← Back to the beginning of Chapter IV. The Reformation Principle of Justification by Faith in Christ

  1. Calvin then treats justification through Christ by faith as the consciousness of justification in the regenerate person, who by the Holy Spirit is actively engaged within the Church in carrying out his poenitentia, and in manifesting his new life by good works. But still the other weighty view of justification as preceding regeneration is also maintained in the arrangement and mode of presentation he has chosen. For having shown the relation between faith and the Holy Ghost in the first two chapters of the third book, and having then at the beginning of the third chapter pointed to novitas vitæ and reconciliatio gratuita as the twofold possession of faith, he vindicates the propriety of taking the former into consideration first, because it helps to a comprehension of the latter, and to an adequate understanding of the manner in which the two benefits go together. Viewing the matter objectively, however, he maintains as distinctly as any Lutheran could do the priority of the forgiving to the regenerating grace of God.79 For this reason Calvin was not able to conclude his previous psychological and ethical description of the idea of faith without alluding to the opposite schema in which true justification presents itself to the eye of faith. The assurance of salvation (as opposed to doubts of all sorts), possessed by faith, consists entirely in looking towards God and towards His promise; and excludes the possibility of any value being attributed to works, which entitle no one to make the faintest conjecture of his acceptance with God (iii. 2. 37, 38). The justification that is by faith makes reference to the grace of God, through the mediation of Christ, particularly through his historical act of obedience which reconciled us with God, or earned from Him the forgiveness of our sins, so that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us. All those formulæ have a similar meaning to Calvin, for it is in the light of religious intuition that he regards the value of that bygone event to be the ground of our salvation.80 With Calvin also the assurance of this justification by faith serves to guard the Christian life both against despair of salvation and against all phases of self-righteousness (iii. 11. 15; 12. 2, 4). If now it occurs to us that this relation between faith and the grace of God, that justifies through Christ, exists in the believer only, under the condition that through the Holy Ghost he has been made a member of Christ the Head, Calvin has also been careful to provide that the forensic idea of justification should not be touched or injured by this. There certainly does occur in the earlier editions of the Institutio81 a passage in which, along with other benefits of redemption, justificatio also is derived from the working of God by the Holy Spirit; but as even the earlier editions represent with perfect accuracy imputation as the form of justification,82 the Holy Spirit accordingly is to be understood merely as the conditio sine qua non of imputation to individuals, just as is done by Zwingli in his Expositio fidei (above, p. 162, note). In particular, Calvin, even previous to the appearance of Osiander, expressly opposes the view that this possession of the Holy Spirit, or the fact of his faith, is the objective ground of that sentence of acquittal which the believer receives;83 or that faith contributes some real thing towards justification;84 on the contrary, he asserts that faith or enlightenment by God’s Spirit is only the means of justification, just as incorporation with the Church by the Holy Spirit’s work is represented as the needful connecting idea between the work of Christ and our consciousness of righteousness founded thereupon.85 If perhaps some vagueness is still felt here, this can only be because this connecting idea had not already been treated in connexion with the doctrine of the work of Christ, as is cursorily done in the language of the Genevan Catechism (above, p. 187). From all that has been said, it results that Schneckenburger’s impression86 that the reformed view of the doctrine is specifically distinguished from the Lutheran, inasmuch as the latter represents justification as a synthetic judgment (the sinner is just), the former as an analytic judgment (the believer is just) resulting necessarily from the unio cum Christo, or regeneration, cannot be justified by reference to Calvin. The contents of the religious consciousness of justification are not described by Calvin otherwise than they are described by Luther; both agree that the believer gives himself a sinner’s place even while he knows himself to be justified through Christ (p. 135). Calvin in no way weakens this thought when he brings it out in connexion with the fact that the subject must be savingly united to Christ in the Church before he can know himself to be justified. For unio cum Christo is assumed to be not the sufficient cause but the conditio sine qua non of the justification that is experienced.

As is the case with the other Reformers, so with Calvin also: an alteration in the idea of poenitentia is conjoined with the maintenance of the doctrine of justification through Christ. I may venture, however, to omit a reproduction of Calvin’s refutation of the Romish doctrine of the sacrament of penance and of indulgence (iii. cap. 4, 5), for here he does not differ at all from the other Reformers. With reference, however, to the positive explanation of poenitentia, there is observable in Calvin a change of view which is the exact converse of that which Luther and Melanchthon exhibited. In the first edition of the Institutio (1536), he treats the subject merely à propos of the false traditional idea of the sacraments, and indeed with an indeterminateness that is not usual with him in other cases when he is criticising diverse views. At last, from Acts xx. 21, he comes to the conclusion that poenitentia and fides are to be distinguished; although no true poenitentia occurs without fides.87 In this way poenitentia comes to have the merely negative meaning that makes it equivalent to the mortificatio which, when it is genuine and active, finds its issue in fiducia erga Dei promissiones, in assurance of the forgiveness of sins. This sequence is just as empirically apprehended as that of contritio et fides in Luther’s and Melanchthon’s view. Calvin’s view of the matter, however, differs from the latter herein, that he derives the poenitentia that leads to good results, not from the preaching of the law, but from the gospel, inasmuch as the gospel declares the crucifixion of our old man in conformity with Christ’s death on the cross to be necessary. Calvin no less than the others, however, regards the business of poenitentia as extending over the entire new life, although the discharge of it naturally belongs also to the beginning of that life. Now a peculiar obscurity, in which Calvin coincides with Agricola and goes against Luther and Melanchthon, attaches to that point. If repentance be occasioned by the gospel, one might expect faith in the gospel to be recognised as its subjective root; and yet, since the latter is empirically represented as the conclusion of repentance, its subjective motive is defined only as verus ac sincerus Dei timor. This is explained by the fact that, in his empirical treatment of the matter, Calvin has in his eye the initial appearance of poenitentia in the case of one who turns to Christ for the first time, and, on this presupposition, forthwith extends the business of poenitentia to the whole life, without asking whether the subjective motive does not afterwards change. On this point at least he thus takes the view that Luther maintained in his first discussion with Agricola, fidem generalem sub nomine poenitentiæ recte comprehendi (p. 182).

For this empirical view of conversion Calvin, in his editions of the years 1539-1559, substituted another that was throughout arranged in a scientific manner, and is characterized by a change in the use of language back to Melanchthon’s original sense (p. 168).88 He no longer identifies poenitentia with the negative mortificatio, but will have it poenitentiæ nomine totam ad Deum conversionem comprehendi. And then he defines it as veram ad Deum vitæ nostræ conversionem, a sincero serioque Dei timore profectam, quæ carnis nostræ veterisque hominis mortificatione et spiritus vivificatione constet (iii. 3. 5). Pœnitentiam interpretor regenerationem, cujus scopus est, ut imago Dei … in nobis reformetur (sect. 9). Moreover, it is distinctly stated that poenitentia vera citra fidem consistere non potest (sect. 5). Specific faith is therefore to be understood as the motive of that earnest fear of God, and especially of His judgment, from which (sects. 5, 7) poenitentia proceeds to actual recognition of the demerit of sin, to horror of it, and to hatred of it and to godly sorrow (sect. 7). In conformity with this beginning is the sequel of the development, as by union to Christ the adequate motive is gained for crucifying the old man (sect. 9), and the impelling motive to calmness of spirit, and to zeal in the renewal of our life (sect. 3), as well as to obedience to the law (sect. 8). This change, however, is not described as the task of a few days, but as one which extends over the whole lifetime (sect. 9). It cannot be doubted that, according to Calvin, the law co-operates towards the first part of this experience, in so far as it causes knowledge of sin and of its demerit (always supposing the lawgiver to be recognised), although this thought had been worked out in an earlier portion of the treatise (ii. 7, 6-8). It is no less clear, however, that he thinks of the process of mortification that is thus rich in consequences, only by conceiving that the general timor Dei is specialized into saving faith in Christ, in such a way as to make the actual turning of the disposition and will away from sin to be the result, not of self-contemplation in the mirror of the law, but primarily of attraction to the ideal of moral perfection discerned in Christ. But while Calvin, in his second and third editions, interpolated the whole doctrine of poenitentia into the course of that Christian life which is dominated by the ideas of the Holy Spirit and of faith, he prefaced the description of poenitentia that is given in sections 5-9 with an explanation of the principle of poenitentia, according to which poenitentia falls to be considered only within the Christian life itself. In this explanation he says that poenitentia, in its above-mentioned comprehensive meaning as the task of the whole Christian life, has its adequate ground, its immanent principle, in special faith in the grace of God through Christ.89 In order to bring this out still more clearly, he explains in the third edition that if many are prepared unto obedience by alarm of conscience before they know or experience God’s grace, this initialis timor only illustrates the variety of ways in which Christ draws men to Himself, or prepares them for striving after goodness. It is thus hereby declared that ordinary education within the community of believers makes it unreasonable to expect that in the case of every one poenitentia should be introduced by marked appearances of dread of judgment, and of struggles between conscience and the law. On comparing with this how Calvin at the outset condemns and rejects not only the jesuitical but also the pietistic praxis of penitential exercise which necessarily flows from the doctrine of Luther and Melanchthon,90 one has not only cause to admire his insight, but also has proof that that insight rests upon a proper appreciation of the priority of the idea of the Church over the saving experience of the individual. In this Calvin has rescued a fundamental principle which Luther, in his originally true perception of the reciprocal relation between the faith of justification and the believer’s life in the Church, had opposed to the Romish Church theory, and to the Romish practice of penance. That Köstlin (as above, p. 462), according to his own confession, has not been able to attain a clear understanding of Calvin’s explications relating to this point is to be accounted for from the fact that, in his analysis of the Institutio, he has failed as completely as Schneckenburger to recognise the clearly marked subordination of the individual’s experience of salvation to the idea of the Church. And this circumstance is to be accounted for in that Köstlin avowedly measures Calvin’s representation by that conception of poenitentia which Lutheranism has embraced, and which has been derived from regard to the “ common rude man.” But this course implies injustice to Calvin; for he regulates the idea of poenitentia in accordance with the peculiarly reformation thought of the fellowship of believers under Christ their Head, while Luther and Melanchthon by their deliberate vacillation in the Visitationsbüchlein really glide into the notion that the Church primarily is a mechanism designed for the conversion of men to Christ (p. 184), and thus on this point render one of the valuable gains of the Reformation inoperative.

← Chapter III. The Mediæval Idea of Justification · Contents · Chapter V. The Reformation Doctrine of Reconciliation Contrasted in Its →

Footnotes

  1. I have already, however, in an exposition of Andreas Osiander’s doctrine of justification (Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, ii., 1857), stated what are the points of view which always approved themselves to me as the right ones for the apprehension of the matter. ↩

  2. Compare Friedberg: Der Missbrauch der geistlichen Amtsgewalt u. der Recurs an den Staat in the Zeitschrift f. Kirchenrecht, Bd. viii. p. 304, seq. ↩

  3. Compare Luther: Die drei Symbola oder Bekenntniss des christlichen Glaubens von Luthern, seinen Glauben zu bekennen, aufs Neue in Druck gegeben. Walch, x. p. 1198. Preface: “I have ex abundanti caused to be published together in German the three symbols or Confessions which have hitherto been held throughout the whole Church; by this I testify once for all that I adhere to the true Christian Church which, up till now, has maintained those symbols, but not to that false pretentious church, which is the worst enemy of the true Church, and has surreptitiously introduced much idolatry alongside of these beautiful Confessions.” Luther’s attitude in the sacramentarian controversy also was to all intents and purposes determined by the (certainly erroneous) impression that the doctrine of the real presence of the body of Christ in the sacramental bread is upheld by the unvarying tradition of the Church. See his letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia in 1532. De Wette; Luther’s Briefe, iv. p. 354; Walch, xx. p. 2096. ↩

  4. Melanchthon expresses himself on this matter in a tractate of the year 1539, De ecclesia et auctoritate verbi Dei (C. R. xxiii. p. 595 seq.). He will have it that the authority of the Church ought to contribute towards our understanding of the Johannine Prologue, on the principle that the Church ought to be heard, Matt. xviii. 17. Audiamus igitur docentem et admonentem ecclesiam, sed non propter auctoritatem ecclesiae credendum est, cum videlicet admoniti ab ecclesia intelligimus hanc sententiam vere et sine sophistica in verbo Dei traditam esse … Auditor admonitus ab ecclesia, quod VERBUM significet personam, scilicet Filium Dei, adjuvatur jam ab ecclesia, et … articulum credit non propter ecclesiae auctoritatem, sed quia videt hanc sententiam habere firma testimonia in ipsa scriptura. —Calvin (Inst. Chr. Rel. i. 13, 3.4), too, admits that the technical forms of the doctrine of the Trinity are not directly taken from Scripture; but after having shown them to be in accordance with the sense of the Bible, he justifies their continued use by the Church on the ground that the very erroneous ideas which compelled the Church to give a scientific shape to these ideas, continue still to render them necessary. This view is much more judicious than that of Melanchthon, and is in harmony with the greater strictness of the principle of adherence to Scripture which characterized the second generation of the Reformation. George Major also, De origine et auctoritate verbi Dei (1550), recognises catholicus consensus in interpretatione scripturæ, only he refuses as much as his teachers did to avail himself of it as an absolute guide upon the point in question. Even although it multum valet ad confirmandas mentes piorum, yet it should only be allowed to have some weight on account of its conformity with Scripture as interpreted by itself. He therefore places Scripture above dogmatically orthodox tradition. ↩

  5. Compare Trechsel: Antitrinitarier vor Faustus Socin. i. p. 237; ii. p. 328. Compare also ii. pp. 358, 359, where Gentilis himself affirms the principle that heretics, as being teachers of false religion, deserve capital punishment. ↩

  6. As above, i. p. 27. ↩

  7. Compare Hundeshagen: Beiträge zur Kirchenverfassungsgeschichte und Kirchenpolitik, i. p. 99. ↩

  8. Niemeyer: Collectio Confessionum, p. 462, seq. Compare Trechsel; as above, ii. p. 375. ↩

  9. Examen Conc. Trid. (Genev. 1641), p. 134, seq. 140. Chemnitz’s point of view as stated in the text is constantly recurring also in his article De justificatione. Bellarmine (De justificatione, ii. 2), in attacking this representation of the question at issue as a falsification of it, himself fails accurately to reproduce Chemnitz’ dilemma. For the latter does not consider merely the question propter quod Deus hominem in gratiam recipiat, as Bellarmine says in summarizing Chemnitz, p. 129, but also the question propter quod Deus hominem renatum justum censeat. ↩

  10. Löscher, Reformationsacta, i. pp. 777, 748, 252. ↩

  11. As above, i. pp. 772, 777. ↩

  12. As above, iii. pp. 756-768. Walch, xviii. 882-903. ↩

  13. As above, i. pp. 244, 743, 762. ↩

  14. As above, i. p. 335. ↩

  15. As above, i. pp. 230, 761, 778. ↩

  16. As above, i. pp. 284, 742. ↩

  17. As above, i. p. 752: “They are the men of God who are led by the Spirit of God, who, having learned the control of the outer man, do not consider it except as a preliminary; they then put themselves in preparation for whatever work they may be called unto. If they are led by God through many sorrows and humiliations, without knowing whereunto, they yet intrust themselves to God alone, for they do not now rely upon any work henceforward, and their works have no value in the beginning, but only at the end; it is not they who lead, they are led. For they do not act from any ability of their own, nor yet do they form purposes for themselves, but, on the other hand, they are frequently broken off from their purpose, and are made to do something different from what they had proposed. Yet still are they content in this, and wait patiently for God, while those who are seeking to work out their own righteousness are in despair, not knowing the result of their toil. For they would fain have their work valued and established before acting; in this case, therefore, the character of the doer follows his deed, in the other it precedes it.” ↩

  18. Compare also as above, i. p. 288. ↩

  19. As above, i. pp. 770, 742. Köstlin takes the same view: Luther’s Theologie, i. p. 137. ↩

  20. Compare Köstlin as above, i. p. 213. “The doctrine of penance constitutes the central point of the controversy. We must again remember that what we are now considering is really that penance which he who already has entered the Christian Church, and has been received into the covenant of grace, has anew to exercise on account of the sins into which he is continually relapsing. This was what had to be considered in connexion with the question of indulgence: not the repentance of one who now for the first time embraces the faith and becomes partaker of salvation.” Compare a similar remark, p. 206, upon Luther’s (first) sermon De Poenitentia. ↩

  21. In the Apologia Conf. Aug. p. 175. See above, p. 123, note. ↩

  22. Sermo de Pœnitentia, Löscher, i. p. 574. Resolutiones disputationum de virtute indulgentiarum (against Tetzel), as above, ii. pp. 262-265. Sermon von der Busse (the second of the year 1518), ib. p. 512. Erklärung an den Card. Cajetan, ib. pp. 464-472. De captivitate ecclesiæ Babylonica, Opp. Lat. Jen. fol. 276 b. Walch, xix. p. 98 seq. ↩

  23. Compare his Zweiter Sermon von der Busse (as above, p. 526): “Thus thou seest that the whole Church is filled with the forgiveness of sins.” ↩

  24. As above, i. p. 439. Erster Sermon von der Busse, p. 572. Conclusiones contra Eccium, as above, ii. p. 321. The general idea is very far from being new or unfamiliar. See S. Bernardi Sermones, in Quadragesima, iii. 3: Errant plane, qui paucissimos dies istos ad pœnitentiam sufficere credunt, cum certum sit, totum vitæ huius tempus ad pœnitentiam institutum. ↩

  25. Zweiter Sermon von der Busse, as above, ii. p. 524. Conclus. c. Eccium, p. 321. ↩

  26. Resolutiones, as above, ii. pp. 196-202. ↩

  27. Concl. c. Eccium; see above, ii. p. 321. ↩

  28. Sermo de Pœnitentia (as above, ii. p. 569): Impossibile est ut odias aliquid vero odio et perfecto, cujus contrarium non prius dilexeris. Amor semper odio est prior et odium natura et sponte fluit ex amore … odium mali propter bonum. Sic odium peccati et detestatio vitæ præteritæ nulla cura, nullo labore quæsita veniunt sua sponte … Pœnitentia debet esse dulcis et ex dulcedine in iram descendere ad odium peccati. Amor enim est vinculum perpetuum quia, voluntarium, odium temporale, quia violentum. Igitur persuade homini primum ut diligat justitiam et sine magisterio tuo conteretur de peccato; diligat Christum et statim sui prodigus odio habebit se ipsum. So also in his Concl. c. Ecc. (ii. p. 321): in his letter to Staupitz of May 30, 1518 (de Wette, i. p. 116). Exposition of the Ten Commandments (Löscher, i. p. 641). The letter to Staupitz shows that Luther was indebted to him for this important knowledge. ↩

  29. Compare Melanchthon’s luminous statement (Declamatio de calumnia Osiandri, C. R., xii. p. 11): Etsi enim hac consolatione filius Dei ipse corda erigit et vivificat, ac spiritum sanctum in hunc, qui fide sustentatur, effundit, jam domicilium et templum Dei est homo renatus, tamen anteferenda est obedientia filii Dei his ipsis divinis actionibus quamquam excellentibus, et retinenda consolatio, propter mediatorem tibi imputari justitiam. ↩

  30. Zur kirchlichen Christologie, p. 45. ↩

  31. Zeller, Das theologische System Zwingli’s, p. 174. ↩

  32. Beiträge zur Kirchenverfassungsgeschichte und Kirchenpolitik, vol. i. p. 163. ↩

  33. Werke (edited by Schuler and Schulthess), i. p. 280: “So now, merit having been demolished, the Papists need no longer molest the saints for their intercession.” ↩

  34. Auslegung der Schlussreden, i. p. 262 sqq. Von göttlicher und menschlicher Gerechtigkeit, i. p. 431 sqq. Commentarius de vera et falsa religione, iii. p. 180 sqq. ↩

  35. Compare the first Confession of Basle (Niemeyer, Collectio conf. p. 83): “We acknowledge the remission of sins through faith in Jesus Christ the Crucified. And although this faith manifests itself unremittingly in works of love, reveals itself and proves itself thereby, yet we do not attribute our righteousness or the propitiation for our sins to those works, which are fruits of faith, but simply to our genuine confidence and trust in the shed blood of the Lamb of God. For we frankly confess that all things are given unto us in Christ, who is our Righteousness, Sanctification, Ransom, Way, Truth, Wisdom, and Life. Wherefore the works of believers are not done as a satisfaction for sin, but simply as evidence that they are in some measure thankful to God, the Lord, for the great goodness shown towards them in Christ.” ↩

  36. De vera et falsa religione (loci de evangelio, de pœnitentia), iii. p. 191 sq. ↩

  37. Compare articles 50 to 54 of the 67 Schlussreden, and the Auslegung that relates to them. “Christ has borne all our pains, and done all our work. Whoever therefore attributes to works of penance what is due to Christ alone, is in error, and does despite to God ” (Art. 54). ↩

  38. Compare his Auslegung der Schlussreden, i. p. 276. ↩

  39. Sigwart, Ulrich Zwingli, p. 39. Zeller virtually expresses the same view Theol. System Zwingli’s) because, adopting Schneckenburger’s recipe, he allows the thought of eternal election, as the reformed principle of doctrine, to be taken for granted as arising out of Zwingli’s craving after absolute certainty of salvation (p. 24 sqq.) Sigwart (p. 3 sqq.) is very well worth reading on this point. Although, however, he tries very hard to understand Zwingli as a reformer before forming an estimate of him as a systematical theologian, he is not successful, and so falls back to the level of Zeller’s view, which is characterized throughout by this feature, that it measures the theology of a religious reformer of the Church by the standard that might be applied to an ordinary teacher of a theological school. One can judge from this how far Stahl (die Lutherische Kirche und die Union, p. 13) is right in characterizing Sigwart’s book as an “unprejudiced” representation. Extreme parties are notoriously always alike in this matter of freedom from prejudice, and on this occasion Stahl has carried it so far as to spare himself the trouble of any thorough-going study of Zwingli’s works, thereby hoping to exercise a more unbiassed judgment on the value of the Reformation which Zwingli originated. ↩

  40. De providentia Dei (iv. p. 98). Compare the sketch of the train of thought in this tract of Zwingli’s which is given in my Geschichtl. Studien zur Christl. Lehre von Gott. Art. ii. (Jahrb. für deutsche Theol. xiii. p. 94 sq.) ↩

  41. Zeller, p. 24; Sigwart, p. 158. ↩

  42. The notion to the contrary effect (which is widely spread amongst Lutherans) is also attributable to Melanchthon. He tells the Elector John, with reference to the conference at Marburg, amongst other inaccuracies and exaggerations, that “Zwingli and his companions speak and write improperly upon the question how man is reckoned just in the sight of God, and do not sufficiently urge the doctrine of faith, but speak in such a manner as if works (provided only they follow upon faith) were that very righteousness” (C. R. i. p. 1099). Still worse is the calumnious tone he assumes in a letter to Martin Gorolicius, Pastor in Brunswick: “Ego agnovi coram auditis antesignanis illius sectæ, quam nullam habeant Christianam doctrinam… . Nulla est mentio fidei justificantis in omnibus Zwinglianorum libris. Cum nominant fidem non intelligunt illam, quæ credit remissionem peccatorum, quæ credit nos recipi in gratiam, exaudiri et defendi a Deo, sed intelligunt historicam” (C. R. ii. p. 25). Particularly, in his communications to the Elector John and to Duke Henry of Saxony, he represents the Marburg articles (upon which the two parties had both agreed) at once as a victory for Luther and as a matter of indifference. At the same time, in his letter to his friends the preachers at Reutlingen (i. 1106), he refrains from such expressions regarding the articles, because these were connected with Zwingli. This entire proceeding puts the conscientiousness of Melanchthon in a bad light. That defect is the result of his want of independence of theological judgment. The evil results of it are still felt, even at the present day, in the Lutheran Church. ↩

  43. Such a phenomenon as Martin Boos is evidence enough that the clearest persuasion of justification by Christ through faith does not necessarily lead to the adoption of Reformation principles, if the view of the fellowship of believers, which is intimately connected with that persuasion, be not insisted upon as against the Roman sacrament of penance. Boos did not gain his assurance of justification in Christ without seeking and finding fellowship with like-minded persons, even among members of the evangelical Church. But he did not become a Reformer, because he maintained this fellowship with believers only as a subordinate matter to his fellowship with the Roman Church, to which last he remained faithful all his life, in spite of all persecutions. This is the reason why the awakening which he caused within the Roman Church vanished without leaving a trace after he had gone. ↩

  44. Thus Zeller, as above, p. 10; and also Baur. See above, p. 47. ↩

  45. See in the shorter Catechism his explanation of the third article: “I believe that it is not of my own reason or by my own strength that I believe in Jesus Christ my Lord: it is the Holy Ghost that by the Gospel has called me, with His gifts has enlightened me, through genuine faith has sanctified and sustained me, just as He calls, gathers together, enlightens, sanctifies, and sustains by Jesus Christ, in true, proper faith, all Christendom. Within which Christendom He daily gives to me and to all believers abundant forgiveness of all our sins.” ↩

  46. I refer to Dorner (History of Protestant Theology), whose very copious sketch of Luther’s sphere of Reformation ideas only in two passages (pp. 138, 273) touches upon the thought of the Church; a thought which is nowhere brought into prominence in the section entitled Darstellung des evangelischen Princips als Kirchenbildenden (p. 212 sqq.) ↩

  47. Hupfeld concurs in this view, die Lehrartikel der Augsburgischen Confession, Marburg, 1840. ↩

  48. Compare Apol. Conf. Aug. pp. 71, 99, 141. ↩

  49. Die Lutherische Kirche und die Union, from p. 23 onwards. ↩

  50. iv. p. 60: Confirmatio, satisfactio et expiatio criminum per solum Christum pro nobis impetrata est apud Deum. Ipse est enim propitiatio pro peccatis nostris… . Cum ergo ille pro peccato satisfecerit, quinam fiunt, quæso, participes illius satisfactionis et redemtionis? Ipsum audiamus: Qui in me credit, hoc est qui in me fidit, qui in me nititur, habet vitam æternam. At vitam æternam nemo adipiscitur, nisi cui peccata ademta sunt. Qui ergo Christo fidit, ei remittuntur peccata. ↩

  51. De prov. Dei (iv. p. 124): Fidei tribuitur justificatio et salus, quum (although) ea solius sint electionis, et liberalitatis divinæ, fides autem electionem sic sequatur ut qui illam habeant, sciant veluti per sigillum ac pignus se electos esse. ↩

  52. I do not find in the Annotationes in Genesin (v. p. 59), the expression of Zwingli quoted by Sigwart as above: Justitiam largitur, internam istam, quæ nihil aliud est, nisi spiritus. Some such undercurrent of thought, however, seems to run in the Expositio fidei (iv. 60). Sicut enim fidem nemo potest nisi spiritus sanctus dare, sic etiam non remissionem peccatorum. Still, when taken along with its connexion, this also means only that the Holy Spirit as objective ground of faith is the means of the appropriation of the forgiveness of sins, grounded on Christ’s atoning work, just as faith itself is. ↩

  53. Luther’s Theologie, ii. p. 454. I shall again recur to this point. ↩

  54. Auslegung der Schlussreden (Werke, i. pp. 253, 254); Exegesis eucharistiæ negotii ad Lutherum (iii. p. 543). ↩

  55. Vermahnung sich vor Aufruhr zu hüten (1522) Walch, x. p. 420. “Above everything would I have my name to be passed over in silence, and that ye should call yourselves not Lutherans, but Christians. What is Luther? At all events the doctrine is not mine. Neither have I been crucified for any man. St. Paul (1 Cor. iii. 4, 5) would not suffer that Christians should call themselves of Paul or of Peter, but only of Christ. How then should I, a poor vile worm (armer stinkender Madensack), come to have children of Christ called by my worthless name? Nay, dear friends; let us do away with party names, and name ourselves of Christ, whose doctrine we hold. The Papists have a party name,—and justly; for, not satisfied with Christ’s doctrine and name, they will have the Pope’s also. Let them be the Pope’s, who is their master. I am not, nor will I be, any man’s master. In common with the congregation of Christ’s people, I hold the one common doctrine of Christ, who alone is our Master.” ↩

  56. He himself refers to his teacher, Thomas Wyttenbach, and to Erasmus. Compare Auslegung der Schlussreden (i. p. 298); Exegesis eucharistiæ negotii ad Lutherum (iii. p. 544). ↩

  57. Compare Hundeshagen (as above, pp. 146-154), whose judgment upon the relative divergence between Luther and Zwingli is correct also in reference to the thought of justification as a whole; though it might be modified in some of the details, in so far as neither Reformer immediately contemplates a doctrine of justification, and in so far as their practical consciousness of justification rises out of an almost similar spiritual movement in the Catholic Church. ↩

  58. Upon this point compare my Geschichtl. Studien zur Christl. Lehre von Gott, Art. iii. (Jahrb. für deutsche Theologie, xiii. p. 278 sq.) ↩

  59. This is not rendered needless by Zeller’s observation, as above, p. 13, that the Lutheran Confession approaches Catholicism more closely, while those of the Reformed Churches approximate those sects and parties which stand outside of the limits of Reformation Protestantism. Such an observation betrays a merely superficial mode of viewing the question. ↩

  60. Kürzere Auslegung des Briefes an die Galater (1519), Walch, ix. p. 209: “When Paul speaks of the faith which justifies he of course means the faith which worketh by love; for faith earns the bestowal of the Spirit.” P. 117: “To the righteous no sin is imputed, and this by reason of faith, which, being in conformity with God, crucifies sin in the flesh.” Sermon von dreierlei gutem Leben (1521), x. p. 1992: “Faith alone makes blessed. Wherefore? It brings with it the spirit that does all good works willingly and lovingly, and thus fulfils and delights in the commandments of God.” Auslegung der 22 ersten Psalmen (1519), iv. p. 859: “Beware of the sophists who make Christ to be our righteousness and our wisdom in such a way that all the time they make him only to be the cause of our righteousness… . Faith in Christ brings it about that he lives and works in me just as a healing salve works on a sick body; thus there is made with Christ one flesh and one body by a hidden unspeakable transformation of our sins into his righteousness… . It is now Christ’s office and nature to cleanse the sins away from those who believe in him, and by himself to infuse righteousness into them.” Enarratio Epist. et Evang. (1521), Opp. lat. Jen. ii. p. 356 b. Vorrede zum Römerbrief (1522), Walch, xiv. p. 112. Compare Köstlin, i. p. 285; ii. p. 454 sq. ↩

  61. C. R. ii. p. 501. ↩

  62. Luther must also in other ways have given indication of a measure of uncertainty in his idea of justification. Otherwise it would be impossible to understand how Melanchthon, in 1536, could have expressly questioned him as to his opinion (Tischreden, Ausg. von Förstemann, ii. p. 145 sq.; Walch, xxii. p. 710 sq.) I agree with Köstlin, ii. p. 456, in this, that the expression then made use of by Luther, nulla alia re, sed sola illa renascentia per fidem, qua justus factus est, permanet justus perpetuo et acceptus, is a harmless one, and merely means faith as something new in comparison with a state of sin. ↩

  63. C. R. iii. pp. 160-180. Compare Schmidt, Philipp Melanchthon, p. 327 sq. ↩

  64. Compare Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte, iii. i. pp. 348-364. ↩

  65. For the requisite citations I would refer to Thomasius: das Bekenntniss der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche in der Consequenz seines Princips, p. 100 sq. ↩

  66. Von der babyl. Gefangenschaft (Walch, xix. p. 102): “It is only by faith (kindled in view of the promise and God’s threatening) that the conscience is thus crushed, and again lifted up and comforted. For this reason faith ought before all things to be instructed and awakened. Where faith has been attained, repentance and peace will infallibly follow.” Auslegung der 22 ersten Psalmen (iv. p. 1506): the writer of the 19th Psalm affirms of the law that it converts the soul, “in order to distinguish it from the law that is learned without the word of faith and without the glow of the Spirit, for such learning only defiles, perverts souls, makes unbelievers and fools. Therefore everything that is here said in praise of the law must be understood of the Holy Spirit, which quickens us by the word of faith.” Melanchthon: Loci (1521), l. c. p. 154: Certum est, odio peccati neminem tangi posse, nisi per spiritum sanctum. p. 216: Tantum abest, ut sine opera spiritus sancti conteramur. ↩

  67. Löscher: i. pp. 762, 765, 785. So also Melanchthon: Apol. Conf. Aug. (libr. symb. ed. Hase, p. 71). Loci (1535); p. 421. Evangelium arguit peccata et docet, nobis opus esse mediatore. Cf. p. 490 (1543) p. 741: Poenitentia fit voce legis, per quam Deus arguit peccata nostra, … fit et voce evangelii accusantis mundum, quod non audiat filium Dei, non moveatur ejus passione et resurrectione. Ideo inquit Christus (Joh. xvi. 8): spiritus sanctus arguet mundum de peccato, quod non credunt. Et Rom. i. 18: revelatur ira Dei, etc. ↩

  68. C. R. i. pp. 915, 916. Melanchthon’s letter to Justus Jonas, dated 20th December 1527, reporting a discussion held at Torgau upon Melanchthon’s book of Visitation, previous to its publication: Islebius contendit, pugnare meum scriptum cum … Lutheri dogmatibus. Lutherum docuisse quod ab amore justitiæ pœnitentia inchoari debeat… . Ego respondi paucis, oportere terrores in animis exsistere ante justificationem, et in his mœroribus non discerni facile posse amorem justitiæ et timorem pœnarum… . Fatetur hoc Islebius, sed ait a fide minarum inchoandam esse contritionem… . Ego respondi a fide minarum terrores non esse separandos, quod aliud est fides minarum quam pavor. Quod si uni sibi existimet ille has disputationes de fide minarum, de amore justitiæ notas esse, ut tot annis versatus inter theologos nihil de talibus rebus audierim, næ ille non multum ingenio meo tribuit… . Lutherus sic altercantibus nobis diremit controversiam, sibi placere, ut fidei nomen tribuatur justificanti fidei ac consolanti nos in his terroribus, fidem generalem sub nomine pœnitentiæ recte comprehendi. ↩

  69. In passing, I may remark that the mistaken spirit of concession to the “common rude man” in the doctrine of pœnitentia brings with it also the evil consequence for theology, that the “common rude man,” in all sorts of shapes and guises, holds himself exempt from paying any heed to the scientific theology that does not suit his prejudices. ↩

  70. The article from the first Confession of Basle has been cited above (p. 157). The second Confession of Basle (the first Helvetic), dated 1536, owing to Bucer’s influence, contains the expression of Luther’s and Melanchthon’s doctrine of justification in the schema of law and gospel (Niemeyer, Coll. conf. pp. 108, 109). ↩

  71. Compare Niemeyer, pp. 333, 346-348, 374, 489-494. ↩

  72. Lib. iii. 2. 35: Huc redit summa, Christum, ubi nos in fidem illuminat Spiritus sui virtute, simul inserere in corpus suum, ut fiamus bonorum omnium participes. 13. 5: Statuant fideles, non alio jure sperandam sibi esse hæreditatem regni cœlestis, nisi quia insiti in Christi corpus, justi gratis reputantur. Nam quoad justificationem res est mere passiva fides, nihil afferens nostrum ad conciliandam Dei gratiam, sed a Christo recipiens, quod nobis deest. Cf. i. 1. 3; 2. 30; 11. 10. ↩

  73. C. R. xxix. p. 78: Credimus remissionem peccatorum, hoc est: divina liberalitate, intercedente Christi merito, peccatorum remissionem ac gratiam nobis fieri, qui in ecclesiæ corpus asciti et inserti sumus; nullam vero peccatorum remissionem aut aliunde, aut ulla alia ratione, aut aliis dari. Quando extra hanc ecclesiam et hanc sanctorum communionem nulla est salus. Porro ecclesia ipsa constat et consistit hac peccatorum remissione, hocque veluti fundamento suffulta est. Quando peccatorum remissio via est, qua ad Deum accedatur, ac ratio qua nobis concilietur, ideoque et hæc una nobis ingressum in ecclesiam (quæ civitas est Dei et tabernaculum, quod sibi in habitationem sanctificavit altissimus) aperit, et nos in ea retinet ac tuetur. Hanc vero remissionem accipiunt fideles, cum peccatorum suorum conscientia oppressi … divini judicii sensu consternantur sibique ipsis displicent … hocque peccati odio ac sui confusione carnem suam, ac quidquid ex se est, mortificant. Atque ut hanc pœnitentiam assidue (sic enim oportet) illi, quamdiu in carcere sui corporis degunt, prosequuntur, ita subinde et assidue illam remissionem obtinent. Non quod ita eorum pœnitentia mereatur, sed visum est Domino, sese hominibus hoc ordine exhibere; ut cum ex suæ ipsorum paupertatis agnitione omnem fastum exuerint, se totos abjecerint, ac sibi ipsis plane viluerint, tum demum suavitatem misericordiæ, quam illis in Christo proponit, gustare incipiant, qua percepta respirent, ac se consolentur, secure sibi in Christo promittentes et peccatorum remissionem et beatam salutem. Cf. ibid. p. 672 (from edd. 1539-1554). ↩

  74. Niemeyer, Coll. conff. pp. 135, 136: Ecclesia est corpus et societas fidelium, quos Deus ad vitam æternam prædestinavit. Estne hoc etiam caput creditu necessarium? Imo vero, nisi facere velimus otiosam Christi mortem, et pro nihilo ducere, quidquid hactenus relatum est. Hic enim unus est omnium effectus, ut sit ecclesia… . Cur peccatorum remissionem subnectis ecclesiæ? Quia eam nemo consequitur, quia et coadunatus fuerit ante populo Dei, et unitatem cum Christi corpore perseveranter ad finem usque colat, eoque modo testatum faciat, verum se esse ecclesiæ membrum. ↩

  75. Lib. iv. 1, 1: In ecclesiæ sinum aggregari vult Deus filios suos, non modo ut ejus opera et ministerio alantur, quamdiu infantes sunt ac pueri, sed cura etiam materna regantur donec adolescant, ac tandem perveniant ad fidei metam. ↩

  76. Comparative Dogmatik, ii. pp. 22, 23. ↩

  77. Lib. ii. 15. 3, 6: In the Genevan Catechism it is even King, High Priest, Prophet (Niemeyer, p. 129). ↩

  78. Lib. ii. 15. 5: Dedit pater omnem potestatem filio, ut per ejus manum nos gubernet, foveat, sustentet, sub ejus tutela nos protegat nobisque auxilietur. Ita quantisper a Deo peregrinamur, Christus intercedit medius, qui nos paulatim ad solidam cum Deo conjunctionem perducat. ↩

  79. iii. 3. 19: Proprium fidei objectum est dei bonitas, qua peccata remittuntur. 11. 1: Regeneratio est secunda gratia. Justificationis ratio … ita discutienda est, ut meminerimus præcipuum esse sustinendæ religionis cardinem. Nisi enim primum omnium, quo sis apud Deum loco, et quale de te sit illius judicium, tenes, ut nullum habes stabiliendæ salutis fundamentum, ita nec erigendæ in Deum pietatis. ↩

  80. iii. 11. 2: Justificabitur ille fide, qui operum justitia exclusus, Christi justitiam per fidem apprehendit, qua vestitus in Dei conspectu non ut peccator sed tanquam justus apparet. Ita nos justificationem simpliciter interpretamur acceptionem, qua nos Deus in gratiam receptos pro justis habet. Eamque in peccatorum remissione ac justitiæ Christi imputatione positam esse dicimus (Ac here conjoins synonymous ideas, cf. § 21). § 16: Hic est fidei sensus, per quem peccator in possessionem venit suæ salutis, dum ex evangelii doctrina agnoscit Deo se reconciliatum, quod intercedente Christi justitia, impetrata peccatorum remissione justificatus sit, et quanquam spiritu Dei regeneratus, non in bonis operibus, sed in sola Christi justitia repositam sibi perpetuam justitiam cogitat. § 9: Quomodo justificati sumus si quæritur, respondet Paulus, Christi obedientia. ↩

  81. C. R. xxix. pp. 72, 536. ↩

  82. On this point compare Köstlin, Calvin’s Institutio nach Form u. Inhalt; Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 452, sqq. ↩

  83. iii. 11. 23: Evanescit nugamentum illud, ideo justificari hominem fide, quoniam illa spiritus Dei participat, quo justus redditur, quod magis est contrarium superiori doctrinæ quam ut conciliari unquam queat. The same expression is repeated in the second edition (C. R. xxix. p. 745). ↩

  84. iii. 13. 5: Quoad justificationem res est mere passiva fides, nihil afferens nostrum ad conciliandam Dei gratiam, sed a Christo recipiens quod nobis deest. ↩

  85. iii. 14. 21: Stat inconcussum, quod ante posuimus, effectum nostræ salutis in dei patris dilectione situm esse, materiam in filii obedientia, instrumentum in spiritus illuminatione, hoc est fide, finem esse tantæ Dei benignitatis gloriam. 11. 10: Non ergo eum extra nos procul speculamur, ut nobis imputetur ejus justitia, sed quia ipsum induimus et insiti sumus in ejus corpus … ideo justitiæ societatem nobis cum eo esse gloriamur. ↩

  86. Comparative Dogmatik, ii. p. 23. Zur kirchl. Christologie, p. 55 sq. ↩

  87. C. R. xxix. pp. 148-150. ↩

  88. Second edition, cap. ix. (v.) sects. 2-8 (C. R. xxix. pp. 687-691). Third edition, lib. iii. cap. 3, sects. 3-9. ↩

  89. Lib. iii. 3, 1. Pœnitentia non modo fidem continuo sequitur, sed ex ea nascitur. Sect. 2: Christus dominus et Joannes … resipiscendi causam ab ipsa gratia et salutis promissione ducunt.—Non potest homo pœnitentiæ serio studere, nisi se Dei esse noverit.—Nemo unquam Deum reverebitur, nisi qui sibi propitium confidet. ↩

  90. Lib. iii. 3, 2: Omni rationis specie caret eorum deliramentum, qui ut a pœnitentia exordiantur, certos dies suis neophytis præscribunt, per quos se in pœnitentiam exerceant, quibus demum transactis in evangelicæ gratiæ communionem ipsos admittunt. De plurimis Anabaptistarum loquor … , eorumque sodalibus Jesuitis et similibus quisquiliis. ↩

← Back to the beginning of Chapter IV. The Reformation Principle of Justification by Faith in Christ