This post is an excerpt from the forthcoming book Rome Examined: Examination of the Decrees of the Council of Trent. In this concise distillation of Chemnitz’s magisterial critique, we present his scriptural case against Rome’s decrees on tradition, justification, the sacraments, and papal authority—one section at a time. (Find all the excerpts here: https://wolfmueller.co/category/rome-examined/)
Examination
[1] This is the chief article of Christianity. For where hearts are anxious and terrified by sin and the wrath of God rings out, they seek the only harbor, namely, that they have a reconciled and gracious God. This is the singular consolation for faith in tribulation. Faith seeks such consolation and follows it. Otherwise, the miserable sinner might be damned through the righteous judgment of God on account of sin. But where the wrath of God is stilled, there the sinner can enter into grace and partake of life.
[2] Our memory, however, has not completely left us. We have not yet forgotten the torture chamber that lay in the papacy for consciences in despair struggling with the wrath of God, when they anxiously sought a firm and certain consolation. There, Christ was missing, who alone is sufficient for our righteousness. Instead of this, poor souls were misled. Soon it was holy obligations, then it was satisfactions through unnecessary works, then either abundant virtues or surplus merits, brotherhoods, patron saints, pilgrimages, indulgences—and who knows to what else these drivers of the people would have allured and enticed them.
[3] Now this chief question was being contemplated at the Council of Trent, and as reported from their side, it was negotiated for seven months. [1]
[4] I conclude from the decrees themselves, and especially from my good Andrada, that there were two chief reasons for such an embarrassing contemplation to have lasted for months.
First, because the bright light of Scripture is so great that it illumines the little ones, strengthens the faithful, and even touches the eyes of the enemies with its splendor against their will, one must search for evasions in order to dim this light through fog and darkness, so that it does not shine in the eyes of men with such great sheen. However, because this had to take place with a certain semblance, it could not happen within a month-long discussion.
Second, the school philosophers are all too crude when they philosophize what man is able to do from his own moral power with divine assistance, that is, that man is able to merit grace either to some extent or even completely. Therefore, it required great effort and headache to devise a way to cloak what the worldly, philosophical school taught about justification with a few scriptural expressions so that this doctrine was not immediately understood by everyone, but rather that it might be able, to a certain extent, to bear the light of our time.
8:1:1: The True State of the Question Concerning Justification
[2] The determinations of Trent are phrased in such a way that it allusively denounces us as though we only taught a forgiveness of sins and not also a renewal through the Holy Spirit.
[3] But we expressly condemn the blasphemy of Simon Magus, who professed that those who were saved by grace through faith were permitted to do as they wanted. We also denounce the delusion of the Gnostics, who maintained they were saved through knowledge and considered themselves to be so spiritual on account of their glorious belief that they could not fall from grace through any offense.
[4] Now, one might say: “If this is the case, why do you make so great a noise about the article of justification that the entire earth booms and roars of it? For just as you certainly neither deny renewal, nor give up love, so too the papists also do not deny that there is forgiveness of sins, but rather they confess it.” When agreement prevails concerning the matters themselves, then there is only bickering over words or a dispute over forms of speech. Now the papists understand the word “justify” according to the Latin meaning of the word. Thus, they take it in the sense of “to make righteous.” They understand such a righteousness to be an inherent qualitative characteristic, which is bestowed or infused. From this proceed, according to their understanding, the works of righteousness. The Lutherans, however, understand the word “justify” according to the Hebrew usage. Therefore, they refer to justification as the absolution of sins or the forgiveness of sins, by which the righteousness of Christ is reckoned to them. From this, one becomes a child and heir of eternal life, indeed only for the sake of Christ, wherever faith grasps Him. At the same time, however, they teach that a renewal must follow and that the beginning is made with love and good works.
We respond to this simply and openly: We are not such great troublemakers that we should still quarrel over words even when a true, blessed, and sound agreement about the matters themselves has been reached.
[5] This is the chief question, the substance of the matter, and the decisive point, namely:
What is reason whereby God takes up a sinner in His grace? What can and must be set against the judgment of God, that we do not fall into damnation according to the strict decree of the Law? Of what must faith lay hold, what must it bring forth, upon what shall it lean, if it wants to deal with God to achieve the forgiveness of sins? What intervenes, for which reason God becomes gracious to the sinner where he has merited wrath and eternal damnation? What should the conscience consider to be the essential reason why we are granted the gift of sonship? Wherein can trust rest secure that we will partake of eternal life? Is it the Son of God and mediator, who with His obedience, with His satisfaction, and His merit achieves this? Or is it we ourselves who must demonstrate such? Should we claim the work begun in us for this purpose? Or love or the other virtues which are in us?
This is the state of the question. In the Tridentine determinations, this point upon which everything depends is deliberately and deceitfully concealed. Here the decisive question is exposed all the more extensively and plainly. From this, the reader may deduce that there is no dispute over words, but rather we have to debate the most serious topic with our opponents. In this discussion is the one thing that is necessary for every conscience. If all the questions in this section were placed into this perspective, then everything would become much more clear.
8:1:2: On the Word “Justification”
[1] These questions are closely related and bound to the word “justification.” To whomever may be ascribed with justifying us, this remains self-evident: Justification by faith is the reason for our grace before God and the stronghold of our faith in the face of judgment. This is so certain and clear that it is also said at Trent that justification is the transfer from the state in which one was born as a child of wrath into the state of grace and adoption.
[2] From what has been said up to this point, it is clear how important it is to determine the actual, true meaning of the word “justify.” For thereby we will best succeed in explaining the true Scriptural teaching concerning justification and in refuting the opposing falsifications of the same.
[4] In the everyday language of the Greeks, the word “justify” has two meanings.[2] First, it designates something considered or recognized as just. In this manner it is used in Plutarch’s Lives.[3] Second, it means to punish judicially.
[5] In biblical usage, the Greek meaning of this word is so obviously present that Andrada does not attempt to deny it. However, he anxiously scrapes up examples to show that in many passages of Scripture the word “justify” does not so much mean “to absolve of sins” but rather that the spirit is adorned with an actual and essential righteousness. With this battering ram, Andrada thinks he is able to overturn the entire doctrine of the declaration of righteousness. Therefore, we must take a look at the examples which Andrada employs to set up, establish, and secure his position as probable. At the top, he places the testimony of Sirach 1:18 “Devout worship of God makes the heart righteous.” But this is how it reads in the Vulgate. In his own language, Sirach does not have this. Therefore, what Sirach did not even write, but had slipped into the context from elsewhere, this is what Andrada cites as though it were the original wording. Andrada only does this, however, to overthrow the righteousness of faith. He overlooks what Sirach himself writes in 1:22, “An unjust anger is not able to be justified (i.e. not experience forgiveness).”
It has a better appearance when he quotes from Sirach 18:22, “Do not tarry with the improvement of your life until death.” The Council of Trent interprets this to mean that sanctification and renewal must grow and increase until death. This certainly applies to renewal. Nevertheless, the point about which we are disputing is whether Sirach wants to express that in this place with the word “justify.” But the context shows that what is meant is that with respect to atonement and righteousness one should not wait until death.
He also quotes from the Revelation of John in support of his view: “The one who is righteous, he shall always be righteous; the one who is holy, he must always be holy” (Revelation 22:11). But this is easy to respond to. Andrada argues for a position according to which justification and sanctification are one in the same. He seeks to prove this from the passage of John. But in that very place, John distinguishes between justification and sanctification, as does Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:11.
[6] As the representative of the Council of Trent, Andrada has undertaken to defend the meaning of the word “justify” against the teaching of our church. But with testimonies such as these he has in no way proved this meaning. Every reader can evaluate this. That he distorts the word of Isaiah, “Through His knowledge He will make many righteous” (Isaiah 53:11), is quite outrageous. There it is immediately explaining how that “making righteous” is to be understood. For it means that He bears their sins. Thus says Zechariah in Luke 1:77, “That you may give knowledge of salvation to His people, which is in the forgiveness of their sins.”
Even if it could be proven—and that is very difficult—that the word “justify” was used in some places in the sense maintained by the papists, the chief issue which we are treating would not thereby be decided.
The question is actually not what the word “justify” means in other passages of Scripture. Rather, it has to do with the question of the meaning this word has in those passages of Scripture where the doctrine of justification is discussed and treated in its own rightful place. The rest of the examples should only serve for clarification.
[7] Now the comparison with Romans 8:31 ff is quite clear. Here, the actual and true meaning of the word “justify” in this article comes forth. It is the one meaning which thoroughly agrees with the forensic designation. What is meant is this, that we are declared free of the guilt of sin before God’s judgment for the sake of Christ, declared righteous, and are accepted into eternal life.
For the words are as follows: “Who will accuse God’s elect? God is the one who makes righteous” etc. Thus, in Romans 5 justification and damnation are repeatedly contrasted. In Romans 3, the entire process is described using forensic expressions. Compare this to Jesus’ parable of the justified tax collector (Luke 18:13–14), the expressions of Paul in Acts 13:38–39, and 1 John 2–3. Although John does not use the word “justify,” he describes the doctrine with legal words. Compare this to the words in the gospel: “The one who believes will not be judged and does not enter into the judgment.”
It is worth noting how carefully the apostles avoid confusing or obscuring the doctrine through the Hebrew manner of speaking about justification or through less common ways of talking about justification in other languages. For they have explained it through various clear words such as “to ascribe righteousness, to save, to atone, to forgive sins,” and so on.
[8] Although the fathers mostly consider the affinity to the Latin word form and structure when using the word “justify,” nevertheless they are compelled by the clarity of Paul’s teaching, whose actual and proper meaning we have cited. Thus, Augustine says on Psalm 51, “If the ungodly are justified, then the righteous one is made from the ungodly. But how does this happen? You have done nothing good, and the forgiveness of sins is granted to you.”[4] Cyril says on John 6, “Grace justifies, whereas the works of the Law condemn.”[5] We inquire, however, not into the language usage of the fathers, but of the language of the Holy Spirit in Scripture.
[10] The uniqueness of the word “justify” shows how serious an endeavor is the justification of the sinner before the judgment seat of God.
After the true, proper, and real meaning of the word “justify” is clarified from the clear Scripture passages, the doctrine of justification itself will become simple and clear from God’s Word.
8:1:3: Concerning Which Things Scripture Denies for the Justification of Man to Eternal Life
[1] We are not disputing that no one is righteous before God on account of sin, nor that on account of their transgressions no one is acceptable to God and a partaker of eternal life.
[2] We are dealing with the properties, conditions, actions, and works to which the name “righteousness” is ascribed. We are asking whether our justification to life before God consists in these.
Now the one who brings forth his own righteousness in this manner comes before God in order to be justified. But let us hear which judgment God, as a righteous judge, renders. In order to simplify the matter, we repeat the arrangement which Paul gives:
- Concerning the many sorts of divine worship which the Gentiles establish contrary to God’s Word according to their blind reason, in order to have a gracious and reconciled God, they are an abomination before God (Deuteronomy 22, 17; Romans 1:18–32).
- Concerning the self-chosen works, which people undertake without God’s Word and order, so that they may be justified, that is, obtain God’s grace and eternal salvation, God says, “They worship me in vain” (Isaiah 1:29; Matthew 15:8–9).
- Concerning the external discipline of reason, Paul says in Romans 3 that the Gentiles are not thereby justified. Rather, without faith in Christ and the Holy Spirit, they are under sin with their unclean hearts.
- The question concerning the Pharisaical righteousness is closer to what we are dealing with. For God Himself has solemnly and publicly given the Law and promised blessings and life to those who do it. Indeed, in this sense Christ presented the precepts of the Law and answered the scribe in Luke 10:26, “Do this, and you will live.”
From this arrangement, we will now arrive all the more easily at the current state of the discussion. For the chief dispute between the papists and us revolves around good works or new obedience. Certainly, great and marvelous is that which Scripture ascribes to the new obedience of the regenerate (Galatians 5:22–23; Romans 6–7; 1 John 3). Even though we do not wish to deprive new obedience of its proper place and praise, we find ourselves treating the question of the justification of man before God unto eternal life.
[5] There are many clear Scripture passages according to which the praise and glory of justification before God are not only taken and removed from the Mosaic ceremonies and works of the unregenerate, but also from new obedience and the good works of the regenerate.
[6] Especially illuminating is the testimony of Romans 4. Here, Paul wants to demonstrate a general testimony of justification on account of which he names Abraham the father of faith for the Jews and the Gentiles. But he does not portray Abraham at the beginning of his conversion, when he was first called from the Chaldean idolatry (Genesis 11:27–32; Joshua 24:2). For then one would be able to limit the exclusion formula (“without works”) to those works which the unregenerate do before their conversion. Rather, to that Abraham, who was already regenerated and adorned with spiritual renewal and many good works (see Hebrews 11:8 ff), Paul applies this verdict. Not because of his action, but because of his faith in Him who justifies the ungodly is his faith reckoned to him as righteousness.
[8] Christ Himself summarizes this entire doctrine when He says, “He who believes in me will not be judged and will not enter into the judgment.” Now this is the justification of those who believe, that they are not judged according to their works.
[10] Very clear is what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:4, “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified.” These words are significant. For what he says, “I am not aware of anything against myself,” means the same as what he says in Acts 23:1, “In all good conscience I have walked before God up to the present day,” or, in the words of Acts 24:16, “I strive to have a blameless conscience at all times towards God and men.” But hear what the regenerate Paul says concerning that righteousness of a good conscience which he ascribes to God’s grace, “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified.” Thus, Paul definitively removes justification before God unto eternal life from the works of his new conduct.
[11] The reader further notes how Paul in his entire letter to the Galatians, who were converted some years ago, denies that the works of the regenerate can justify them before God for eternal life. The apostle does not content himself with simply stating that man is not justified from the works of the Law, rather, he makes the point much more strongly. He says, “If righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died in vain; you have lost Christ, you who desire to be justified through the Law, and you have fallen from grace,” etc.
[13] The reasons why the works of the regenerate are denied for justification are worth noting.
Paul’s first reason is that justification from works belongs to the Law of works (see Romans 3:10; Galatians 3:10). The Law applies the standard of divine righteousness to all the powers and actions of man and demands that man conform to this standard. “The one who keeps all of the Law and sins against one of its parts, he is guilty of all of it” (James 2:10). Now the obedience which the regenerate perform certainly does correspond to God’s Law. But on account of the weakness of our flesh this agreement is still incomplete. All the righteous in this world must daily pray: “Forgive us our trespasses.”
[14] Therefore, the second point is how the righteousness of the Law is different from the righteousness of faith. For the righteousness of the Law is the doing of that which is written in the Law. The righteousness of faith, however, is the appropriation of that which Christ has done for us. Therefore, the works which the regenerate do before or after their conversion, which stand written in the Law, these works—though from different temporal perspectives—belong to the righteousness of the Law. All of Paul’s discussions point to the fact that men are not justified before God in this life through the righteousness of the Law unto eternal life. Moreover, the righteousness of the Law and the righteousness of faith are distinguished from one another in such a way that Paul explicitly says that the Law is not of faith. For faith does not justify in this respect, as though it prepares us to obtain the righteousness which stands in the works that the Law demands. Paul states expressly in Galatians 2, “We believe in Christ Jesus, that we are righteous through faith in Christ and not through the works of the Law.” For what was impossible for the Law (given that it was weakened by the flesh), God did by grace, and He made it so that justification was transferred from that which we do to faith, which receives what Christ has done for us. Therefore, these two extremes stand in total opposition to one another: Those who are justified through faith in Christ are not justified through the Law. Those, however, who wish to be justified in that they do that which the Law requires, they will not be justified through faith in Christ. That is, we must be justified either through the Law alone or through faith in Christ alone.
[15] The third reason is for all of our boasting to be excluded. The one who boasts, boasts in the Lord, who has made Christ our righteousness. Boasting is not excluded through the works of the Law, but rather through the Law of faith.
[16] The fourth reason is in Romans 4. The promised inheritance of eternal life must remain firm. If it is grounded on the condition of our obedience, then the promise is always uncertain. On account of the flesh, our obedience is always imperfect and impure. “For the Law brings wrath” (Romans 4:15).
8:1:4: How Scripture Teaches that Man Is Justified before God unto Eternal Life
[1] Now that the section concerning which things Scripture denies for the justification of man is complete, it has become clear in the affirmative sense from God’s Word how we are justified before God unto eternal life. In other words, this means: What is the righteousness, which we must bring before God, for Him to be gracious to us and receive us as His children unto eternal life?
First, God finds in us during this life, even the regenerate, no intrinsic righteousness which is so complete and pure that we could be justified on account of it unto eternal life.
Second, God rather finds in us during this life, even in the saints, many and manifold faults.
Third, the Law declares those guilty and cursed who do not remain in everything which is written in the Law, so as to act according to it.
Fourth, God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love by which He loved us, did not let us enter into eternal death nor perish under the righteous judgment. Therefore, He justified us, without our merit, through His grace, that is: He absolves us of our sentence of damnation. He declares those righteous who recognize and confess their sin and seize by faith the promise in Christ. He gathers such as these unto eternal life (Romans 3:21–28).
[2] On the contrary, the papists maintain that Paul in this place indicates by the word “grace” the gift of renewal which is infused by God into those who believe for the sake of Christ. We have proven from the luminous and firm statements of Scripture that the regenerate in this life cannot be justified before God by their new life unto eternal life. Thus, the papists openly pervert the statement of Paul when they ascribe such views to him against his entire context.
8:1:5: The Word “Grace”
[1] The word “grace” in Scripture is often tantamount to favor, benevolence, and compassion. Occasionally, this word also designates the gifts themselves which are given out of this favor. The question arises, however, what the word “grace” actually means in those passages where Paul develops the point that we are freely justified through God’s grace. After all, the passages which are before us are not obscure or ambiguous. Rather, they are clear, certain, and sure. It arises from these that in this dispute the word “grace” is to be understood as the free mercy, the goodness, the favor, and benevolence of God, who receives the worthy into grace for the sake of the Son and the mediator. Paul clearly distinguishes in Romans 5 between “grace” and the “gifts of grace” (See other passages such as Romans 3:24–28, 4:4, 11:6; Ephesians 1, 2:4; Hebrews 2:4). When he says in 2 Timothy 1:9: “He saved us, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which He gave to us before the time of the ages,” grace cannot be indicating something that is inherently and uniquely ours.
8:1:6: The Adverb “Freely”
[1] Paul added the word “freely” in order to reveal all the more the true and real meaning of the word “grace” in the article of justification and to defend it against all perversions. Therefore, he says in Romans 3:24, “They are freely justified by His grace.” The corresponding Hebrew word is juxtaposed with the earned wage. Thus, for example, Genesis 29:15: “Should you freely serve me? Tell me, what should your wage be?” It can also mean “without cause.” For example, Psalm 35:19, “Those who hate me without cause.” Thus and similarly it appears in many other passages. The Greek translators render it by the Greek adverb “as a gift,” which is also used in the New Testament in this way. For example, 2 Corinthians 11:7: “I have freely preached the Gospel to you”; Revelation 22:17: “Let the one who wills freely receive the water of life.”
[2] From this it can be recognized why Paul adds the adverb “freely” to the word “grace.”
Namely:
- This should express the same thing. That we are justified rests not upon us, because we have neither caused nor earned it.
- God finds various reasons in us to damn us.
- God receives us into grace, unworthy as we are, out of pure goodness and mercy for the sake of His Son.
Therefore, we are freely justified through God’s grace. This does not happen because we are perfectly righteous in this life or completely without sin. It happens much rather because the merciful God forgives and covers the sin which He finds in us for the sake of Christ (Romans 4).
8:1:7: On the Righteousness which We Place against God’s Judgment When We Are Justified
[1] This subject becomes much more clear when we develop the question as to if and how God can justify the ungodly, when righteousness does not belong to the ungodly.
[2] The Gospel reveals to us the way and manner which God found in His secret counsel according to His endless mercy. Therein both the righteousness of God was to be satisfied, as the Law reveals, and man was to be justified unto eternal life, without merit, without the works of the Law. The Son of God was to be sent into the world and come in the flesh in order to free the human race, to justify it, and to save it. This one endured the punishments in the place and in the name of all and thereby made satisfaction for sins, having also achieved a completely perfect obedience, thereby fulfilling the Law.[6] For this reason the Son of God has assumed our nature. He assumed it, as it was found under God’s Law.
For precisely in this particular nature satisfaction and obedience were to be achieved in such a manner that they were sufficient for sins and unto the righteousness of the whole world. Therefore, the person of the mediator needed to be simultaneously God and man, so that His satisfaction and His obedience would be infinitely and immeasurably effective and sufficient for the whole world.
But you may ask: “What does it help me if another has satisfied the Law? I am urged by the Law: ‘You shall love; you shall not covet.’” To this I respond: To be sure, the Law desires that each should be righteous. Each one should completely and fully agree with that which is required of him. This is what the Law desires.
But the Gospel reveals and discloses to us that secret which has been hidden from the beginning of the world. Truly the human race cannot satisfy the Law. The Law, however, is in no way dissolved. So stand the state of things. Then God allowed it to happen—and this belongs to the article of justification—that the Law was transferred to another person. This person made satisfaction and was obedient, and so this person fulfilled the Law for the benefit of the entire human race.
[4] Thus Christ, the mediator, made satisfaction and was obedient. Therein stands His righteousness. It is this righteousness which we offer in Word and sacrament, which we take hold of in faith, for God imputes it to those who believe. Between the judgment of God and our sins we can place this righteousness. Under it, as under a shield, we are sheltered from the wrath of God which we have merited. Under its protection we can face the divine judgment confidently and without fear. Thus are we declared righteous unto eternal life. Even Pighius states this, who is otherwise very hostile towards our doctrine.[7] But through the obviousness of this truth he is compelled to recognize and confess this view as truly blessed and biblical.
[6] We did not, however, make up this doctrine that Christ comes into our place. Rather, this is always and everywhere the doctrine of the Gospel itself. See Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, in that He became a curse for us, so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come among the Gentiles.” Also, 2 Corinthians 5:21: “He made Him, who knew no sin, sin for us, in order that in Him we might become the righteousness that obtains before God.” Furthermore, Romans 8:3: “For that which was impossible for the Law (since it was weakened through the flesh), that God did and sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and condemned sin in the flesh through sin, in order that the righteousness which is demanded by the Law would be fulfilled in us.” Again, Romans 4:25: “He gave Himself for our sins and was raised for our righteousness” (See also Romans 3:24; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 1 Timothy 2:6). When Romans 5:19 says, “Through the obedience of one, many are righteousness,” this is to be understood according to Romans 4, that faith is accounted as righteousness.
8:2: Testimonies from the Ancients concerning Justification
The ancients usually use the word “justification” with a different meaning. Nevertheless, in some circumstances they also confirm our doctrine, or rather, the doctrine of Scripture, with various delightful remarks, that we find atonement and forgiveness and become God’s children by grace through the righteousness of the Son of God, who is our mediator.
This Jerome writes in the first book against the Pelagians, “Then we are righteous, that is, when we confesses that we are sinners. Our righteousness consists not of our own merit, but rather of God’s mercy.”[8]
Augustine, among other things (see The City of God, bk. 10, ch. 22;[9] Ad Bonifacium bk. 1, ch. 21;[10] bk. 3, ch. 5[11]), in his interpretation of Psalm 130, which reads “If You kept a record of iniquities, O Lord, who would stand?,” says: “He does not say, ‘I will not stand,’ but rather, ‘who will stand?’ For he sees how almost all of human life is surrounded by sin, how all consciences are accused by their thoughts, how no pure heart is found. What hope is there then? ‘With you there is forgiveness.’ But what is this atonement, unless there is an offering? And what is the offering, but what is offered for us? The innocent shed blood has destroyed the guilt of all sinners. Therefore it says: ‘With You there is forgiveness.’ For if it were not with You, You would only be the judge. You would not wish to be merciful. You would only wish to mark and probe all our sins. Who could stand before You and say, ‘I am innocent?’ Who could survive in Your judgment? Thus, Your forgiveness is our only hope!”[12]
Similarly, Bernard exclaims concerning the Song of Songs: “O salvation belongs to him, to him alone, to whom the Lord has not reckoned his guilt. Is there even a man who is without sin? No one appears. For they have all together sinned and lack the glory of God. But who will accuse the elect of God? To me it is sufficient unto all righteousness if I only know Him gracious against whom alone I have sinned.”[13]
In a wonderful metaphor for his considerations, Anselm places himself before God’s throne and says: “I must tremble at my life. For, when I carefully consider it, my entire life appears to me either as sin or as an unfruitful drought. O barren tree! Useless but for eternal flames! How shall you answer on that day? O how difficult it shall be for you! Sin indicts you here; righteousness terrifies you there. In vain you seek to hide. Woe to you, who must appear. Where is counsel? Where is help? Who knows and calls the angel great of counsel? It is your Jesus. Rise, o poor sinner, be not dismayed. Hope in Him whom your fear. Are you on the run from Him? Rather, He should be your refuge. Jesus Christ, according to Your name, upon whom I, a miserable person, call, do unto me for Your name’s sake.”[14]
Countless examples could be collected; but even from these few it follows that our doctrine of justification is confirmed by the testimony of all the faithful from all times.
8:3: The View of the Council of Trent concerning Justification
[1] The question, however, is this: How is man justified before God unto eternal life, that is, what do we have to bring before God when He judges us? What is it that we must put between the wrath of God and our sins, so that God absolves us from judgment, receives us into grace, sees us as His children, and chooses us for the inheritance of eternal life?
[2] The Tridentine decrees give a double answer to this question:
First, they deny that the justification of the sinner exists solely in the forgiveness of sins. They also hurl excommunications against the one who maintains that one is righteous before God through the righteousness of Christ, or that one is justified only through the imputed righteousness of Christ or through grace, that is, only through God’s mercy, who forgives sins for the sake of Christ.[15]
Second, they maintain that the justification of the ungodly before God unto eternal life consists not solely in the forgiveness of sins, but rather also in the sanctification of the inner man. They also assert that the single driving cause of justification is that righteousness given to us by God, through which we in the spirit of our mind are renewed. Thus we are not only righteous by imputation, but rather according to name and nature are righteous, namely, in the state of righteousness, which is called inner love by them, which the Holy Spirit works in us through the merit of Christ’s suffering.
[4] Noteworthy is the trick by which these architects of doctrine have cloaked the chief issue so that less knowledgeable people do not immediately figure it out. Moderate minds would have achieved understanding through the prevailing light of the Gospel had they phrased the questions like this: On what basis has God reconciled us to Himself and become gracious to us? Whereupon does our sonship with God rest? How can we stand before God? How are we absolved before His judgment seat? Then, in the kingdom of the papacy, many pious would have become disgusted by such a monkish clamor had reconciliation, sonship, and the inheritance of eternal life been ascribed to our own works.
Nevertheless, they thoroughly desired to remain with this position. Here, the following were useful: first, the ambiguity of the word “justification” or “making righteous”; second, in the place of their own works they employed such words as “sanctification, renewal, inner righteousness”; third, they have phrased their decrees with such disingenuous expressions that it appears as though sanctification, renewal, love, and other effects of salvation of the Holy Spirit are excluded in our doctrine and are neither present nor to be expected in the regenerate. But to say it once more, we in no way reject such effects.
[5] The intention of these Tridentine decrees will become clear upon closer inspection.
In chapter four, it says that justification is about how man is transferred from a state of wrath to a state of grace. Moreover, in the seventh chapter, they explain that this justification is not only an imputation of Christ’s righteousness or merely the forgiveness of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inner man.
Openly, therefore, they deny Christ that which justifies us and attribute it to our love. For they locate the entire merit of Christ in this, that for His sake, a new inner righteousness, namely love, is given to and infused into us out of God’s mercy, so that we may be justified by it.
[8] In this regard, the gracious reader should take note of how Andrada explains the spirit and meaning of the council. He does so in this way and with these words: He cannot be called righteous, who is entirely sullied with sins. For this reason, God infuses man with love. Through its strength and power, all wrongdoings are washed away, transgressions are expunged, sins are expelled, and every trace of iniquity is eradicated. Thus, justification rests more upon love, which fulfills God’s law, than on the forgiveness of sins. In fact, justification itself is relocated in sanctification. And so it is love which makes man very pleasing and acceptable before God.
[13] Therefore, we can genuinely cry out with Paul in just pain: You have lost Christ, you who desire to be justified through your love as the fulfillment of the Law. Faith is nothing and the promise is void, if the inheritance comes from the Law, whose fulfillment is love.
8:4: Andrada’s Reasoning
[1] We would now like to hear the reasoning which Andrada taught at Trent.
[2] Andrada concludes thus: “In conversion, not only are faith and the forgiveness of sins present, but also contrition, renewal, hope, love, etc. From this it follows that justification is not only the forgiveness of sins, but that the rest of the virtues also belong to justification.” To this I respond: It is true that no one is reconciled without repentance, and the one who is reconciled is also renewed. But what happens simultaneously does not therefore all possess one and the same work and manner. For one has at the same time feet, eyes, and ears, but he nevertheless does not see with the feet or hear with the eyes.
[3] We also do not deny the effects of justification. Only we are not able to call what is an effect a cause.
[4] Furthermore, as Andrada states, the manner of justification is to be developed from the biblical doctrine of righteousness. He concludes: “The Holy Spirit begins to establish obedience to the Law in the regenerate. This obedience is called righteousness in Scripture. Therefore, we are justified through this righteousness.” Scripture teaches, however, how incomplete the righteousness of the regenerate is in this life. Rather, it shows that the completely perfect righteousness of Christ, as it was offered for us, is the cause and reason for our justification, absolution, pardon, adoption, and transfer into eternal life.
[8] Nevertheless, Andrada notices that Paul—through that which he says concerning justifying faith alone in Romans 4:14 and Galatians 5:2, 4—thunders against our works in the article of justification. Therefore, our opponent seeks various hiding places for escape, especially because he sees that the council cannot withstand the irreconcilable opposition of Paul between faith and works of the Law.
Anadra wills—and this is obviously false—to exclude only the works of the ceremonial law from the article of justification. But the works which result from faith, which are fruits of the Holy Spirit, Andrada takes as so necessary for justification that the faith which takes hold of Christ is not able to be justified without it.
[9] Paul refutes this papal delusion, however, and clearly shows that it is a fabricated sham. This is evident from the fact that the apostle applies this sentence to Abraham who was rich in good works: “Not to the one who works, but rather to the one who believes, his faith accounted as righteousness.”
[11] Andrada clearly distorts the entire Pauline doctrine when he invents and does not prove a twofold righteousness of the Law and of faith which consists in seeking to observe the Law. The righteousness of the Law is achieved by the unregenerate; in the righteousness of faith, the regenerate obey the Law.
Paul, however, distinguishes thus: The righteousness of the Law stands in one’s own doing of the Law; but the righteousness of faith is where one takes hold of and possesses Christ in faith.
[12] Andrada understands the forgiveness of sins to be effected through Christ’s death, but justification through Christ’s resurrection. Thus, justification is not simply the forgiveness of sins. In Romans 6, Paul says that through Christ’s death the death of sin in us is signified, so that, just as Christ is risen from the dead, we also may walk in a new life. But Paul does not distinguish justification in such a way that it refers not to His death but only to the resurrection. For he says in Romans 5:9, “since we have been justified by His blood” (see also Romans 3:24–25, 8:34; 1 Corinthians 15:17).
[14] When teaching the imputation of righteousness, Paul does join the death and resurrection of Christ for this reason, because our righteousness is based upon the fact that:
1. The Son of God became our mediator because He was obedient to the Father unto death;
2. The Father accepted this satisfaction and obedience of the Son unto our regeneration and reconciliation, as He demonstrated through His resurrection.
[15] Andrada cannot deny that Paul often uses the word “imputation” in the article of justification. But as the autocratic representative of the council, he dictates to us that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness only means that love or inner righteousness is infused into the regenerate for the sake of Christ’s merit.
[16] The meaning of the word “imputation” must therefore be carefully considered.
[17] Without a doubt it is a referential verb. For when dealing with imputation, the questions arise, who is imputing, to whom is it imputed, for what reason, and for what purpose? Sometimes that word is also used in such a way that the reason for imputation is something which is inherent in the beneficiary of imputation.
[18] But Paul uses the word imputation, as he himself shows in the article of justification, in the sense that no cause is found in the one receiving imputation or comes into consideration on account of which imputation could occur. Rather, it happens due to the free mercies of God without our merit, indeed even against that which we have merited.
[20] Does God impute righteousness to the believer without any reason at all? He Himself says that this would be an abomination. Rather Christ’s satisfaction and obedience form the reason which God considers and on account of which He graciously imputes righteousness to the believer.
[21] The reason is therefore the righteousness of Christ; the goal is for the believing person granted imputation to be saved. The connection between the two is the mercy of God who imputes righteousness without works.
[23] The Tridentine decrees explain it as an apostolic tradition that when the catechumens desire faith unto eternal life they are confronted with this word of Christ: “If you desire to enter into eternal life, then keep the commandments.” Andrada seeks to prove this in the following way: “This word of Christ is the Gospel, that is to say, the righteousness of faith. It therefore also belongs to the doctrine of the Gospel and the righteousness of faith that men can and must merit eternal life themselves through their own works.” But this is a juvenile delusion—Augustine himself refuted it—to divide the doctrine of the Law and the Gospel in such a way that one means to have only Law in the books of the Old Testament and only Gospel in the books of the New. For obviously Christ and the apostles often urge the Law. Conversely, the true Gospel is described in many places in Moses and the prophets. Christ Himself explicitly refers the words “If you wish to enter into life, then keep the commandments” to the Law. For He asks, “What stands written in the Law? How do you read it?”
[24] When the catechumens desire faith unto eternal life, the papists show them the way which leads away from Christ to the Law, that through the doing of that which is written in the Law, they may be justified and live. They do not shy away from attributing such to apostolic tradition, even though Paul teaches the opposite. When the catechumens ask in Acts 2:37–38, “Men, dear brothers, what must we do?” Peter does not say, “If you wish to enter into life, then keep the commandments,” but rather: “Repent and let each one be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.”
8:5: Concerning the Growth of Received Justification
[1] That the renewal of the new man and the mortification of the old is not complete nor concluded in this life, but rather grows and increases day by day, is clearly stated by the testimonies of Scripture. Useful and necessary are also the admonitions of the church to the regenerate not to neglect or hide away the gifts of the Spirit which have been received, but rather to nurture them in true and serious discipline with the help of the Holy Spirit and to call upon Him for growth in faith, love, hope, and the rest of the Spirit’s gifts.
In this sense James desires that we should show our faith in works and discern in the good works and obedience of Abraham the proof of his true justification through faith.
[2] If the Tridentine decrees were talking about these points, then there would have been no dispute, for these teachings rest upon the truth.
[3] The fathers of Trent, however, do not actually and fundamentally have this in mind. Rather, they wish to safeguard the first and second justification according to the papal division and advance it in the church. Now, they call first justification the state in which the unregenerate man is first filled with inner righteousness or infused love, and they teach that this first infusion of love is without the merit of works.
As second righteousness they designate the state in which the infused love exercises its effects and brings forth good works. They teach that this second justification can and must be acquired through good works. According to their understanding, those works merit a greater righteousness than that which is infused without merit for the sake of Christ in the first justification.
Furthermore, they go so far as to say that those works of which second justification consists are the ones which finally merit eternal life, which function as a due reward for our works done in love. Thus teach the Jesuits.
[7] That this delusion directly conflicts with the teaching of Scripture is clear as day. For Scripture speaks not only of the beginning of our conversion when it says that we are justified before God unto eternal life by grace for the sake of Christ without works. Thus, Romans 5 shows that as we have obtained access to grace in faith, thus we also hope through this same faith and this same grace to enter into glory. Therefore, that which we have in the beginning we also have in the middle and end, namely, peace with God, through faith, freely for the sake of Christ as a fruit of justification without consideration for works.
Thus, Peter says in Acts 15:11 at least eighteen years after his conversion: We apostles “believe we are saved through the grace of Jesus Christ.” He does not say “we have believed,” but “we believe.”
[8] False and contrary to Scripture, therefore, is the teaching concerning a distinction between a first and second justification.
NOTES
[1] Here are some modern, scholarly Roman Catholic sources describing the Tridentine session on justification:
“Before the fifth session which published a decree on original sin, the legates called together the theologians to critique the draft decree prior to its final revisions. Cardinal del Monte, president of the council, justified his having adopted this procedure by stating that what goes forth from the council should be approved by all. Similar procedures were used to formulate the decree of the sixth session on justification. In six congregations of minor theologians, thirty-four experts presented their views. Of these, four held positions close to the Lutherans on various points and three or four others were considered to have spoken in such a Catholic and touching manner as to provide much light to the bishops who heard them. Once again the legates submitted to the theologians for criticism the draft decree formulated by the bishops in their subsequent general congregations.” – Nelson Minnich, Councils of the Catholic Reformation: Pisa I (1409) to Trent (1545-63), LONDON & NY: Routledge (2016), Chapter IV.
“After six months of discussion, the sixth session passed a decree on justification. It introduced a new format by dividing the decree into chapters that presented the Church’s positive teaching on justification with supporting biblical texts and into canons that condemned with an anathema anyone publicly holding a heretical opinion. The decree rejected any form of Pelagianism that held humans can, on their own power, become and remain justified. It also rejected the notion of imputed justice or justification coming from faith alone. Rejected too was any notion of a double justification whereby one is justified by sanctifying grace, but then needs to have Christ’s merits imputed to oneself to make up for the deficiencies in one’s living out the Christian vocation – a conciliatory theory adopted at the Regensburg Colloquy in 1541. While the Tridentine decree insisted that one cannot merit justifying grace that is a pure gift of God, an adult needs to cooperate by preparing and disposing the will to receive the gift. Once adults are justified, they are free with the help of grace to perform good works that increase one’s justice and allows one to hope in an eternal reward from a merciful God.” – Nelson Minnich, The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Trent, UK: Cambridge University Press (2023), Introduction, pg. 7.
“From early on, the Decree on Original Sin was seen as laying the foundation for a Decree on Justification. While original sin was dealt with in a month, more than six months were required to handle justification. External matters interfered, but the subject itself also proved difficult. A greater range of theological issues was involved, on some of which detailed and diverse positions had developed within the scholastic tradition. No prominent voices explicitly defended what were understood to be characteristically Reformation positions, but on certain questions, some strands of opinion within the council did resemble Protestant assertions. If no widely supported scholastic option was to be condemned and technical scholastic vocabulary was to be avoided, the wording of the decree at some points became a delicate matter. These substantive challenges had the salutary effect of forcing the council to consider with care just what it wished to say and how to say it.” – Michael Root, Essay: Original Sin and Justification, in: The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Trent, UK: Cambridge University Press (2023), Ch. 5, pg. 104.
[2] “The Greek words δικαιόω and δικαιοσύνη are translated in the English language respectively with the terms ‘justified’ and ‘righteous’. The former emphasises the action while the latter highlights a state of being. Both these terms demand an agent that justifies and declares righteous as well as an agent that is being declared just and deemed righteous. The term δικαιοσύνη also relates to the term δίκη which can be translated with ‘justice’, ‘punishment’ or ‘penalty’. Louw & Nida (1996:743) defines the term δικαιοσύνη, ης as the act of ‘doing what God requires’, ‘doing what is right in relation to God.’ The verb δικαιόω is defined as ‘to justify’, ‘to deem right’; ‘to cause to be in a right relationship with’. The Hebrew root of these terms are represented by הקדצ which is defined as ‘righteousness’, ‘justice’, ‘godliness’ etc.9 and טפשמ which is defined as ‘to execute justice and righteousness’, ‘administer justice’; ‘used in the act of judging’; ‘that which is lawful’. The Greek term κρίνω is used as a Greek equivalent for טפש) to judge), while κρίσις is a reproduction of טפשמ) divine judgment). Both the Hebrew, and its Greek counterpart (Septuagint / Old Greek), draw a distinction between the act of judgment and the state caused by such a judgement.” – Peter Nagel, A Critical Investigation of Romans 4:3: Its Determinative Value for Justice and Righteousness, Stellenbosch Theological Journal 2016, Vol 2, No 1, 321–338, pg. 323, link: https://scielo.org.za/pdf/stj/v2n1/18.pdf
[3] “For verily that age produced men who, in work of hand and speed of foot and vigour of body, were extraordinary and indefatigable, but they applied their powers to nothing that was fitting or useful. Nay rather, they exulted in monstrous insolence, and reaped from their strength a harvest of cruelty and bitterness, mastering and forcing and destroying everything that came in their path. And as for reverence and righteousness, justice and humanity, they thought that most men praised these qualities for lack of courage to do wrong and for fear of being wronged, and considered them no concern of men who were strong enough to get the upper hand.” – Plutarch, The Parallel Lives, Loeb Classical Library edition (1914), Vol. 1, The Life of Theseus, Chapter 6, pg. 15, §4, link: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Theseus%2A.html
“Thus Theseus also went on his way chastising the wicked, who were visited with the same violence from him which they were visiting upon others, and suffered justice after the manner of their own injustice.” – Plutarch, The Parallel Lives, Loeb Classical Library edition (1914), Vol. 1, The Life of Theseus, Chapter 11, Pg. 23, §2, link: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Theseus%2A.html
[4] “If David’s sin is counted for ungodliness, let not ungodly men despair of themselves, forasmuch as God hath spared an ungodly man; but let them take heed that to Him they be converted, that His ways they learn. But if David’s deed is not counted for ungodliness, but this is properly call ungodliness, namely, to apostatize from God, not to worship one God, or never to have worshipped, or to have forsaken, Him whom one did worship, then what he saith hath the force of superabundance, “And ungodly men shall to Thee be converted.” So full art thou of the fatness of mercy, that for those converted to Thee, not only sinners of any sort, but even ungodly, there is no cause for despair. Wherefore? That believing on Him that justifieth an ungodly man, their faith may be counted for righteousness.” – Augustine of Hippo, Expositions on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LI, §18, NPNF1-08, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LI.html
[5] “Having plainly called Himself the Son of God the Father, He thought not good to leave the word without witness, but brings forward proof from the quality, so to say, of the things themselves, making the hearers more steadfast unto faith. For I was not sent, saith He, like the law-expounder Moses, condemning the world by the law, nor introducing the commandment unto conviction of sin, nor do I perform a servile ministry, but I introduce loving-kindness befitting the Master: I free the embondaged, as Son and Heir of the Father, I transform the law that condemneth into grace that justifieth, I release from sin him that is holden with the cords of his transgressions, I am come to save the world, not to condemn it. For it was right, it was right, saith He, that Moses, as a servant, should be a minister of the law that condemns, but that I as Son and God should free the whole world from the curse of the law and, by exceedingness of lovingkindness, should heal the infirmity of the world. If then the grace that justifieth is better than the commandment that condemneth, how is it not meet to conceive that He surpasseth the measure of the servant Who introduceth so God-befitting authority, and releaseth man from the bonds of sin?” – Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, LFC 43, 48 (1874/1885), Book 2, Chapter I, Commentary on John 3:17, link: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_02_book2.htm
[6] See here for an article compiling 100+ Patristic & Medieval quotations on the atonement: https://javierperdomo.substack.com/p/christs-atonement-through-church
[7] Here are some papist sources backing this claim:
“Into the same opinion, or rather error [of Bucer and the Lutherans], fell Albertus Pighius in his second controversy, and the authors of the Anti-Didagma of Cologne.” – Robert Bellarmine, On Justification, Book 2, Chapter 1.
“Albertus Pighius and the Antididagma of Cologne stumbled into your [Lutheran] error concerning the imputed righteousness of Christ…” – Jacob Gretser, Labyrinthus, Chapter 7, pg. 91.
[8] “Listen to the same Evangelist telling us that ‘If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’ We are then righteous when we confess that we are sinners, and our righteousness depends not upon our own merits, but on the mercy of God, as the Holy Scripture says, ‘The righteous man accuseth himself when he beginneth to speak,’ and elsewhere, ’Tell thy sins that thou mayest be justified.’ ‘God hath shut up all under sin, that He may have mercy upon all.’ And the highest righteousness of man is this—whatever virtue he may be able to acquire, not to think it his own, but the gift of God.” – Jerome of Stridon, Against the Pelagians, Book I, §13, NPNF2-06, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.ix.I_1.html#fna_vi.ix.I_1-p99.2
[9] “It is by true piety that men of God cast out the hostile power of the air which opposes godliness; it is by exorcising it, not by propitiating it; and they overcome all the temptations of the adversary by praying, not to him, but to their own God against him. For the devil cannot conquer or subdue any but those who are in league with sin; and therefore he is conquered in the name of Him who assumed humanity, and that without sin, that Himself being both Priest and Sacrifice, He might bring about the remission of sins, that is to say, might bring it about through the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, by whom we are reconciled to God, the cleansing from sin being accomplished. For men are separated from God only by sins, from which we are in this life cleansed not by our own virtue, but by the divine compassion; through His indulgence, not through our own power. For, whatever virtue we call our own is itself bestowed upon us by His goodness. And we might attribute too much to ourselves while in the flesh, unless we lived in the receipt of pardon until we laid it down. This is the reason why there has been vouchsafed to us, through the Mediator, this grace, that we who are polluted by sinful flesh should be cleansed by the likeness of sinful flesh. By this grace of God, wherein He has shown His great compassion toward us, we are both governed by faith in this life, and, after this life, are led onwards to the fullest perfection by the vision of immutable truth.” – Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book 10, Chapter 22, NPNF1-02, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102/npnf102.iv.X.22.html
[10] “‘We say,’ says he, ‘that the saints of the Old Testament, their righteousness being perfected here, passed to eternal life,—that is, that by the love of virtue they departed from all sins; because those whom we read of as having committed any sin, we nevertheless know to have amended themselves.’ Of whatever virtue you may declare that the ancient righteous men were possessed, nothing saved them but the belief in the Mediator who shed His blood for the remission of their sins. For their own word is, ‘I believed, and therefore I spoke.’ Whence the Apostle Paul also says, ‘And we having the same Spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak.’ What is ‘the same Spirit,’ but that Spirit whom these righteous men also had who said such things? The Apostle Peter also says, ‘Why do ye wish to put a yoke upon the heathen, which neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? But, by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe that we shall be saved, even as they.’ You who are enemies to this grace do not wish this, that the ancients should be believed to have been saved by the same grace of Jesus Christ; but you distribute the times according to Pelagius, in whose books this is read, and you say that before the law men were saved by nature, then by the law, lastly by Christ, as if to men of the two former times, that is to say, before the law and under the law, the blood of Christ had not been necessary; making void what is said: ‘For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.’” – Augustine of Hippo, A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book I, Chapter 39, NPNF1-05, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105/npnf105.xviii.iii.xxxix.html
[11] “Our faith—that is, the catholic faith—distinguishes the righteous from the unrighteous not by the law of works, but by that of faith, because the just by faith lives. By which distinction it results that the man who leads his life without murder, without theft, without false-witness, without coveting other men’s goods, giving due honour to his parents, chaste even to continence from all carnal intercourse whatever, even conjugal, most liberal in alms-giving, most patient of injuries; who not only does not deprive another of his goods, but does not even ask again for what has been taken away from himself; or who has even sold all his own property and appropriated it to the poor, and possesses nothing which belongs to him as his own;—with such a character as this, laudable as it seems to be, if he has not a true and catholic faith in God, must yet depart from this life to condemnation. But another, who has good works from a right faith which worketh by love, maintains his continency in the honesty of wedlock, although he does not, like the other, well refrain altogether, but pays and repays the debt of carnal connection, and has intercourse not only for the sake of offspring, but also for the sake of pleasure, although only with his wife, which the apostle allows to those that are married as pardonable;—does not receive injuries with so much patience, but is raised into anger with the desire of vengeance, although, in order that he may say, ‘As we also forgive our debtors,’ forgives when he is asked;—possesses personal property, giving thence indeed some alms, but not as the former so liberally;—does not take away what belongs to another, but, although by ecclesiastical, not by civil judgment, yet contends for his own: certainly this man, who seems so inferior in morals to the former, on account of the right faith which he has in God, by which he lives, and according to which in all his wrong-doings he accuses himself, and in all his good works praises God, giving to himself the shame, to God the glory, and receiving from Him both forgiveness of sins and love of right deeds,—shall be delivered for this life, and depart to be received into the company of those who shall reign with Christ. Wherefore, if not on account of faith? Which, although without works it saves no man (for it is not a reprobate faith, since it worketh by love), yet by it even sins are loosed, because the just by faith liveth; but without it, even those things which seem good works are turned into sins: ‘For everything which is not of faith is sin.’ And it is brought about, on account of this great difference, that although with no possibility of doubt a persevering integrity of virginity is preferable to conjugal chastity, yet a woman even twice married, if she be a catholic, is preferred to a professed virgin that is a heretic; nor is she in such wise preferred because this one is better in God’s kingdom, but because the other is not there at all. Now the former, indeed, whom we have described as being of better morals, if a true faith be his, surpasses the second one, although both will be in heaven; yet if the faith be wanting to him, he is so surpassed by him that he himself is not there at all. Since, then, all righteous men, both the more ancient and the apostles, lived from a right faith which is in Christ Jesus our Lord; and had with their faith morals so holy, that although they might not be of such perfect virtue in this life as that which should be after this life, yet whatever of sin might creep in from human infirmity might be constantly done away by the piety of their faith itself: it results from this that, in comparison with the wicked whom God will condemn, it must be said that these were ‘righteous,’ since by their pious faith they were so far removed into the opposite of those wicked men that the apostle cries out, ‘What part hath he that believeth with an infidel?’ But it is plain that the Pelagians, these modern heretics, seem to themselves to be religious lovers and praisers of the saints, since they do not dare to say that they were of an imperfect virtue; although that elected vessel confesses this, who, considering in what state he still was, and that the body which is corrupted drags down the soul, says, ‘Not that I have already attained or am yet perfect; brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended.’ And yet a little after, he who had denied himself to be perfect says, ‘Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded,’ in order that he might show that, according to the measure of this life, there is a certain perfection, and that to that perfection this also is to be attributed, even although any one may know that he is not yet perfect. For what is more perfect, or what was more excellent, than the holy priests among the ancient people? And yet God prescribed to them to offer sacrifice first of all for their own sins. And what is more holy among the new people than the apostles? And yet the Lord prescribed to them to say in their prayer, ‘Forgive us our debts.’ For all the pious, therefore, who lie under this burden of a corruptible flesh, and groan in the infirmity of this life of theirs, there is one hope: ‘We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins.’” – Augustine of Hippo, A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book III, Chapters 14-15, NPNF1-05, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105/npnf105.xviii.v.xiv.html
[12] “‘Lord, hear my voice. O let Thine ears consider well the voice of my complaint’ (ver. 2). Whence doth he cry? From the deep. Who is it then who crieth? A sinner. And with what hope doth he cry? Because He who came to absolve from sins, gave hope even to the sinner down in the deep. What therefore followeth after these words: ‘If Thou, Lord, wilt be extreme to mark what is amiss, O Lord, who may abide it?’ (ver. 3). So, he hath disclosed from what deep he cried out. For he crieth beneath the weights and billows of his iniquities.…He said not, I may not abide it: but, ‘who may abide it?’ For he saw that nigh the whole of human life on every side was ever bayed at by its sins, that all consciences were accused by their thoughts, that a clean heart trusting in its own righteousness could not be found. But wherefore is there hope? ‘For there is propitiation with Thee’ (ver. 4). And what is this propitiation, except sacrifice? And what is sacrifice, save that which hath been offered for us? The pouring forth of innocent blood blotted out all the sins of the guilty: so great a price paid down redeemed all captives from the hand of the enemy who captured them. ‘With Thee,’ then, ‘there is propitiation.’ For if there were not mercy with Thee, if Thou chosest to be Judge only, and didst refuse to be merciful, Thou wouldest mark all our iniquities, and search after them. Who could abide this? Who could stand before Thee, and say, I am innocent? Who could stand in Thy judgment? There is therefore one hope: ‘for the sake of Thy law have I borne Thee, O Lord.’ What law? That which made men guilty. For a ‘law, holy, just, and good,’ was given to the Jews; but its effect was to make them guilty. A law was not given that could give life, but which might show his sins to the sinner. For the sinner had forgotten himself, and saw not himself; the law was given him, that he might see himself. The law made him guilty, the Lawgiver freed him: for the Lawgiver is the Supreme Power.…There is therefore a law of the mercy of God, a law of the propitiation of God. The one was a law of fear, the other is a law of love. The law of love giveth forgiveness to sins, blotteth out the past, warneth concerning the future; forsaketh not its companion by the way, becometh a companion to him whom it leadeth on the way. But it is needful to agree with the adversary, whilst thou art with him in the way. For the Word of God is thine adversary, as long as thou dost not agree with it. But thou agreest, when it has begun to be thy delight to do what God’s Word commandeth. Then he who was thine adversary becometh thy friend: so, when the way is finished, there will be none to deliver thee to the Judge. Therefore, ‘For the sake of Thy law I have waited for Thee, O Lord,’ because thou hast condescended to bring in a law of mercy, to forgive me all my sins, to give me for the future warnings that I may not offend.…‘For the sake,’ therefore, ‘of’ this ‘law I have waited for Thee, O Lord.’ I have waited until Thou mayest come and free me from all need, for in my very need Thou hast not forsaken the law of mercy.…‘My soul hath waited for Thy word.’…We therefore trust without fear on the word of Him who cannot deceive.” – Augustine of Hippo, Expositions on the Book of Psalms, Psalm CXXX, NPNF1-08, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.CXXX.html
[13] “God’s purpose stands fast, the peace he has planned for those who fear him is without recall. Overlooking their faults and rewarding their good deeds, with a divine deftness he turns to their benefit not only the good they do but even the evil. He alone is happy “whom the Lord accuses of no guilt.” There is no one without sin, not even one. “For all have sinned and forfeited God’s glory.” But “could anyone accuse those that God has chosen?” I ask no further pledge of righteousness if he is on my side whom alone I have offended. If he decrees that a sin is not to be imputed to me, it is as if it never existed. Inability to sin constitutes God’s righteousness; God’s forgiveness constitutes man’s. When I grasped this I understood the truth of the words: “We know that anyone who has been begotten by God does not sin, because a heavenly birth protects him.” Heavenly birth is eternal predestination, by which God loved his chosen ones and endowed them with spiritual blessings in his beloved Son before the world was made. Thus appearing before him in his holy place, they would see his power and his glory, and become sharers in the inheritance of the Son to whose image they were to be conformed. I think of such as these as if they had never sinned, because the sins in time do not appear in eternity, for the love of the Father covers a multitude of sins. “Happy is the man whose fault is forgiven, whose sin is blotted out.” When I say these words I am suddenly inspired with so great a confidence, filled with such joy, that it surpasses the fear I experienced in the place of horror, that place of the second vision, and I even look upon myself as one of that blessed band. Would that this moment lasted! Again and again visit me, Lord, in your saving mission; let me see the goodness of your chosen, let me rejoice in the joy of your nation.” – Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon 23 on the Song of Songs, §15, link: https://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/c0u.htm
“Therefore the man who through sorrow for sin hungers and thirsts for justice, let him trust in the One who changes the sinner into a just man, and, judged righteous in terms of faith alone, he will have peace with God. Your holiness, for its part, is sweetly and richly radiated not only by your mode of life, but even by your conception. You have neither committed sin nor been contaminated by it. Repentant sinners therefore who wish to attain to that holiness essential for the vision of God, should listen to your warning: ‘Be holy, for I am holy.’ Let them pay attention to your ways for you are just in all your ways and holy in all your doings. Finally, how many are inspired to run by the sweet odor of your redemption! When you are lifted up from the earth you draw all things to yourself. Your Passion is the ultimate refuge, a remedy that is unique. When our wisdom lets us down, when our righteousness falls short, when the merits of our holiness founder, your Passion becomes our support. Who would presume that his own wisdom, or righteousness or holiness suffices for salvation? ‘Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our sufficiency is from God.’ Therefore when my strength is spent I shall not be troubled, I shall not lose heart. I know what I shall do: I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord. Enlighten my eyes, O Lord, that I may learn what is pleasing to you at all times, and then I am wise. ‘Remember not the sins of my youth, or my transgressions,’ and then I am righteous. ‘Teach me your way,’ and then I am holy. And yet, unless your blood cries out on my behalf, I am not saved. To obtain all these gifts we run after you: forgive us, because we cry after you.” – Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon 22 on the Song of Songs, §8, link: https://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/c0u.htm
[14] Translation #1: “What, ah what will then become of me? Who will deliver me out of the hands of God? where shall I look for counsel? where for salvation? Who is He that is called the Angel of the Great Counsel and the Saviour that I may call upon His name? It is none other than He, Jesus Himself, the Judge in whose hands I tremble. Breathe again, poor sinner, breathe again; despair not, hope in Him whom thou fearest. Fly to Him, from whom thou didst flee away. Cease not to call upon Him whom thou didst provoke to wrath. O Jesus, Jesus, for Thy name’s sake, do unto me according to Thy name! Jesus, Jesus, forget the proud sinner that provoked Thy wrath, and look upon me the unhappy one that calleth upon Thy sweet name, Thy pleasant name, Thy name that comforteth the sinner and openeth to him the hope of blessing. For what signifieth Jesus but Saviour. Therefore, O Jesus, for Thine own sake be a Jesus to me.” – St. Anselm of Canterbury, The Devotions of St. Anselm, LONDON: Methuen & Co. (1903), Meditation II, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/anselm/devotions.iii.iv.html
Translation #2: “Sinner that I am, what have I done! Against Whom have I done it! How wickedly have I done it! Alas, alas! O wrath of the Omnipotent, fall not on me; wrath of the Omnipotent, where could I endure thee? There is no place in all of me that could bear thy weight. O anguish! Here, sins accusing; there, justice terrifying; beneath, the yawning frightful pit of hell; above, an angry Judge; within, a burning conscience; around, a flaming universe! The just will scarcely be saved; and the sinner entangled thus, whither, whither shall he fly? Tight bound, where shall I crouch and cower; how shall I show my face? To hide will be impossible, to appear will be intolerable; I shall long for the one, and it is nowhere; I shall loathe the other, and it is everywhere! What then? What then? What will happen then? Who will snatch me from the hands of God? Where shall I find counsel, where shall I find salvation? Who is He that is called the Angel of great counsel, that is called the Saviour, that I may shriek His Name? Why, here He is; here He is; it is Jesus, Jesus the very Judge Himself, in whose hands I am trembling! Breathe again, sinner, breathe again; do not despair; trust in Him Whom thou fearest. Fly home to Him from Whom thou hast fled away; cry cravingly to Him Whom thou hast so proudly provoked. Jesus, Jesus; for the sake of this Thy Name, deal with me according to this Name. Jesus, Jesus; forget Thy proud provoker, and bend Thine eye upon the poor invoker of Thy Name, the Name so sweet, the Name so dear, the Name so full of comfort to a sinner, and so full of blessed hope. For what is Jesus but Saviour? Therefore, Jesus, for Thine own self’s sake be a Jesus to me; Thou who formedst me, that I perish not; who redeemedst me, that Thou condemn me not; who createdst me by Thy goodness, that Thy handiwork perish not by my iniquity. Recognise and own, Benignest, what is Thine; take away what is another’s. Jesus, Jesus, mercy on me, while the day of mercy lasts, that Thou damn me not in the day of judgment. For what profit shalt Thou have in my blood, if I go down into eternal corruption? ‘For the dead shall not praise Thee, O Lord, nor any of them that go down to hell’ (Ps. cxiii. 17). If Thou fold me in the wide, wide Bosom of Thy mercy, that Bosom will be none the less wide on my account. Therefore admit me, O most desired Jesus, admit me into the number of Thine elect; that with them I may praise Thee, and enjoy Thee, and make my boast in Thee amongst all who love Thy Name; who with the Father and the Holy Ghost reignest gloriously throughout unending ages. Amen.” – St. Anselm of Centerbury, Meditations of St. Anselm, Second Meditation, LONDON: Robson and Sons (1872), §15-16, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/anselm/meditations/meditations.iv.ii.html
[15] There are some Roman Catholics today who try to read Trent in such a way that there is still room for man to be justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ, simply not by it alone; however, Trent pretty clearly stands against this. While the Tridentine language may not be as explicit as some may like, older Roman Catholic dogmaticians as well as modern Roman Catholic scholars agree that it rules out man being formally justified by the imputation Christ’s righteousness:
“By that canon [11 of Trent] … it is not signified that the Council’s opinion is that man is indeed justified by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, but not by it alone: for already, as we have said, in canon 10 it had been absolutely defined that man is not justified formally through the righteousness by which Christ Himself is righteous.“ – Robert Bellarmine, On Justification, Book 2, Chapter 2.
“Therefore, the present Tridentine Synod, in Session 6, ch. 7 determined rightly and in a Catholic manner, that there is a single formal cause of our justification, namely, the justice of God, indeed not that by which He is just (for this is the meritorious and efficient cause of our justice), but that by that which He makes us just, for we, being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and not only are we reputed, but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within ourselves, each according to his own measure, which the Holy Spirit imparts to everyone as He wills, and according to each one’s disposition and cooperation. Also, canon 10 condemns those who say that we are formally justified through the justice of Christ, and canon 11 more explicitly condemns those who say that man is justified by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ to the exclusion of grace and charity, which are diffused in our hearts through the Holy Spirit and inhere in us.” – Domingo De Soto, qtd. in Fides Quae Per Charitatem Operatur: A Study and Translation of Domingo De Soto’s De Natura et Gratia, pg. 1287.
““Formal cause” is a central term for an Aristotelian metaphysics. A thing’s form makes it to be what it is. To ask about the formal cause of justification is to ask what precisely constitutes the justice of the justified person. The focus of the debate over justification’s formal cause was the concept of double justice (duplex iustitia). The concept had been developed in connection with the Regensburg Colloquy of Catholic and Lutheran theologians in 1541. Different understandings were in circulation, however, of precisely what was meant by “double justice.” In general, they shared a common core: the justice which constitutes the justified as just is twofold: a justice that inheres within the justified person and also the justice of Christ imputed to the justified person. Neither was alone adequate. The variations came in how to define the two justices and how to interrelate them. As noted, the fathers at Trent were agreed that a justice that inheres within the justified is an essential element of justification and canon 11 of the decree condemns the denial that the grace given in justification inheres in the justified. But is such inhering grace adequate for justification, or does it need to be paired with the imputation of Christ’s justice? Do these two together in some way constitute the formal cause of justification? The phrase “double justice” appears in the preliminary draft drawn up by Seripando on August 29. Chapter 8 bears the title “On Double Justice” (De duplici iustitia). The phrase is not repeated in the body of the chapter, but a distinction is there apparently made between “the most pure and integral justice of Christ . . . which is diffused in his whole body, that is, the whole church . . . through faith and the sacraments” and “grace or charity poured into their hearts” (CT V, 829: 41–44). The grace of charity that inheres in the justified is something different from the justice of Christ communicated by faith and the sacraments. As noted earlier, after Seripando delivered his draft to Cervini, it went through a revision process before being distributed in late September. The September draft did more than simply drop Seripando’s language of “double justice”; at least verbally it seems explicitly to reject it. “The justice that is in us is called the justice of God, since we receive it from him alone. It can be called the justice of Christ, since what is given to us he alone merited. . . . So there are not two justices given to us, of God and of Christ, but one justice of God through Jesus Christ” (CT V, 423: 31–35). This statement does not reject precisely what Seripando had asserted (he had not spoken of two justices, but a double justice), but the identification of this one justice with “grace or charity . . . that inheres” in the justified (CT V, 623: 24–25) clearly indicates a conception at odds with that of Seripando. In early October, the issue was publicly joined. On October 8, Seripando presented his first detailed and explicit defense of double justice. Only a few voices supported Seripando, mostly from his fellow Augustinians. Far more spoke up for the adequacy of inhering grace for justification. When a new draft was circulated on November 5, now including the more precise scheme of the causes of justification, the result of the discussion was evident. The formal cause of justification is described as “the one justice of God, given by him, by which we are renewed in the spirit of our minds” (CT V, 636: 36–37). Although Seripando continued to fight a rearguard action, further changes to the decree simply strengthened the rejection of double justice. On November 23, the Savoyard Jesuit Claude Le Jay suggested shifting the word “one” so that the decree would speak of “one formal cause” of justification (CT V, 24–26). A revised draft of this section distributed by the legates on December 11 changed “one” (una) to “single” or “unique” (unica; CT V, 700: 25). The doctrinal chapters thus implicitly reject double justice. The council decided, however, not to condemn double justice explicitly, though a few wanted to do so (e.g., Pacheco; CT V, 692: 6–7). No canon touches on the issue. One factor in the decision was undoubtedly the respect widely felt for Seripando, both as a scholar and a churchman.” – Michael Root, Essay: Original Sin and Justification, in: The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Trent, UK: Cambridge University Press (2023), Ch. 5, pg. 111-113.
“On other issues, however, the council directly rejected the theology of a particular school. Perhaps the most significant example was the council’s repudiation of the small and loosely knit Cologne School’s theory of double justification. Prior to the council. a number of prominent theologians such as Albert Pighius (1490–1542), Johannes Gropper (1503–59), Seripando, and Cardinal Gasparo Contarini (1483–1542) developed a theory of double justification (duplex iustitia) designed to bridge the gap between the Protestant theologians and the Church. The primary exponent of this school at Trent, Seripando, in effect taught that there are two formal causes of justification. During the discussion on justification, Cardinal Cervini asked Seripando, the General of the Augustinian Hermits, to write a draft of the decree on justification. In this draft Seripando included a chapter “On twofold righteousness,” thereby inserting a duplex iustitia into the decree. The legates had the draft revised by a committee, and the twofold righteousness was replaced by “one righteousness.” On October 8, Seripando objected to this explicit rejection of the twofold righteousness, arguing that this was in effect tantamount to lumping heretics in with Catholics in good standing, such as Contarini, Cajetan, Pighius, Plug, and Gropper. While Seripando’s objection was taken seriously by the legates, he failed to gain support among the fathers; in each of the subsequent drafts there was an attempt to exclude the doctrine. Decisively, on November 23, the Jesuit Claude Le Jay, speaking first, suggested that the term “one” in the phrase “the formal cause of justification is the one righteousness of God” (causa formalis iustitia una Dei) should be moved so that it now read “the one formal cause” of justification “is the righteousness of God” (causa formalis una, iustitia Dei). Then on December 11, during the discussion of chapter 8, the “one formal cause” was replaced by “the sole formal cause” (unica formalis causa) of justification. The draft now affirmed that “the sole formal cause” of justification “is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just in His sight.” With this change, the council formally excluded the Cologne school’s theory of two formal causes of justification. In the end, the council fathers opposed Seripando’s doctrine because it was novel and contrary to all other received schools. The French theologian Gentian Hervet, for example, dismissed the theory of double justice on the grounds that it was “recently excogitated.”” – Christian Washburn, Essay: Schools of Theology at the Council of Trent, in: The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Trent, UK: Cambridge University Press (2023), Ch. 3, pg. 60-61.
