Double Justification
William Forbes says that the most rigid Protestants reject this distinction ( double justification ) whereas the well read Protestants affirm this distinction. The opinion of the former goes against the testimony of all the ancients.
The said Theologians are: Calvin, Bucer, Piscator, Ursinus, Zanchi, Vossius, Vorsitus, Abbot, Bullinger, Baxter etc
Protestants hold that Sanctification forms a part of Justification.
The following admit this: Calvin, Chemnitz, Beza, Zanchi, Bucer, Pareus, Chamier, Luther, Brenthius, Spangenbergius, The Ratsibon Conference, The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Borrhaus, Aubrey, Castellio, Field, Cassander etc.
There are two formal causes of justification, it being an entity one by aggregation and compounded of two. This wrongly denied by the Council of Trent.
Some Rigid Protestants hold justification to be made up of the imputation of Christ's righteousness and forgiveness. Most Protestants think that justifying faith includes knowedge and assent in the intellect and trust in the will.
There is agreement between the Protestants and Roman Catholics ( post Trent ) on good works, admitted by the Catholics themselves.
The Walenburchs:
It is agreed between Catholics and Protestants that not all the just are equally just, if the question is about inherent justice; that inherent justice receives increase through good works. It is also agreed that good works are necessary and that through them the faithful are disposed to obtain salvation.
For they are necessary by the necessity of divine precept, by the necessity of a means ordained to God's glory and our salvation, because the promise of eternal life is conditional and requires good works. Hence Protestants also hold with us that good works are means administering salvation and tending to it; that the just efficaciously work their salvation; that to work good is the conditions for life, the way to life; and that every way has the nature of a cause, at least a sine qua non cause. What kind their causality is may be seen in Vasquez (1.2, disp. 220, cap. 7, n. 64, etc.).
There is agreement between Catholics and Protestants that there is inherent justice. The Council of Trent teaches: Although no one can be just, except to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated: yet this happens in the justification of the impious, when by the merit of His most holy passion, through the Holy Spirit, the charity of God is diffused in the hearts of those who are justified, and inheres in them. Whence in justification itself, along with the remission of sins, man receives through Jesus Christ, who infuses it, faith, hope, and charity.
Protestant reception -
Crocius :
It is so, the Papists assert inherent justice, which the Reformed do not deny. Inherent justice is not denied, but it is denied that we are justified by inherent justice, which are two very different things. He who denies the former, denies sanctification, which is truth clearly taught in the Scriptures.
The Second Helvetic Confession :
We are not only cleansed from sins and purged, or sanctified, but also gifted with Christ's justice. By these words they acknowledge the sanctity of justice inherent in each believer: And they assert that the justice of Christ, which they commonly say is imputed, is here given; taking donation and imputation as the same thing.
Gerhard :
Good works are not called formally, and by their nature sins, much less mortal sins, insofar namely as they are still imperfect, and insofar as they are contaminated by the remnants of sin still adhering in the flesh. But it is not necessary, that each and every work of the justified, which proceeds from inherent justice, also proceeds from a vicious beginning, or from the remnants of sin, as they gratuitously assert.
Sadeel :
This benefit of sanctification is never to be separated from the superior justification by imputation, but always to be joined with it in an indissoluble bond, yet to be accurately distinguished, especially for two reasons. One, that justification is entirely outside us, and ours by imputation alone. Sanctification, however, is an internal gift and new quality created within believers themselves through the Holy Spirit, by which we become holy from being polluted. The other, that the justice of Christ imputed to believers is absolutely perfect in all respects, and therefore alone subsisting before God's tribunal, pacifies our consciences: But this species of Inherent Justice, or sanctity implanted in us, etc.
Protestants mainly hold to a Scotist system of Merit rather than Thomist.
Pierre Allix, A discourse concerning the merit of good works :
Whatsoever corruption the Thomists have introduced in Divinity, by their belief concerning the Merit of Good Works, it is easy to understand, that they have not been so far able to subvert the reigning conceptions of the Latine Church, but that there is still remaining within the bosom of it a great many persons which do retain the purest opinions.
Quenstedt, Theologia didactico-polemica, fourth part :
That proposition: Good works are necessary for salvation, is not to be admitted, but rather rejected, both as regards the phrase, and as regards the matter and sense. I. As regards the phrase, (1.) because it is not ἔγγραφος [written], but ἄγραφος [unwritten], that is, because in Holy Scripture with this προσθήκη or addition (for salvation) it is not read anywhere. For nowhere in Sacred Literature is the counsel of eternal life attributed to good works [in this] way; it is necessary, it is needed, it ought to be, nor even in equivalent words is any such necessity ever described, which will be manifest from a review of all those places and sayings of Holy Scripture, which indeed are usually adduced by its defenders for establishing that necessity. (2.) Because it is opposed to the pronouncements of the Apostle Paul (who declares that we are justified and saved by grace without works), especially in the sayings of Rom. IX.30.32. chap. XI.6.7. where everything that has the power of attaining, achieving, obtaining salvation, is utterly taken away from works, and ascribed to faith alone. (3.) Because it confuses the Law and the Gospel; for if any good works are necessary for salvation, the Evangelical promises are no longer gratuitous, but conditional. (4.) Because it deprives troubled and afflicted consciences of true consolation, and gives occasion for doubt about the grace of GOD and the certainty of salvation. (5.) Because it confirms presumption and false opinion about one's own righteousness and confidence in one's own worthiness. (6.) Because it establishes different causes for Justification and for salvation, although in the proper seat of the doctrine of Justification the same causes are established for both justification and salvation or salvation, see chap. III. Rom. chap. II. Gal. & chap. II. Ephes.
Gerhard Walter Molanus, Disquisitiones De Gradibus Unitatis In Ecclesia :
These things being premised, nothing is incumbent on me to prove other than that Protestants feel equal things concerning the merits of works with Scotists and Nominals; which being shown, since Scotists and Nominals (but what great Schools, how numerous, how celebrated) notwithstanding their opinion on merits, are borne with a most equal mind in the Roman Catholic Church, the reality itself speaks that the doctrine of Protestants in this Article, as being plainly concordant with Scotus and the Nominals, neither can nor ought to place an obstacle to Ecclesiastical reconciliation. Therefore, that Protestants in this Article teach nothing else than what Scotists teach to this very day with the Nominals, I will go to prove through Romano-Catholic witnesses, as being, for the subject matter, greater than any exception.
Protestants again affirm a dual justification
The Debrecen Profession of Faith :
Justification is of two kinds: before God and before men. Justification before God takes place through God’s grace alone, given gratis on account of the merit of Christ, through the imputation of His righteousness and the forgiveness of sins, not imputing our sins to us, but covering them by faith to demonstrate the righteousness of God, which are given to us entirely passively apart from our strength or merit (Rom. 8, 9; Origen, on Romans; Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom on the same)......All the fathers teach thus concerning justification (councils of Mileve, Orange, Trent and Augusta; Lombard, Book 2 and 3, Sentences).
The Westminster Confession of Faith :
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification (John 1:12; Rom. 3:28; 5:1): yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love (James 2:17, 22, 26; Gal. 5:6).
Justification in the Holy Scripture is taken in a forensic manner: and then it signifies the same thing, as to pronounce, or declare just and innocent. And this acception is rightly called judicial, for the respect to justice, as it is approved in the judgment of God.
2nd Helvetic Confession :
To justify signifies with the Apostle in the disputation of justification, to remit sins, to absolve from fault and punishment, to receive into grace, and to pronounce just. Whether this be understood in that disputation of the Apostle, shall afterwards be seen. It suffices in this place, that Protestants acknowledge that acception of the word.
More testimonies : Synop. pur. Theol. disp. 33. thes. 2. pag. 434. Bucan. loc. 31. de justif. §. 2. Fest. Homm. disp. 63. thes. 1. Crocium cap. 10. n. 3. pag. 406. Kuchnæum lib. 2. cap. 30. n. 6.
Justification in the Holy Scripture is taken for donation, or collation of inherent righteousness.
All the just are not equally just, if we speak of righteousness inherent in us: for that this receives increase, by means of the exercise of good works, is had out of the 2nd Helvetic Confession.
Justification is a Continuous act
Bishop William Forbes :
Justification certainly is a continuous act, which is and lasts so long as the acts of living faith endure; but is broken off always, and as often as they cease, contrary to the duty of Christian piety.
And that, "as the offence is daily, so also the forgiveness is daily," as the author of the book de vera et falsa penitentia says, is clearly taught by Calvin himself; Bucer; Ursinus; Paræus; Zanchius; G. Downam; R. Abbot; Ger. Vossius; d "Justifi-cation and sanctification are a perpetual act, in which God is always giving, and man is always receiving, &c." The Synopsis purioris Theologiae; Jackson; Perkins; & and many others.
Concerning the second justification, R. Field thinks and speaks rather more correctly than some others; Stapleton, he says, affirms that Protestants hold "that actions of virtue, and the careful endeavour to walk in the commandments of God, are not necessary to our second justification, or the augmentation, progress, and daily perfecting of the same more and more. But this is a calum-niation; for they make the second justification to consist of two parts. The daily progress in well-doing, whereby the righteousness inherent is more and more perfected. And the daily remission of such sinful defects, as are found in their actions." He repeats the same saying, "The second justification consisteth, &c.," see the au-thor; as does also Montague; who, however, is often inconsistent with himself and Vorstius who urges the increase and completion of justification against Sibrandus with many arguments; "What else," he says, "is the justification of man before God, but his reception into His favour and friendship; the former therefore both can and is wont daily to advance and become greater by how much the more the latter does so; but this latter in-creases with the increase of faith; therefore the other does so also; lastly, faith increases with works, and is perfected by works, as we have already heard from the Apostle. Therefore the more good works grow and in-crease, the more is justification itself perfected in the soul of man;" (he ought to have added, and in the sight of God also.') See the author.
What many Protestants answer to the passage S. James, chapter 2, by which it is most clearly proved, that justification (as well the first as the second, as we shall presently show,) is by the works of faith, viz., that 'jus-tification' in S. James must necessarily be understood of the showing forth of justice in the sight of men, not of true justification before God, viz. in order that S. James may not seem to contradict S. Paul directly is false, as manifestly appears from the whole series of the context of the Apostle.
For, 1st, the Apostle in the beginning of the argu-ment, enquires, "What profit is there, if a man say that he hath faith, but have not works? whether that faith can save him?" who doubts, that the word 'to save' is here to be understood of that salvation whereby a man is truly saved before God, and not of its manifestation merely in the sight of men? and therefore the word to justify, which afterwards occurs several times in this argument, neither ought nor can be otherwise understood than of justifica-tion before God; for otherwise the Apostle's argument could not agree with itself.
2dly, What the Apostle says of the uselessness of cha-rity in words merely, and of faith without works being dead,' and of the body without the spirit being dead,' most clearly demonstrate that the sole purpose of the Apostle is to show that faith without works, or dead faith, is altogether useless and inefficacious to justify and save us before God.
3dly, That what the Apostle says of Abraham's justi-fication by works is not to be taken of the mere declara-tion of justice before men, but of justification before God itself, is evidently proved from verse 23, where the Apostle expressly affirms, that the Scripture was fulfilled, which affirms that faith, (namely that faith which is living and working), was imputed to him for justice, and that he himself by that justification was called the friend of God, or was accounted by God to be His friend: nor can the other example (that of the justification of Rahab by works,) which is adduced to confirm this proposition be otherwise understood.
4thly, That which is said, 'Ye see, therefore, that a man is justified by works and not by faith only,' cannot be understood of the declaration of justice before men, unless we say that that declaration is made not merely by works, but also by faith itself; which cannot be; since no one can see another's faith, in itself and by itself, inasmuch as it is hid in his heart; by works only it can be seen in a certain manner, (provided it be living and efficacious,) as Piscator rightly says, not indeed infallibly, but only pr
obably, whence it is said, 'Show me thy faith by thy works, &c.'
Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism:
Good works are necessary to salvation, not as a Cause to the effect, or as merit to a Reward: but as a part of salvation it self, or as an Antecedent to its consequent; or as a means without which we come not to the end.
Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art IV (II):
Whether Eternal Life is a Reward: "If the adversaries will concede that we are accounted righteous by faith because of Christ, and that good works please God because of faith, we will not afterwards contend much concerning the term reward. We confess that eternal life is a reward, because it is something due on account of the promise, not on account of our merits. For the justification has been promised, which we have above shown to be properly a gift of God; and to this gift has been added the promise of eternal life, according to Rom. 8:30: 'Whom He justified, them He also glorified.' Here belongs what Paul says, 2 Tim. 4:8: 'There is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me.' ... Just as the inheritance and all possessions of a father are given to the son, as a rich compensation and reward for his obedience, and yet the son receives the inheritance, not on account of his merit, but because the father, for the reason that he is his father, wants him to have it. Therefore it is a sufficient reason why eternal life is called a reward, because thereby the tribulations which we suffer, and the works of love which we do, are compensated, although we have not deserved it. For there are two kinds of compensation: one, which we are obliged, the other, which we are not obliged, to render. E.g., when the emperor grants a servant a principality, he therewith compensates the servant’s work; and yet the work is not worth the principality, but the servant acknowledges that he has received a gracious lien. Thus God does not owe us eternal life, still, when He grants it to believers for Christ’s sake, that is a compensation for our sufferings and works.
The Heidelberg Catechism:
Q.86. We have been delivered from our misery by God’s grace alone through Christ and not because we have earned it: Why then must we still do good?A. To be sure, Christ has redeemed us by His blood. But we do good because Christ by His Spirit is also renewing us to be like Himself, so that in all our living we may show that we are thankful to God for all He has done for us, and so that He may be praised through us. And we do good so that we may be assured of our faith by its fruits, and so that by our godly living our neighbours may be won over to Christ.Matthew 5:14-16; Matthew 7:17,18; Romans 6:13; Romans 12:1,2; Romans 14:17-19; 1 Corinthians 6:19,20; Galatians 5:22-24; 1 Peter 2:5-10,12; 1 Peter 3:1,2; 2 Peter 1:10,11.
Acts of the Council of Regensburg:
We have always granted of our own accord, that to the holy who live in the practice of good works, life eternal is rendered, in the name and place of a crown and reward.
Girolamo Zanchi, De religione Christiana fides:
And therefore, when we speak only of this inherent righteousness, we deny not but that a man is justified by good works, and not of faith only; that is, he is made more and more just.
Reformed Confession presented at the Colloquy of Thorn, Article IV.9:
we also recognize that they [Good works] are indeed necessary for salvation, although not as meritorious causes of justification and salvation.
Erasmus Sarcerius, Common places of Scripture:
Contraries to justification be these:To say justification can stand or endure without the sequel of good works. To deny that the preaching of justification without the final effect of good works is root of all mischief.
Johannes Polyander:
For a twofold righteousness is set before us in the Gospel: one which is freely imputed to the sinner by God, the other by which the sinner is renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit. The former is of faith, the latter of works, or of charity, which is subsequent to faith. The former is placed in the mere mercy of God, who justifies man who is by his nature ungodly, and in the merit of Christ, Romans 4:5; the latter is in the habit and act of love. The former consists in the remission of sins, the latter in the mortification of the flesh and of sin. The former puts on Christ and his righteousness; the latter puts on the new man over it.
Johannes Anthonius Cluto, Idea Theologiae, ch. 39, §16:
And so it is perceived that this opinion, which holds good works to be either the impulsive cause or the meritorious cause of salvation, a) is contrary to Scripture, and b) injurious to the grace of God as well as to the merit of Christ. Meanwhile, because theologians sometimes simply say, in order to disapprove of this opinion, that good works are not the cause of salvation, the ambiguity in speaking which can deceive here must be noted; namely, that good works are rightly denied to be the cause of salvation if the question is raised about that cause by which God is moved to grant salvation, although they can otherwise be called the cause of salvation insofar as they concur as an integral part to that honest good which we have shown in thesis 9 to be comprehended under the state of glory and therefore also under the name of salvation, and by their exercise promote the same.
Gisbertus Voetius, Selectarum disputationum theologicarum:
Therefore, the controversy between us and the Papacy is not: 1. Whether good works are to be done. For we affirm this. 2. Nor whether they are necessary and useful for salvation. For we affirm both. 3. Nor whether they please God; which we affirm.4. Nor whether God grants them remuneration and reward. For we affirm. 5. Nor whether it is permitted to do good works in view of the reward. We affirm. 6. Much less, whether good works are sins. We strenuously deny.7. Nor finally whether the just are worthy of the crown. For we concede this.