed righteous out of
themselves.
12. I must admonish the reader carefully to attend to the
mystery which he boasts he is unwilling to conceal from them. For
after contending with great prolixity that we do not obtain favor
with God through the mere imputation of the righteousness of Christ,
because (to use his own words) it were impossible for God to hold
those as righteous who are not so, he at length concludes that
Christ was given to us for righteousness, in respect not of his
human, but of his divine nature; and though this can only be found
in the person of the Mediator, it is, however, the righteousness not
of man, but of God. He does not now twist his rope of two
righteousnesses, but plainly deprives the human nature of Christ of
the office of justifying. It is worth while to understand what the
nature of his argument is. It is said in the same passage that
Christ is made unto us wisdom, (1 Cor. 1: 30;) but this is true only
of the eternal Word, and, therefore, it is not the man Christ that
is made righteousness. I answer, that the only begotten Son of God
was indeed his eternal wisdom, but that this title is applied to him
by Paul in a different way, viz., because "in him are hid all the
treasures of wisdom and righteousness," (Col. 2: 3.) That,
therefore, which he had with the Father he manifested to us; and
thus Paul's expression refers not to the essence of the Son of God,
but to our use, and is fitly applied to the human nature of Christ;
for although the light shone in darkness before he was clothed with
flesh, yet he was a hidden light until he appeared in human nature
as the Sun of Righteousness, and hence he calls himself the light of
the world. It is also foolishly objected by Osiander, that
justifying far transcends the power both of men and angels, since it
depends not on the dignity of any creature, but on the ordination of
God. Were angels to attempt to give satisfaction to God, they could
have no success, because they are not appointed for this purpose, it
being the peculiar office of Christ, who "has redeemed us from the
curse of the law, being made a curse for us," (Gal. 3: 13.) Those
who deny that Christ is our righteousness, in respect of his divine
nature, are wickedly charged by Osiander with leaving only a part of
Christ, and (what is worse) with making two Gods; because, while
admitting that God dwells in us, they still insist that we are not
justified by the righteousness of God. For though we call Christ the
author of life, inasmuch as he endured death that he might destroy
him who had the power of death, (Heb. 2: 14,) we do not thereby rob
him of this honor, in his whole character as God manifested in the
flesh. We only make a distinction as to the manner in which the
righteousness of God comes to us, and is enjoyed by us, - a matter
as to which Osiander shamefully erred. We deny not that that which
was openly exhibited to us in Christ flowed from the secret grace
and power of God; nor do we dispute that the righteousness which
Christ confers upon us is the righteousness of God, and proceeds
from him. What we constantly maintain is, that our righteousness and
life are in the death and resurrection of Christ. I say nothing of
that absurd accumulation of passages with which without selection or
common understanding, he has loaded his readers, in endeavoring to
show, that whenever mention is made of righteousness, this essential
righteousness of his should be understood; as when David implores
help from the righteousness of God. This David does more than a
hundred times, and as often Osiander hesitates not to pervert his
meaning. Not a whit more solid is his objection, that the name of
righteousness is rightly and properly applied to that by which we
are moved to act aright, but that it is God only that worketh in us
both to will and to do, (Phil. 2: 13.) For we deny not that God by
his Spirit forms us anew to holiness and righteousness of life; but
we must first see whether he does this of himself, immediately, or
by the hand of his Son, with whom he has deposited all the fulness
of the Holy Spirit, that out of his own abundance he may supply the
wants of his members. When, although righteousness comes to us from
the secret fountain of the Godhead, it does not follow that Christ,
who sanctified himself in the flesh on our account, is our
righteousness in respect of his divine nature, (John 17: 19.) Not
less frivolous is his observation, that the righteousness with which
Christ himself was righteous was divine; for had not the will of the
Father impelled him, he could not have fulfilled the office assigned
him. For although it has been elsewhere said that all the merits of
Christ flow from the mere good pleasure of God, this gives no
countenance to the phantom by which Osiander fascinates both his own
eyes and those of the simple. For who will allow him to infer, that
because God is the source and commencement of our righteousness, we
are essentially righteous, and the essence of the divine
righteousness dwells in us? In redeeming us, says Isaiah, "he (God)
put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation
upon his head," (Isaiah 59: 17,) was this to deprive Christ of the
armour which he had given him, and prevent him from being a perfect
Redeemer? All that the Prophet meant was, that God borrowed nothing
from an external quarter, that in redeeming us he received no
external aid. The same thing is briefly expressed by Paul in
different terms, when he says that God set him forth "to declare his
righteousness for the remission of sins." This is not the least
repugnant to his doctrine: in another place, that "by the obedience
of one shall many be made righteous," (Rom. 5: 19.) In short, every
one who, by the entanglement of a twofold righteousness, prevents
miserable souls from resting entirely on the mere mercy of God,
mocks Christ by putting on him a crown of plaited thorns.
13. But since a great part of mankind imagine a righteousness
compounded of faith and works let us here show that there is so wide
a difference between justification by faith and by works, that the
establishment of the one necessarily overthrows the other. The
Apostle says, "Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for
the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I
have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung,
that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own
righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the
faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith," (Phil.
3: 8, 9.) You here see a comparison of contraries, and an intimation
that every one who would obtain the righteousness of Christ must
renounce his own. Hence he elsewhere declares the cause of the
rejection of the Jews to have been, that "they being ignorant of
God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own
righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness
of God," (Rom. 10: 3.) If we destroy the righteousness of God by
establishing our own righteousness, then, in order to obtain his
righteousness, our own must be entirely abandoned. This also he
shows, when he declares that boasting is not excluded by the Law,
but by faith, (Rom. 3: 27.) Hence it follows, that so long as the
minutes portion of our own righteousness remains, we have still some
ground for boasting. Now if faith utterly excludes boasting, the
righteousness of works cannot in any way be associated with the
righteousness of faith. This meaning is so clearly expressed in the
fourth chapter to the Romans as to leave no room for cavil or
evasion. "If Abraham were justified by works he has whereof to
glory;" and then it is added, "but not before God," (Rom. 4: 2.) The
conclusion, therefore, is, that he was not justified by works. He
then employs another argument from contraries, viz., when reward is
paid to works, it is done of debt, not of grace; but the
righteousness of faith is of grace: therefore it is not of the merit
of works. Away, then, with the dream of those who invent a
righteousness compounded of faith and works, (see Calvin. ad
Concilium Tridentinum.)
14. The Sophists, who delight in sporting with Scripture and in
empty cavils, think they have a subtle evasion when they expound
works to mean, such as unregenerated men do literally, and by the
effect of free will, without the grace of Christ, and deny that
these have any reference to spiritual works. Thus according to them,
man is justified by faith as well as by works, provided these are
not his own works, but gifts of Christ and fruits of regeneration;
Paul's only object in so expressing himself being to convince the
Jews, that in trusting to their ohm strength they foolishly
arrogated righteousness to themselves, whereas it is bestowed upon
us by the Spirit of Christ alone, and not by studied efforts of our
own nature. But they observe not that in the antithesis between
Legal and Gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all
kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded, (Gal. 3:
11, 12.) For he says that the righteousness of the Law consists in
obtaining salvation by doing what the Law requires, but that the
righteousness of faith consists in believing that Christ died and
rose again, (Rom. 10: 5-9.) Moreover, we shall afterwards see, at
the proper place, that the blessings of sanctification and
justification, which we derive from Christ, are different. Hence it
follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into account when
the power of justifying is ascribed to faith. And, indeed, the
passage above quoted, in which Paul declares that Abraham had no
ground of glorying before God, because he was not justified by
works, ought not to be confined to a literal and external form of
virtue, or to the effort of free will. The meaning is, that though
the life of the Patriarch had been spiritual and almost angelic, yet
he could not by the merit of works have procured justification
before God.
15. The Schoolmen treat the matter somewhat more grossly by
mingling their preparations with it; and yet the others instill into
the simple and unwary a no less pernicious dogma, when, under cover
of the Spirit and grace, they hide the divine mercy, which alone can
give peace to the trembling soul. We, indeed, hold with Paul, that
those who fulfill the Law are justified by God, but because we are
all far from observing the Law, we infer that the works which should
be most effectual to justification are of no avail to us, because we
are destitute of them. In regard to vulgar Papists or Schoolmen,
they are here doubly wrong, both in calling faith assurance of
conscience while waiting to receive from God the reward of merits,
and in interpreting divine grace to mean not the imputation of
gratuitous righteousness, but the assistance of the Spirit in the
study of holiness. They quote from an Apostle: "He that comes to God
must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that
diligently seek him," (Heb. 11: 6.) But they observe not what the
method of seeking is. Then in regard to the term grace, it is plain
from their writings that they labour under a delusion. For Lombard
holds that justification is given to us by Christ in two ways.
"First," says he, (Lombard, Sent. Lib. 3, Dist. 16, c. 11,) "the
death of Christ justifies us when by means of it the love by which
we are made righteous is excited in our hearts; and, secondly, when
by means of it sin is extinguished, sin by which the devil held us
captive, but by which he cannot now procure our condemnation." You
see here that the chief office of divine grace in our justification
he considers to be its directing us to good works by the agency of
the Holy Spirit. He intended, no doubt, to follow the opinion of
Augustine, but he follows it at a distance, and even wanders far
from a true imitation of him both obscuring what was clearly stated
by Augustine, and making what in him was less pure more corrupt. The
Schools have always gone from worse to worse, until at length, in
their downward path, they have degenerated into a kind of
Pelagianism. Even the sentiment of Augustine, or at least his mode
of expressing it, cannot be entirely approved of. For although he is
admirable in stripping man of all merit of righteousness, and
transferring the whole praise of it to God, yet he classes the grace
by which we are regenerated to newness of life under the head of
sanctification.
16. Scripture, when it treats of justification by faith, leads
us in a very different direction. Turning away our view from our own
works, it bids us look only to the mercy of God and the perfection
of Christ. The order of justification which it sets before us is
this: first, God of his mere gratuitous goodness is pleased to
embrace the sinner, in whom he sees nothing that can move him to
mercy but wretchedness, because he sees him altogether naked and
destitute of good works. He, therefore, seeks the cause of kindness
in himself, that thus he may affect the sinner by a sense of his
goodness, and induce him, in distrust of his own works, to cast
himself entirely upon his mercy for salvation. This is the meaning
of faith by which the sinner comes into the possession of salvation,
when, according to the doctrine of the Gospel, he perceives that he
is reconciled by God; when, by the intercession of Christ, he
obtains the pardon of his sins, and is justified; and, though
renewed by the Spirit of God, considers that, instead of leaning on
his own works, he must look solely to the righteousness which is
treasured up for him in Christ. When these things are weighed
separately, they will clearly explain our view, though they may be
arranged in a better order than that in which they are here
presented. But it is of little consequence, provided they are so
connected with each other as to give us a full exposition and solid
confirmation of the whole subject.
17. Here it is proper to remember the relation which we
previously established between faith and the Gospel; faith being
said to justify because it receives and embraces the righteousness
offered in the Gospel. By the very fact of its being said to be
offered by the Gospel, all consideration of works is excluded. This
Paul repeatedly declares, and in two passages, in particular, most
clearly demonstrates. In the Epistle to the Romans, comparing the
Law and the Gospel, he says, "Moses describeth the righteousness
which is of the law, That the man which does those things shall live
by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this
wise, - If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and
shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved," (Rom. 10: 5, 6: 9.) Do you see how he makes
the distinction between the Law and the Gospel to be, that the
former gives justification to works, whereas the latter bestows it
freely without any help from works? This is a notable passage, and
may free us from many difficulties if we understand that the
justification which is given us by the Gospel is free from any terms
of Law. It is for this reason he more than once places the promise
in diametrical opposition to the Law. "If the inheritance be of the
law, it is no more of promise," (Gal. 3: 18.) Expressions of similar
import occur in the same chapter. Undoubtedly the Law also has its
promises; and, therefore, between them and the Gospel promises there
must be some distinction and difference, unless we are to hold that
the comparison is inept. And in what can the difference consist
unless in this that the promises of the Gospel are gratuitous, and
founded on the mere mercy of God, whereas the promises of the Law
depend on the condition of works? But let no pester here allege that
only the righteousness which men would obtrude upon God of their own
strength and free will is repudiated; since Paul declares, without
exceptions that the Law gained nothing by its commands, being such
as none, not only of mankind in general, but none even of the most
perfect, are able to fulfill. Love assuredly is the chief
commandment in the Law, and since the Spirit of God trains us to
love, it cannot but be a cause of righteousness in us, though that
righteousness even in the saints is defective, and therefore of no
value as a ground of merit.
18. The second passage is, "That no man is justified by the law
in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by
faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that does them
shall live in them," (Gal. 3: 11, 12; Hab. 2: 4.) How could the
argument hold unless it be true that works are not to be taken into
account, but are to be altogether separated? The Law, he says, is
different from faith. Why? Because to obtain justification by it,
works are required; and hence it follows, that to obtain
justification by the Gospel they are not required. From this
statement, it appears that those who are justified by faith are
justified independent of, nay, in the absence of, the merit of
works, because faith receives that righteousness which the Gospel
bestows. But the Gospel differs from the Law in this, that it does
not confine justification to works, but places it entirely in the
mercy of God. In like manner, Paul contends, in the Epistle to the
Romans, that Abraham had no ground of glorying, because faith was
imputed to him for righteousness, (Rom. 4: 2;) and he adds in
confirmation, that the proper place for justification by faith is
where there are no works to which reward is due. "To him that
worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." What is
given to faith is gratuitous, this being the force of the meaning of
the words which he there employs. Shortly after he adds, "Therefore
it is of faith, that it might be by grace," (Rom. 4: 16;) and hence
infers that the inheritance is gratuitous because it is procured by
faith. How so but just because faiths without the aid of works leans
entirely on the mercy of God? And in the same sense, doubtless, he
elsewhere teaches, that the righteousness of God without the Law was
manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, (Rom. 3:
21;) for excluding the Law, he declares that it is not aided by
worlds, that we do not obtain it by working, but are destitute when
we draw near to receive it.
19. The reader now perceives with what fairness the Sophists of
the present day cavil at our doctrine, when we say that a man is
justified by faith alone, (Rom. 4: 2.) They dare not deny that he is
justified by faith, seeing Scripture so often declares it; but as
the word alone is nowhere expressly used they will not tolerate its
being added. Is it so? What answer, then will they give to the words
of Paul, when he contends that righteousness is not of faith unless
it be gratuitous? How can it be gratuitous, and yet by works? By
what cavils, moreover, will they evade his declaration in another
place, that in the Gospel the righteousness of God is manifested?
(Rom. 1: 17.) If righteousness is manifested in the Gospel, it is
certainly not a partial or mutilated, but a full and perfect
righteousness. The Law, therefore, has no part in its and their
objection to the exclusive word alone is not only unfounded, but is
obviously absurd. Does he not plainly enough attribute everything to
faith alone when he disconnects it with works? What I would ask, is
meant by the expressions, "The righteousness of God without the law
is manifested;" "Being justified freely by his grace;" "Justified by
faith without the deeds of the law?" (Rom. 3: 21, 24, 28.) Here they
have an ingenious subterfuge, one which, though not of their own
devising but taken from Origin and some ancient writers, is most
childish. They pretend that the works excluded are ceremonial, not
moral works. Such profit do they make by their constant wrangling,
that they possess not even the first elements of logic. Do they
think the Apostle was raving when he produced, in proof of his
doctrine, these passages? "The man that does them shall live in
them," (Gal. 3: 12.) "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all
things that are written in the book of the law to do them," (Gal. 3:
10.) Unless they are themselves raving, they will not say that life
was promised to the observers of ceremonies, and the curse denounced
only against the transgressors of them. If these passages are to be
understood of the Moral Law, there cannot be a doubt that moral
works also are excluded from the power of justifying. To the same
effect are the arguments which he employs. "By the deeds of the law
there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is
the knowledge of sin," (Rom. 3: 20.) "The law worketh wrath," (Rom.
4: 15,) and therefore not righteousness. "The law cannot pacify the
conscience," and therefore cannot confer righteousness. "Faith is
imputed for righteousness," and therefore righteousness is not the
reward of works, but is given without being due. Because "we are
justified by faith," boasting is excluded. "Had there been a law
given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have
been by the law. But the Scripture has concluded all under sin, that
the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that
believe," (Gal. 3: 21, 22.) Let them maintain, if they dare, that
these things apply to ceremonies, and not to morals, and the very
children will laugh at their effrontery. The true conclusion,
therefore, is, that the whole Law is spoken of when the power of
justifying is denied to it.
20. Should any one wonder why the Apostle, not contented with
having named works, employs this addition, the explanation is easy.
However highly works may be estimated, they have their whole value
more from the approbation of God than from their own dignity. For
who will presume to plume himself before God on the righteousness of
works, unless in so far as He approves of them? Who will presume to
demand of Him a reward except in so far as He has promised it? It is
owing entirely to the goodness of God that works are deemed worthy
of the honor and reward of righteousness; and, therefore, their
whole value consists in this, that by means of them we endeavor to
manifest obedience to God. Wherefore, in another passage, the
Apostle, to prove that Abraham could not be justified by works,
declares, "that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in
Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after,
cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect,"
(Gal. 3: 17.) The unskillful would ridicule the argument that there
could be righteous works before the promulgation of the Law, but the
Apostle, knowing that works could derive this value solely from the
testimony and honor conferred on them by God, takes it for granted
that, previous to the Law, they had no power of justifying. We see
why he expressly terms them works of Law when he would deny the
power of justifying to theme viz., because it was only with regard
to such works that a question could be raised; although he
sometimes, without addition, excepts all kinds of works whatever, as
when on the testimony of David he speaks of the man to whom the Lord
imputeth righteousness without works, (Rom. 4: 5, 6.) No cavils,
therefore, can enable them to prove that the exclusion of works is
not general. In vain do they lay hold of the frivolous subtilty,
that the faith alone, by which we are justified, "worketh by love,"
and that love, therefore, is the foundation of justification. We,
indeed, acknowledge with Paul, that the only faith which justifies
is that which works by love, (Gal. 5: G;) but love does not give it
its justifying power. Nay, its only means of justifying consists in
its bringing us into communication with the righteousness of Christ.
Otherwise the whole argument, on which the Apostle insists with so
much earnestness, would fall. 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." Could he express more clearly than in this word,
that there is justification in faith only where there are no works
to which reward is due, and that faith is imputed for righteousness
only when righteousness is conferred freely without merit?
21. Let us now consider the truth of what was said in the
definition, viz., that justification by faith is reconciliation with
God, and that this consists solely in the remission of sins. We must
always return to the axioms that the wrath of God lies upon all men
so long as they continue sinners. This is elegantly expressed by
Isaiah in these words: "Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened,
that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: but
your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your
sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear," (Isaiah 59:
1, 2.) We are here told that sin is a separation between God and
man; that His countenance is turned away from the sinner; and that
it cannot be otherwise, since, to have any intercourse with sin is
repugnant to his righteousness. Hence the Apostle shows that man is
at enmity with God until he is restored to favour by Christ, (Rom.
5: 8-l0.) When the Lord, therefore, admits him to union, he is said
to justify him, because he can neither receive him into favor, nor
unite him to himself, without changing his condition from that of a
sinner into that of a righteous man. We adds that this is done by
remission of sins. For if those whom the Lord has reconciled to
himself are estimated by works, they will still prove to be in
reality sinners, while they ought to be pure and free from sin. It
is evident therefore, that the only way in which those whom God
embraces are made righteous, is by having their pollutions wiped
away by the remission of sins, so that this justification may be
termed in one word the remission of sins.
22. Both of these become perfectly clear from the words of
Paul: "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not
imputing their trespasses unto them; and has committed unto us the
word of reconciliation." He then subjoins the sum of his embassy:
"He has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him," (2 Cor. 5: l9-21.) He here
uses righteousness and reconciliation indiscriminately, to make us
understand that the one includes the other. The mode of obtaining
this righteousness he explains to be, that our sins are not imputed
to us. Wherefore, you cannot henceforth doubt how God justifies us
when you hear that he reconciles us to himself by not imputing our
faults. In the same manner, in the Epistle to the Romans, he proves,
by the testimony of David, that righteousness is imputed without
works, because he declares the man to be blessed "whose
transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered," and "unto whom the
Lord imputeth not iniquity," (Rom. 4: 6; Ps. 32: 1, 2.) There he
undoubtedly uses blessedness for righteousness; and as he declares
that it consists in forgiveness of sins, there is no reason why we
should define it otherwise. Accordingly, Zacharias, the father of
John the Baptist, sings that the knowledge of salvation consists in
the forgiveness of sins, (Luke 1: 77.) The same course was followed
by Paul when, in addressing the people of Antioch, he gave them a
summary of salvation. Luke states that he concluded in this way:
"Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and
by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye
could not be justified by the law of Moses," (Acts 12: 38, 39.) Thus
the Apostle connects forgiveness of sins with justification in such
a way as to show that they are altogether the same; and hence he
properly argues that justification, which we owe to the indulgence
of God, is gratuitous. Nor should it seem an unusual mode of
expression to say that believers are justified before God not by
works, but by gratuitous acceptance, seeing it is frequently used in
Scripture, and sometimes also by ancient writers. Thus Augustine
says: "The righteousness of the saints in this world consists more
in the forgiveness of sins than the perfection of virtue," (August.
de Civitate Dei, lib. 19, cap. 27.) To this corresponds the
well-known sentiment of Bernard: "Not to sin is the righteousness of
God, but the righteousness of man is the indulgence of God,"
(Bernard, Serm. 22, 23 in Cant.) He previously asserts that Christ
is our righteousness in absolution, and, therefore, that those only
are just who have obtained pardon through mercy.
23. Hence also it is proved, that it is entirely by the
intervention of Christ's righteousness that we obtain justification
before God. This is equivalent to saying that man is not just in
himself, but that the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him
by imputation, while he is strictly deserving of punishment. Thus
vanishes the absurd dogma, that man is justified by faith, inasmuch
as it brings him under the influence of the Spirit of God by whom he
is rendered righteous. This is so repugnant to the above doctrine
that it never can be reconciled with it. There can be no doubt that
he who is taught to seek righteousness out of himself does not
previously possess it in himself. This is most clearly declared by
the Apostle, when he says, that he who knew no sin was made an
expiatory victim for sin, that we might be made the righteousness of
God in him (2 Cor. 5: 21.) You see that our righteousness is not in
ourselves, but in Christ; that the only way in which we become
possessed of it is by being made partakers with Christ, since with
him we possess all riches. There is nothing repugnant to this in
what he elsewhere says: "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," (Rom. 8: 3, 4.)
Here the only fulfillment to which he refers is that which we obtain
by imputation. Our Lord Jesus Christ communicates his righteousness
to us, and so by some wondrous ways in so far as pertains to the
justice of Gods transfuses its power into us. That this was the
Apostle's view is abundantly clear from another sentiment which he
had expressed a little before: "As by one man's disobedience many
were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made
righteous," (Rom. 5: 19.) To declare that we are deemed righteous,
solely because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us as if it
where our own, is just to place our righteousness in the obedience
of Christ. Wherefore, Ambrose appears to me to have most elegantly
adverted to the blessing of Jacob as an illustration of this
righteousness, when he says that as he who did not merit the
birthright in himself personated his brother, put on his garments
which gave forth a most pleasant odour, and thus introduced himself
to his father that he might receive a blessing to his own advantage,
though under the person of another, so we conceal ourselves under
the precious purity of Christ, our first-born brother, that we may
obtain an attestation of righteousness from the presence of God. The
words of Ambrose are, - "Isaac's smelling the odour of his garments,
perhaps means that we are justified not by works, but by faith,
since carnal infirmity is an impediment to works, but errors of
conduct are covered by the brightness of faith, which merits the
pardon of faults," (Ambrose de Jacobo et Vita Beats, Lib. 2, c. 2.)
And so indeed it is; for in order to appear in the presence of God
for salvation, we must send forth that fragrant odour, having our
vices covered and buried by his perfection.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 3, Part 12
(continued in part 13...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-04: cvin3-12.txt
.
