Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517-1700) (Reformed Historical Theology, 20) 9783525570227, 9783647570228, 3525570228

Citation preview

V

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Reformed Historical Theology Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis In co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Wim Janse, Elsie McKee, Richard Muller Volume 20

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

J. V. Fesko

Beyond Calvin Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517–1700)

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Dedicated to Dave and Bryan

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-57022-7 ISBN 978-3-647-57022-8 (E-Book) © 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting by: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen Printed and bound in Germany by b Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed on non-aging paper.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Contents

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. State of the question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Calvin and the centrality of union with Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The Gaffin-school on Calvin and union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Analysis of the recent claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Argument of the present essay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Plan of the present essay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 13 14 17 24 29 30 33

2. Metaphysics and Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Metaphysics in Calvin’s doctrine of justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Other Reformed witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Why was Aristotelian metaphysics so prominent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34 34 36 39 46 50

3. Rejection and Criticism of the Ordo Salutis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Critics of the ordo salutis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Methodological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53 53 53 71 74

4. The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 4.2 The Rise of the concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4.3 The terminology of the ordo salutis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4.4 The exegetical support of the ordo salutis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 4.5 The eschatological nature of the ordo salutis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

6

Table of Contents

5. Union with Christ and Justification Before the Reformation . . . . . . . . . 103 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 5.2 Augustine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 5.3 Bernard of Clairvaux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 5.4 Thomas Aquinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 5.5 Jean Gerson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 5.6 Johann von Staupitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 5.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 6. Martin Luther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 6.2 The claimed Lutheran-Reformed divide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 6.3 Union with Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 6.4 Justification and sanctification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 7. Philip Melanchthon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 7.2 Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 7.3 Sanctification and union with Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 7.4 Melanchthon and Osiander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 7.5 Implications of Melanchthon’s views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 7.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 8. Juán de Valdés . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 8.2 Union with Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 8.3 Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 8.4 Sanctification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 8.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 9. Heinrich Bullinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 9.2 Biographical and bibliographical sketch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 9.3 Union with Christ and the ordo salutis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 9.4 Justification and sanctification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 9.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Table of Contents

7

10. Peter Martyr Vermigli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 10.2 Rankin and Garcia on Vermigli’s doctrine of union . . . . . . . . . . . 190 10.3 Vermigli on union with Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 10.4 Union with Christ dissected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 10.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 11. Girolamo Zanchi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 11.2 Biographical sketch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 11.3 Zanchi’s doctrine of union with Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 11.4 Union with Christ dissected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 11.5 Eschatology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 11.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 12. Faustus Socinus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 12.2 Biographical Sketch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 12.3 Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 12.4 Union with Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 12.5 The Reformed response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 12.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 13. William Perkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 13.2 Biographical and bibliographic sketch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 13.3 Union with Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 13.4 The ordo salutis: justification and sanctification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 13.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 14. Jacob Arminius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 14.2 Arminius on union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 14.3 Union and redemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 14.4 Justification and sanctification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 14.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 15. John Owen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

8

Table of Contents

15.2 The pactum salutis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 15.3 Union with Christ and the ordo salutis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 15.4 Justification and sanctification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 15.5 Relating the parts to the whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 15.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 16. Richard Baxter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 16.2 Law and covenant in Baxter’s theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 16.3 Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 16.4 Union with Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 16.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 17. Francis Turretin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 17.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 17.2 Methodological issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 17.3 The pactum salutis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 17.4 Justification in the context of union with Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 17.5 Sanctification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 17.6 Justification from eternity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 17.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 18. Herman Witsius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 18.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 18.2 Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 18.3 Union with Christ and the pactum salutis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 18.4 Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 18.5 Sanctification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 18.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 19. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 19.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 19.2 Contemporary relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 20. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385 20.1 Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385 20.2 Secondary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Abbreviations

Commonly Referenced Works CD CNTC CO CR DLGTT DNB HC LC LCC LW NPNF OS PRRD SC SHC WCF Werke

Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries Calvini Opera Corpus Reformatorum Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms Dictionary of National Biography Heidelberg Catehchism Westminster Larger Catechism Library of Christian Classics Luther’s Works Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers John Calvin, Opera Selecta Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics Westminster Shorter Catechism Second Helvetic Confession Westminster Confession of Faith Martin Luthers Werke

Periodicals ARG ATR CH CTJ CTQ EJ IJST HTR JEH

Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte Anglican Theological Review Church History Calvin Theological Jounral Concordia Theological Quarterly Evangelical Journal International Journal of Systematic Theology Harvard Theological Review Journal of Ecclesiastical History

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

10

JETS JHI MAJT ModTh PRJ RTR SBET SCJ SJT TCP WTJ ZKG ZTK

Abbreviations

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal for the History of Ideas Mid-America Journal of Theology Modern Theology Puritan Reformed Journal Reformed Theological Review Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology Sixteenth Century Journal Scottish Journal of Theology The Confessional Presbyterian Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Preface

My initial objective was to write a history of the doctrinal relationship between union with Christ and justification in the Reformed tradition from 1517 to present day. However, the complexity and richness of the material caused me to reevaluate and conclude the present work with the end of High Orthodoxy (1700). My hope is, God willing, to continue to research and write on the history of union and justification in follow-up projects covering other areas of early modern and modern history in the Reformed tradition. This book, then, represents the first of what I hope are several more monographs on the topic. This is a work of historical theology. I have done my best to let the primary source evidence, read in its early modern context, drive the conclusions. I use available translations of primary sources in consultation with the original language editions whenever possible. I have made minor modifications of translations at times, which is indicated in the relevant footnotes. I have also updated archaic English spelling in quotations to facilitate easier reading but have left the titles of the works unchanged for ease of reference. In the course of writing this book I was able to present my research in a number of different academic forums both inside and outside of Westminster Seminary California (WSC). I am especially thankful to my colleagues at WSC for the opportunity to present my research at our Warfield Seminars, a colloquium where faculty present their latest research for discussion and interaction with faculty and students. I taught a good portion of this material in an elective, Union with Christ and Justification, in the fall semester of 2010. I presented versions of two chapters, one on Melanchthon and the other on Socinus, at regional and national meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society, respectively. Earlier versions of several other chapters (Metaphysics, Luther, Vermigli, Arminius, Zanchi, Perkins, Owen, and Bullinger) appeared as journal articles. Readers can consult the bibliography to see where those pieces originally appeared. I would like to thank a number of people who helped me along the way: Ross Hodges, Nic Lazzareschi, Brent Ferry, Robert Lotzer, and Kim Riddlebarger. Thank you, Luca Baschera, for offering helpful comments on an early draft of my chapter on Zanchi. Todd Billings also read a number of chapters and passed along some of his own work on union. I also wish to thank Richard Muller and

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

12

Preface

am grateful for the interaction I had with him on a number of issues related to union and the ordo salutis as well as his willingness to share a couple of chapters from his forthcoming book on Calvin. I want to thank Mark Jones for reading through the whole manuscript and offering a number of helpful critical comments. I am also grateful for my colleague, Dave VanDrunen who, chapter by chapter, read through the whole manuscript and gave me numerous corrections and suggestions that helped me polish the manuscript into its present form. Greg Fox, thank you for allowing me to use your terrific digital version of Perkin’s famous ocular catechism. I want to thank Dick Gaffin. I am grateful for the interaction we have had via personal discussion and e-mail correspondence over the material presented in this work. My family and I have personal affection, respect, and regard for his work for our denomination, the Orthodox Presbterian Church (OPC). Some of my conclusions are different than Dr. Gaffin’s on this subject, but there is no doubt, we are brothers, and I look forward to further interaction in the future. In the end, I hope this work brings much needed light, rather than heat, to the present discussions over union and justification in the North American Reformed ecclesiastical context. I also want to thank Herman Selderhuis for reading my manuscript and enthusiastically offering to publish it in Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht’s Reformation 500 series. Much thanks is also due to Christoph Spill, Tina Hoffmann, and the staff at V & R in seeing the book through the publication process. Thanks must go to my wife, Anneke, and my two sons, Val and Rob. My beloved family, thank you for your love, encouragement, and sacrifice. Your constant support and love has sustained me throughout the process of writing this book. Thank you for putting up with me when I “zone out” and seem to be in a far away place thinking about sixteenth and seventeenth-century history. I remember the first time I met David VanDrunen and Bryan Estelle. We were at the General Assembly for the OPC at Dordt College and I recall when they asked me if I wanted to join them for dinner at that out-of-the-way steak house. I later excitedly called my wife and told her that two characters from WSC wanted to take me out to dinner. I walked away from that meal feeling as if I had just made two good friends. I believe the last nine years has proven me correct. I am thankful for their friendship, support, and the love of Christ they have shown my family and me. They both challenge me to be a better minister—their scholarship is first-rate, their love for Christ’s church is exemplary, and their service to his church is indefatigable. Therefore, I dedicate this book to you, Dave and Bryan. J. V. Fesko

February, 2012

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

1. State of the question

1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 Luther and union with Christ Over the centuries theological historians have mined droves of dusty volumes in search of new discoveries. They have returned to heavily trodden ground hoping to unearth an overlooked element of a theologian’s thought or a hidden doctrine. One can characterize the recent upsurge in historical studies on Martin Luther (1483–1546) and the doctrine of union with Christ in this way. Though thoroughly mined over the centuries, studies originating out of the University of Helsinki have emerged claiming that Luther’s doctrine of union with Christ has been eclipsed by later Lutheranism and its infatuation with legal and forensic categories and the doctrine of justification. Luther’s doctrine of union with Christ, it has been argued, is not only a broader more encompassing model of soteriology, but also a potential ecumenical bridge between the Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox communions.1

1.1.2 Calvin and union with Christ What is good for the goose is good for the gander, or so the old cliché goes. And so it should come as no surprise that a similar, though perhaps a little more subdued, trend has emerged in the field of Calvin studies. The study of John Calvin (1509–64), the great Genevan Protestant reformer, is no longer dominated by the older studies claiming that Calvin’s doctrine was driven by a Centraldogma, one theological principle from which his entire system of 1 See Carl E. Braaten / Robert W. Jenson, ed., Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Tuomo Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005); Paul Louis Metzger, “Mystical Union with Christ: An Alternative to Blood Transfusions and Legal Fictions,” WTJ 65/2 (2003): 201–14; Mark Seifrid, “Paul, Luther, and Justification in Gal 2:15–21,” WTJ 65/2 (2003): 215–30; Carl R. Trueman, “Is the Finnish Line a New Beginning? A Critical Assessment of the Reading of Luther Offered by the Helsinki Circle,” WTJ 65/2 (2003): 231–44; Robert W. Jenson, “Response to Seifrid, Trueman, and Metzger on Finnish Luther Research,” WTJ 65/2 (2003): 245–50.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

14

State of the question

thought could be deduced, in this case, the doctrine of predestination.2 With the paradigm shift in Reformation studies more broadly, and Calvin studies more narrowly, brought about by the work of Heiko Oberman (1930–2001), David Steinmetz, Richard A. Muller, and others, historians have been driven back to the primary sources. A genuine effort to understand the Reformation (1517–65) in light of its theological and historical connections to the Middle Ages (600–1450) and the subsequent development in the post-Reformation periods of Early (1565–1630 / 40), High (1630 / 40–1700), and Late Orthodoxy (1700–90) has been undertaken. Nevertheless, even with studies by those such as Muller’s Christ and the Decree, which demonstrated the errors of the Centraldogma theory, there has still been an attempt to identify the center or key of Calvin’s theology.3

1.2 Calvin and the centrality of union with Christ 1.2.1 Karl Barth Like the Finnish school’s interpretation of Luther and union with Christ, a number of scholars over the last twenty five years or so have made similar attempts to identify union with Christ as the key or organizing principle of Calvin’s theology, which is in contrast to those who have identified its importance but have not made it the architectonic key to Calvin’s theology.4 Karl Barth (1886–1968), for example, explains that according to Calvin, there are two aspects to union with Christ: sanctification (regeneratio) and justification (gratuitat iustitiae acceptio). But he goes on to note, “Calvin did not draw out the consequences of this twofold meaning of unio, and he obviously did not 2 Commonly cited examples of this literature include Alexander Schweizer, “Die Syntese des Determinismus und der Freiheit in der reformierten Dogmatick. Zur Vertheideigung gegen Ebrard,” Theologishe Jahrbücher 8 (1849): 153–209; Hans Emil Weber, Reformation, Orthodoxie und Rationalismus, 2 vol. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966); Heinrich Heppe, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformirten Kirche Deutschlands, Schriften zur reformirten Theologie, Band I (Elberfeld: Friederichs, 1860); idem, Reformed Dogmatics Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans. G. T. Thomson (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1950), esp. 150–89. For a more expansive bibliography and interaction with these sources, see Richard A. Muller, After Calvin:Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: OUP, 2003), 63–80, 206–208 nn. 1–14. 3 Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986). 4 Wilhelm Niesel, The Theology of Calvin (1956; Cambridge: James Clark, 2002), 120–39; François Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (1953; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 233–63.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Introduction



15

perceive its central significance.”5 He explains that by the definitive 1559 edition of the Institutes, Calvin made real advances in making union with Christ the common denominator in the application of redemption. Barth argues that when Calvin treats de modo percipiendae gratiae in book three, there are numerous appeals to union with Christ. But he also states, “Yet we cannot really say that the totality is projected and worked out in the light of it.” In book three, Barth believes that Calvin unpacks the basic significance of union but again stipulates: “Yet we are then astonished to find that it is not exploited very differently in what follows, but for long stretches is concealed again by lengthy deliberations of an earlier origin and resting on a very different basis.”6 One suspects that Barth’s point is, due to the ad hoc nature of the compilation of the Institutes, Calvin’s editing was driven by doctrinal exigencies rather than a desire to write in such a manner as to have union with Christ permeate the whole of his work, not simply book three.

1.2.2 Charles Partee On the other hand, while some have been circumspect about claims concerning the centrality of union for Calvin, others claim that union with Christ is the key to his theology. Charles Partee claims that union with Christ does not answer every mystery in Calvin’s thought, “but union with Christ is one master key that opens many doors which have been closed for a long time.”7 Partee carefully parses what he means when he states that union with Christ is central, not as “the central dogma based on the older philosophic view of ‘essence,’ but as a central doctrine around which other doctrines in fact cluster based on the newer (Wittgensteinian) conceptualization of ‘family resemblances.’”8 Partee identifies a number of implications that arise not only for a clearer understanding of Calvin’s theology but also for comprehending the nature of the Reformed tradition. Concerning the nature of the Reformed tradition, Partee argues that other theologians contributed its development but that Calvin is still “the greatest systematic thinker among them” and the Institutes is “a single text to study and by which every exposition can be judged.”9 And for this reason, Partee explains: CD, IV/3.2:552. CD, IV/3.2: 552–53. 7 Charles Partee, The Theology of John Calvin (Louisville: WJK, 2008), xvi. 8 Partee, Theology of Calvin, xvi n. 18. 9 Partee, Theology of Calvin, 3–4. 5 6

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

16

State of the question

“So powerful was his influence that the movement,” the Reformed tradition, “is often called by his name”.10 To substantiate this claim Partee relies upon, among others, the earlier opinions of Philip Schaff (1819–93), who believed that Calvin was the greatest theologian among the Reformers and one of the foremost leaders in all of Christian history.11 However, Partee is willing to grant a sociological but not theological connection between Calvin and the rest of the Reformed tradition. Partee believes that the later Reformed tradition, unlike Calvin, had a “confident spirit” and “represented diminished theological insight but enhanced logical rigor”.12 He claims that later Reformed theologians imitated each other more than they did Calvin.13 Later Reformed theologians, for example, extended the doctrine of the covenant in legal directions, which obscured the role of union with Christ in their theology.14 Given these divergences (logical rigor vs. biblical fidelity, and legal vs. relational), Partee insists that Reformed Orthodoxy represents a serious distortion of Calvin’s theology.15 Partee argues: “To put the point briefly and sharply, Calvin is not a Calvinist because union with Christ is at the heart of his theology—and not theirs.”16 Partee places Calvin at the foundation of the tradition and then posits the sharpest antithesis with subsequent Reformed theologians precisely over the doctrine of union with Christ.

1.2.3 Julie Canlis Other historians have found an ecumenical bridge for dialog between the Reformed and Eastern Orthodox churches because of the supposed parallels between Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ and the doctrine of theosis.17 Partee, Theology of Calvin, xii. Philip Schaff, “Calvin’s Life and Labors,” Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review 4 (1875): 254–72, esp. 255–56; Partee, Theology of Calvin, xii-xiii. 12 Partee, Theology of Calvin, 14. 13 Partee, Theology of Calvin, 14 n. 46. 14 Partee, Theology of Calvin, 19 n. 65. 15 Partee, Theology of Calvin, 26, 31. 16 Partee, Theology of Calvin, 27. 17 See Brian G. Armstrong, “Duplex Cognitio Dei, Or? The Problem and Relation of Structure, Form, and Purpose in Calvin’s Theology,” in Probing the Reformed Tradition: Historical Studies in Honor of Edward A. Dowey, Jr., ed. Elise Anne McKee / Brian G. Armstrong (Lousiville: WJK, 1989): 135–53; D. Willis-Watkins, “The Unio Mystica and the Assurance of Faith According to Calvin,” in Calvin Erbe und Auftrag: FS für Wilhelm Heinrich Neuser zum 65 Geburstag, ed. Willem van’t Spijker (Kampen: Kok, 1991): 77–84; Charles Partee, “Calvin’s Central Dogma Again,” SCJ 18/2 (1987): 191–99; Carl Mosser, “The Greatest Possible Blessing: Calvin and Deification,” SJT 55/1 (2002): 36–57. 10 11

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The Gaffin-school on Calvin



17

For example, a recent study by Julie Canlis argues that for Calvin, union with Christ was Calvin’s central concern, not the doctrine of justification by faith. Calvin’s followers, on the other hand, exchanged Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ for a chronological ordo salutis, one in which union with Christ is dependent upon a sequence of steps in the application of redemption, unlike Calvin who grounded all of soteriology in union with Christ.18 Like the claims of the Finnish school that pits Luther’s doctrine of union against later Lutheranism’s forensic justification, Canlis argues: “Unfortunately, Calvin’s focus on salvation extra nos has primarily come to mark the Protestant tradition, rather than his equally warm and vibrant theology of participation.”19 One to whom Canlis appeals in her reading of Calvin is Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., as one who represents a “re-appropriation of union over against a traditional ordo salutis”.20

1.3 The Gaffin-school on Calvin and union 1.3.1 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Gaffin has argued over the years to one degree or another that the traditional ordo salutis needs to be reconfigured along redemptive-historical or biblicaltheological lines.21 Canlis has noted this and has expressed her approbation of Gaffin’s conclusions that Calvin’s understanding of the doctrine of adoption is founded upon a historia rather than an ordo salutis model.22 Gaffin has argued in a number of different places that the central feature of Calvin’s soteriology is not justification by faith, as it is commonly argued, but union with Christ. Gaffin argues that union with Christ is foundational, the source from which the duplex gratia of justification and sanctification flow.23 Gaffin explains that sanctification flows from union; conversely, Gaffin argues that Calvin would not say that sanctification is caused by justification. Justification is not the source or Julie Canlis, “Calvin, Osiander and Participation in God,” IJST 6/2 (2004): 172–73. Canlis, “Calvin, Osiander, and Participation,” 176. 20 Canlis, “Calvin, Osiander, and Participation,” 173 n. 13. Canlis appeals to Gaffin’s published doctoral dissertation, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (Phillipsburg: P & R, 1987). 21 Gaffin has demurred over the idea that there is an interpretive school attributable to his reading of Calvin (Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “A Response to John Fesko’s Review,” Ordained Servant 18 [2009]: 106–07). However, others such as William Evans, one of Gaffin’s students, credits him with such a role (William B. Evans, “Déjà vu All Over Again? The Contempoorary Reformed Soteriological Controversy in Historical Perspective,” WTJ 72 [2010]: 138–41). 22 Canlis, “Calvin, Osiander, and Participation,” 183 n. 55. 23 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. “Justification and Union with Christ,” in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis, ed. David W. Hall / Peter A. Lillback (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2008), 253. 18

19

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

18

State of the question

cause of sanctification, rather union with Christ is.24 Elsewhere Gaffin explains the implications of union with Christ vis-à-vis Calvin’s understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification. He claims that for Calvin, there is no priority between justification or sanctification because both are simultaneously received through union with Christ. Gaffin expounds the superiority of Calvin’s view with respect to the sixteenth century Roman Catholic view when he writes concerning the common charge of antinomianism: Calvin destroys Rome’s charge by showing that faith, in its Protestant understanding, entails a disposition to holiness without particular reference to justification, a concern for godliness that is not be understood only as a consequence of justification. Calvin proceeds as he does, and is free to do so, because for him the relative ‘ordo’ or priority of justification and sanctification is indifferent theologically. Rather, what has controlling soteriological importance is the priority to both (spiritual, ‘existential,’ faith-) union with Christ.25

Gaffin’s argument boils down to this: union with Christ is the source from which flow two distinct but un-prioritized benefits: justification and sanctification. In comparison with later Reformed expressions with the ordo salutis, Gaffin argues: “This, in a nutshell, is Calvin’s ordo salutis: union with Christ by (Spirit-worked) faith.”26 All of the benefits of redemption come in union. Gaffin’s overall intent is not only to show the dominant position of union with Christ in Calvin’s theology, but also to contrast it with Lutheran expressions. Gaffin contends that in contrast to Calvin’s view, and more broadly the Reformed view of justification and union with Christ, Lutherans argue that union with Christ is caused by, is a fruit of, or an effect of justification.27 Gaffin makes this point more explicitly elsewhere when he writes: Here is a consideration that has sometimes been eclipsed in the Reformation tradition, where a tendency is observable to conceive of justification as a stand-alone imputative act, without particular reference to union with Christ. Unless I need to be corrected, this Gaffin, “Justification and Union with Christ,” 256. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards,” WTJ 65/2 (2003): 176–77. 26 Gaffin, “Biblical Theology,” 172. 27 Gaffin, “Biblical Theology,” 173. Gaffin appeals to two Lutheran works to support his contention: J. T. Mueller, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia, 1934), 320, 381; F. A. O. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 4 vol. (St. Louis: Concordia, 1951–53), 2.410, 434 n. 65, 3.8 n. 9, 398; and Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 3rd rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Augsburg: 1961), 481–82. 24 25

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



The Gaffin-school on Calvin

19

is more the case in the Lutheran tradition, where, in the ordo salutis, union is regularly sequenced following justification, as a fruit of consequence of justification. The Reformed tradition has recognized better and more clearly that, as answer 69 of the Westminster Larger Catechism puts it, justification is among the realities that ‘manifest’ that union.28

More recently, however, Gaffin has refined his presentation of Calvin’s understanding of union, justification, and sanctification. Gaffin has recently clarified his understanding regarding the relationship between justification and sanctification by arguing that Calvin rightly believes that justification is logically prior to progressive sanctification, the on going process of conformity to the image of Christ. Gaffin writes, “Justification is prior to sanctification in the sense that the latter, as a life-long and imperfect process, follows the former as complete and perfect from the inception of the Christian life.”29 Gaffin then goes on to explain that in Calvin justification is simultaneous with definitive sanctification, a doctrine inherited from John Murray (1898–1975), but anticipated in Calvin.30 So, then, one can say that Gaffin argues that Calvin believes that union with Christ is the more fundamental category with justification being logically prior only to progressive sanctification, not definitive sanctification. Gaffin’s conclusions have been carried forth by others for both historical theological and dogmatic ends.

1.3.2 Craig Carpenter and Lane Tipton In many respects the law of unintended consequences has arisen with regard to Gaffin’s earlier reading of Calvin, as he has produced a school of historians and theologians who have come to similar conclusions. Craig Carpenter, a former student of Gaffin’s, argues that the all-determinative question between Calvin and the Council of Trent’s pronouncements on justification is not merely the question of infused versus imputed righteousness but how and when a person

28 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006), 50. One should note that Gaffin reproduces the exact same footnote as found in “Biblical Theology,” 173 n. 19 to support his claim here in the work cited in this footnote. 29 Gaffin, “Response,” 106–07; for the initial review that prompted Gaffin’s response see, J. V. Fesko, “A Tale of Two Calvins: A Review Article,” Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 98–104. 30 Gaffin, “Response,” 111–12; idem, “Calvin’s Soteriology: The Structure of the Application of Redemption in Book Three of the Institutes,” Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 72, 73–74; cf. John Murray, “Definitive Sanctification,” in Collected Writings, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 277–93.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

20

State of the question

is united to Christ.31 Like Gaffin, Carpenter argues: “Calvin’s ordo salutis does not require the logical or temporal priority of a forensic act to a renovative act.”32 Making similar claims is another former student and now colleague of Gaffin’s, Lane G. Tipton. Tipton argues that the Reformed view conceives of union with Christ and imputation as distinct but nonetheless simultaneous realities, whereas Lutherans hold that they are distinct and separable. Calvin, argues Tipton, offers “a classic formulation”.33 Like Gaffin, Tipton cites J. T. Mueller (fl. 1950s) and Francis Pieper (1852–1931) as examples with which to contrast the Reformed view and argues that the Lutheran view holds that justification causes union with Christ and sanctification.34 However, in addition to the same Lutheran references to which Gaffin appeals, Tipton also draws upon the analysis of Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949). Tipton quotes a passage from Vos, who analyzes the differences between Reformed and Lutheran soteriologies.35 Vos explains that by faith, Christians become members of the covenant of grace and receive all of the benefits that are in Christ; in other words, believers are in union with him. Vos claims that with the Lutheran view, “The Holy Spirit first generates faith in the sinner who temporarily still remains outside of union with Christ; then justification follows faith and only then, in turn, does the mystical union with the Mediator take place.” By contrast, argues Vos, the Reformed view is the opposite: “One is first united to Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, by a mystical union, which finds its conscious recognition by faith. By this union with Christ all that is in Christ is simultaneously given.”36 Vos draws these conclusions from the work of Lutheran theologian Matthias Schneckenburger (1804–48) to substantiate his claim.37 31 Craig B. Carpenter, “A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification,” WTJ 64/2 (2002): 369. 32 Carpenter, “Calvin and Trent on Justification,” 381. Carpenter indicates that Gaffin’s reading of Calvin has informed his own reading and cites Gaffin’s Resurrection and Redemption (127–43) for support (“Calvin and Trent on Justification,” 378 n. 47). Gaffin, on the other hand, later cites Carpenter in support of his reading of Calvin (“Biblical Theology,” 177 n. 26). 33 Lane G. Tipton, “Union with Christ and Justification,” in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us In Justification, ed. K. Scott Oliphint (Fearn: Mentor, 2007), 39. 34 Tipton, “Union with Christ,” 42–43. 35 Tipton, “Union with Christ and Justification,” 44. 36 Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P & R, 1980), 256. 37 Schneckenburger writes that for Lutherans, “Faith is certainly the subjective means of union with Christ, but is not itself already the realization of this union. That it is a work of the Holy Spirit does not yet make its subjective laying hold of Christ that possessing of Christ by which mystical union takes place . . . This real union, however, occurs by the divine act of justification . . . by which Christ himself, the personal, divine-human Redeemer, is implanted in me as a real life-principle. This union with

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



The Gaffin-school on Calvin

21

1.3.3 Mark A. Garcia Carpenter and Tipton are not alone in their claims, as two additional former students of Gaffin, Mark A. Garcia and William B. Evans have offered their own larger contributions to the ongoing discussion with published versions of their doctoral dissertations. Garcia’s dissertation focuses upon Calvin and coordinates the duplex gratia with the doctrine of union with Christ. Like Gaffin, Garcia argues that for Calvin, the foundation for his understanding of the duplex gratia is union with Christ.38 Unlike Gaffin, however, Garcia makes a greater effort to situate Calvin in his historical context. Garcia compares Calvin’s views with three key Lutheran theologians, Luther, Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560), and Andreas Osiander (1498–1552), though Luther and Melanchthon appear as supporting cast, as the bulk of Garcia’s analysis focuses upon Calvin’s debate with Osiander. The conclusions to Garcia’s study can be summarized as follows. First, Garcia rejects the troubled Centraldogma theory but nonetheless argues that union with Christ is singularly determinative for Calvin’s soteriology.39 Second, he believes that significant differences lie between the Lutheran and Reformed camps on justification and union with Christ because Lutherans are more willing to equate justification with salvation, whereas Calvin sees salvation as union with Christ, which is the broader all-encompassing reality, one that embraces both the forensic and renovative dimensions of redemption.40 Third, Garcia argues that Lutheranism views justification as the source of sanctification and good works. For example, in his analysis of Melanchthon’s views, he writes: “Ultimately, this necessity is based upon a model which regards imputation or justification as the source of sanctification, understood in terms of cause and effect.”41 Garcia also contends: “By attributing a generative quality to justification (justification produces sanctification), such a schema compromises the

Christ, which takes place by justification and which includes regeneration unto adoption as a child of God, is something much more sublime than that other, purely subjective moral union of faith. . . It must also be kept in view that the work of the Holy Spirit by which justifying faith is worked in the contrite heart, is not at the same time a work of Christ himself, that, on the contrary, Christ is poised purely as an object before this faith produced by the Holy Spirit” (Matthias Schneckenburger, Vergleichende Darstellung des Luterhischen und Reformirten Legrbegriffs, vol. 1 [Stuttgart: 1855], 203–04). 38 Mark A. Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology. Studies in Christian History and Thought (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008), 2–3. 39 Garcia, Life in Christ, 18. 40 Garcia, Life in Christ, 126–27, 241. 41 Garcia, Life in Christ, 104 n. 41.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

22

State of the question

strictly forensic, purely declarative notion of justification that is the lifeblood of Melanchthon’s (and the classical Lutheran) gospel.”42 Fourth, hence the common equation of the statements, “Justification is the article upon which the church stands or falls,” commonly attributed to Luther, with Calvin’s famous, “Justification is the hinge upon which all religion turns,” is incorrect. Luther and Calvin are saying very different things, according to Garcia.43 Fifth, and lastly, Garcia believes that Calvin’s views became normative for the Reformed tradition as a whole: “Calvin is not exhaustive of Reformed theology, not even in its sixteenth-century expression. Other important Reformed thinkers from the period must be read and studied with great care.” Nevertheless, Garica insists: “Still, as his place in late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed thought certainly suggests, Calvin did function as the principal theologian and systematizer of the tradition in its infancy, often providing the necessary sophistication in theological form and structure.”44 So while Calvin is not the prescriptive theologian of the Reformed tradition, he is nevertheless one who is chiefly responsible for the shape and substance of its theology. The intended message is that Calvin’s understanding of the duplex gratia and union with Christ is somewhat normative for the tradition.

1.3.4 William B. Evans Evans makes many similar points as Garcia in his own full-length study; however, Evans casts a broader net. Garcia focuses primarily upon Calvin whereas Evans begins with Calvin and then covers Reformed Orthodoxy, New England theologians such as Jonathan Edwards (1703–58), Samuel Hopkins (1721–1803), and Timothy Dwight (1752–1817), Mercersburg theologian John W. Nevin (183–86), Old Princeton theologians Charles Hodge (1797–1878) and A. A. Garcia, Life in Christ, 105. Garcia makes this claim several times in his study (Life in Christ, 264) but also goes as far as to claim that Charles Hodge’s (1797–1878) doctrine of justification is Lutheran rather than Reformed: “In later Reformed theology, a more Melanchthonian (i.e., classical Lutheran) pattern of argument appears to have become standard, resulting in the frequent exposition of justification and good works as cause and effect. See, e.g., what in light of our finds is a rather remarkable statement by Charles Hodge . . . ‘There as never been any real difference of opinion among Protestants . . . It was universally admitted that good works are not necessary to our justification; that they are consequences and indirectly the fruits of justification, and therefore cannot be its ground’” (Life in Christ, 267 n. 24). 43 Life in Christ, 260–61. It should be noted, though the statement is often attributed to Luther, Alister McGrath has traced the statement back to Johannes Alsted (1588–1638), a Reformed theologian (see Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification [Cambridge: CUP, 2005], vii n. 1). 44 Garcia, Life in Christ, 259–60. 42

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The Gaffin-school on Calvin



23

Hodge (1823–86), and concludes his study with a survey of Louis Berkhof (1873–1957). Unlike Garcia, Evans notes a greater degree of diversity on the issue of the Reformed tradition’s understanding of union with Christ as it relates to the duplex gratia of Calvin. Evans argues that though Reformed theologians have generally placed applied soteriology under the overarching rubric of union with Christ, there are “fundamental and pervasive disagreements among prominent representatives of the tradition regarding the substance and implications of the theme.”45 Evans starts with Calvin and argues that both he and Luther believed that justification had a certain priority. Unlike Garcia, Evans believes that Luther’s article upon which the church stands or falls is the same as Calvin’s hinge upon which all religion turns.46 However, Evans contends that the more fundamental controlling factor is union with Christ. He believes for Calvin that union with Christ has causal priority: both justification and sanctification come through union and is the instrumental basis for both justification and sanctification, the two inseparable but distinct blessings. Like Garcia, he explains that by having this structure, Calvin avoids the problem of making sanctification depend upon justification or of making sanctification a mere response to justification.47 The problem, as Evans sees it, is that after Calvin, his formulation all but perished. Reformed Orthodox theologians, intent on guarding the priority of justification, developed the ordo salutis where justification and sanctification were related in a logical sequence and union with Christ was modified to accommodate this ordo. In fact, later theologians resorted to creating two types of union: federal and spiritual.48 Among the other declensions in Reformed orthodoxy was the employment of the medieval theological term habitus. Evans appeals to Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562) and Jerome Zanchi (1516–90) as examples of this trend.49 However, in addition to the perceived declension in Reformed Orthodoxy, Evans also sees the same differences between Calvin and Lutheranism on the relationship between union and justification that other Gaffin students find, namely that justification causes union.50 Evans closes his study by expressing the dogmatic relevance for his historical William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation. Studies in Christian History and Thought (Eugene: Paternoster and Wipf & Stock, 2008), 2. 46 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 30. 47 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 38–39. 48 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 39–40. 49 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 49. 50 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 55 n. 43. One should note that Evans cites two of the same sources as Gaffin, Schmid’s Doctrinal Theology of the Lutheran Church, and Vos, “The Reformed Doctrine of the Covenants” 255–57. 45

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

24

State of the question

theological research. First, he expresses his agreement with Gaffin’s understanding of union with Christ. Second, he calls for a return to the theology of Calvin in contrast to that of Reformed Orthodoxy. Evans states the “soteriology of Calvin offers a significant and positive alternative to the bipolar approach of ordo salutis federal theology.”51 He goes on to write: A decisive break with the ordo salutis thinking that has vitiated Reformed thought since the early seventeenth-century is clearly implied here. This historical record shows that as long as justification is viewed as taking place at a specific point in time . . . it is nearly impossible to find a meaningful relationship between justification and the economy of faith . . . Only when the traditional ordo salutis is eschewed can a truly forensic and synthetic doctrine of justification that is at the same time relational and dynamic be articulated.52

Though Evans is aware of earlier studies that pit Calvin and against the Calvinists, and characterizes such as “Calvin is sometimes viewed as Paradise, with Reformed scholastic orthodoxy as the Fall,” it is difficult to see how he does not arrive at this precise conclusion.53 For Evans, Calvin is good and Reformed Orthodoxy is bad; Calvin is for union and Reformed Orthodoxy is for the ordo.

1.4 Analysis of the recent claims 1.4.1 Calvin as the norm Looking at the present state of affairs, it appears as though there has been a recent paradigm shift in Calvin studies, a shift from acknowledging the importance of union with Christ in Calvin’s theology to one where it is viewed as the architectonic principle either of his theology or soteriology. This shift has not gone unnoticed.54 There are a number of seemingly problematic conclusions that have Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 262. Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 264–65. 53 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 3. 54 See Cornelis Venema, Accepted and Renewed in Christ: The “Twofold Grace of God” and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 136 n. 9; Thomas L. Wenger, “The New Perspective on Calvin: Responding to Recent Calvin Interpretations,” JETS 50/2 (2007): 311–28; idem, “Theological Spectacles and a Paradigm of Centrality: a Reply to Marcus Johnson,” JETS 51/3 (2008): 559–72; J. Todd Billings, “United to God through Christ: Assessing Calvin on the Question of Deification,” HTR 98/3 (2005): 315–34; idem, “John Calvin’s Soteriology: on the Multifacted ‘Sum’ of the Gospel,” IJST 11/4 (2009): 428–47. 51 52

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Analysis of the recent claims



25

been drawn. First, surely union with Christ is an important and even fundamental element of Calvin’s soteriology. Recent studies have rightly affirmed such a conclusion.55 However, to remove the priority of justification by faith is historically problematic. Second, despite the paradigm shift in Reformation studies over the last twenty-five years, it seems as though Calvin is still held as the normative theologian of the Reformed tradition. Gaffin, for example, claims that Calvin’s treatment of justification in book three is the matured expression from the “first generation of the Protestant Reformation”. He goes on to write: “One does not overstate to say that it has few peers and arguably is unsurpassed among numerous other excellent treatments that have appeared subsequently, particularly in the tradition of confessional Reformed orthodoxy, for which Calvin has proven to be such an important fountainhead figure.”56 Gaffin never identifies any of the other treatments that are excellent but fall short of Calvin’s mark. All of the aforementioned estimations of Calvin’s influence and place in the Reformed tradition are part of an ever-growing contemporary mythology. For example, some scholars have elevated Calvin to the status of icon. Karl Barth, for example, contends: The historical Calvin is not a fixed, finished, dead entity imprisoned in the years 1509– 1564 and unable to leave them. The 59 volumes of the Corpus Reformatorum that contain his works are not secretly his coffin. In Calvin studies we cannot keep Calvin to what he once said as though he had nothing more or new to say today! His work did not simply occur then; it still occurs today. In what he once said he still speaks, saying what he once wanted to say. We may not speak merely of Calvin’s historical impact; Calvin himself has an ongoing history into which we insert ourselves when we deal with him.57

Calvin is something to be experienced, not simply studied. On a similar note, recent Calvin biographer Bruce Gordon begins his work by writing: “John Calvin was the greatest Protestant reformer of the sixteenth century, brilliant, visionary and iconic.”58 Claims that elevate Calvin to this status originate in the twentieth and twenty-first century, not from Calvin’s own sixteenth century. For this, and a number of other reasons, these claims are problematic. See, e.g., J. Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers In Union with Christ (Oxford: OUP, 2007); Randal Zachman, “Communio cum Christo” in The Calvin Handbook, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 365–71. 56 Gaffin, “Justification and Union with Christ,” 248. 57 Karl Barth, The Theology of John Calvin, trans. G. W. Bromiley (1922; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 6–7. 58 Bruce Gordon, Calvin (New Haven: Yale UP, 2009), vii. 55

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

26

State of the question

For all of the claims of dissonance between the Reformed and Lutheran traditions on justification and union with Christ it seems that one of the major differences between the two communions has only been formally acknowledged. Namely, Luther has fountainhead status for the Lutheran tradition, but Calvin does not have such a status in the Reformed tradition. Unlike Calvin, Luther’s writings are a part of the Lutheran confessional corpus. Moreover, confessions such as the Formula Concord (1577) were written to establish who in the Lutheran tradition was true to Luther’s theology, the Osiandrians, Phillipists, or Gnesio-Lutherans. In fact, the Formula Concord endorses Luther’s 1535 commentary on Galatians as the definitive Lutheran expression on the doctrine of justification. By contrast, the Reformed tradition has not been historically defined by appeal to any one individual theologian but to confessional documents such as the Helvetic Confessions (1536, 1562), the Consensus Tigurinus (1548), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Canons of Dort (1618–19), and the Westminster Standards (1647).59 As Carl Trueman argues: “Scholarship cannot treat Reformed theology as a discrete entity that flows from the writings of one individual, John Calvin. It represents a movement which is pluriform in origin and eclectic with regard to its sources.”60 Such an observation is not based upon the like or dislike of Calvin, as some scholars have suggested.61 Rather, such a conclusion is based upon documentary evidence from the sixteenth century. In Calvin’s own day, he was certainly esteemed as an important theological leader, and sometimes as primus inter pares, but for the most part, he was simply one among a host of Reformed theologians.62

1.4.2 The absence of primary sources Another problematic element of the arguments presented above is that the bulk of the claims of difference between the Reformed and Lutheran understandings of justification and union are built upon a thin veneer of primary sources, though Garcia’s study is an exception, as he investigates both Luther Carl R. Trueman, “Calvin and Calvinism,” in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, ed., Donald K. McKim (Cambridge: CUP, 2004), 225. 60 Trueman, “Calvin and Calvinism,” 239. 61 Partee, Theology of Calvin, 26–27. 62 Richard A. Muller, “Demoting Calvin: The Issue of Calvin and the Reformed Tradition,” in John Calvin, Myth and Reality: Images and Impact of Geneva’s Reformer. Papers of the 2009 Calvin Studies Society Colloquium, ed. Amy Nelson Burnett (Eugene: Cascade, 2011), 9. 59

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Analysis of the recent claims

27

and Melanchthon. Reformed scholars have noted, for example, the problematic nature of Heinrich Heppe’s (1820–79) Reformed Dogmatics. Though it has a wealth of primary source material, the arrangement of topics and oftenfragmentary quotations have led readers to false conclusions. The same is likely true of Schmid’s Doctrinal Theology of the Lutheran Church, the source for more than one of the aforementioned authors regarding the Lutheran view of justification and union with Christ. Moreover, no matter how prominent a place Pieper, Mueller, and Schneckenburger, may hold in the Lutheran tradition, nineteenth- and twentieth-century Lutherans do not qualify as sixteenth- or seventeenth-century Lutherans.

1.4.3 Whig Historiography What much of the above-surveyed scholarship represents is, to one degree or another, a “Whig” interpretation of history. Herbert Butterfield (1900–79), historian and philosopher of history, describes Whig history as the effort to study the past with constant reference to the present.63 Butterfield argues that by constantly evaluating the past in terms of the present, contemporary ideas are imposed upon history and the past merges with the present so that historians can show one continuous line of progress and growth.64 This type of methodology is evident, for example, in Barth’s characterization of Calvin as something to be experienced, something into which we insert ourselves. A milder form of this appears in Gaffin’s imposition of twentieth-century theological categories upon Calvin’s theology, such as Murray’s doctrine of definitive sanctification. Garcia and Tipton evaluate Calvin’s circumstances in terms of later denominational developments between Lutherans and the Reformed, lines that were not so decisively drawn in the sixteenth century. And Evans shows his hand at the end of his study when he confesses, “There is a need to reorient and revision Reformed soteriology in a way that avoids these problems and aporias, and we may at this point ask what such a reformulation might look like.” What is Evan’s solution? “We have already suggested that the three-element soteriology of Calvin offers a significant and positive alternative to the bipolar approach of ordo salutis federal theology.”65 63 Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1965), 11. 64 Butterfield, Whig Interpretation of History, 12. 65 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 262.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

28

State of the question

1.4.4 Charting a way forward The remedy for these aforementioned approaches is an examination that, at least for the sake of discussion, largely ignores Calvin. Rather than investigating Calvin and then trying to impose the results upon the rest of the tradition as normative, or contrasting his views with the tradition to demonstrate a supposed declension or similarity, one must investigate the rest of the tradition. In order to have a better understanding of the early modern Reformed understanding of union with Christ and justification, one must investigate a broad cross-section of contributors and seek to understand the presented theology on its own terms.66 One must seek to connect the Reformed understanding of union with Christ to earlier medieval iterations of the doctrine. The investigation must also transgress contemporary denominational boundaries, such as the LutheranReformed divide, and recognize that, though there were issues that separated the different camps, that they often embraced and employed one another’s thought on a host of subjects including union with Christ and justification.67 In other words, one cannot, as Partee suggests, make Calvin’s Institutes, book 3, the sole arbiter of what qualifies as the Reformed understanding of union with Christ.68 Instead, as Quentin Skinner (1940 - ) has suggested, one must seek to create a contextual reading of an idea.69 In other words, by conducting a broad investigation of the doctrines of union with Christ and justification, surveying a number of key theologians from the period, both within and without the Reformed tradition, one can establish what the accepted norms were for these doctrines during the early modern period. From such a survey the categories, terms, biblical texts, exegesis, and sources of the period rise to surface rather than imposed contemporary categories that end up distorting our understanding of the historical past. When historians look down the well of history, they should double-check their vision if they see their own reflection in the water.

66 Richard A. Muller, “Reflections on Persistent Whiggism and Its Antidotes in the Study of Sixteenthand Seventeenth-century Intellectual History,” in Seeing Thing Their Way: Intellectual History and the Return of Religion, ed. Alister Chapman / John Coffey / Brad S. Gregory (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 135. 67 Muller, “Reflections on Persistent Whiggism,” 145. 68 Partee, Theology of Calvin, 4. 69 Quentin Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” History and Theory 8/1 (1969): 40.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Argument of the present essay

29

1.5 Argument of the present essay In this survey of the early modern Reformed tradition on union with Christ and justification, there are several chief goals that will be accomplished. First, this study will show that Calvin’s formulations on union with Christ and justification are in no way normative for the tradition. Calvin is one star in a much bigger galaxy. There is no one theological figure that serves as the lodestar as in the Lutheran tradition. For far too long studies have focused almost exclusively on Calvin with little to no comparison offered with other theologians of the period. Hence, this study offers a portrait of the broader tradition, which has the benefit of painting the bigger picture for those who wish to reevaluate Calvin’s views in the light of his historical-theological context. Second, this study will demonstrate that there is no one doctrine of union with Christ and no one ordo salutis. There are a number of different permutations and combinations that one can find in the tradition. Some argue that regeneration is a preparatory work of the Holy Spirit and that once a person accedes to union with Christ in faith, he is then united to Christ. Others argue that regeneration brings the believer into union with Christ. Some argue that justification has adoption annexed to it, while others claim that adoption has a distinct place in the ordo salutis. In a word, there is no one Reformed ordo salutis, but rather there are a number of different ordos that exist within the tradition. There are certainly shared general patterns but there are also many differences in the details. Third, this study will show that according to the surveyed figures, to talk of union with Christ is to speak of the forest, and to talk of the ordo salutis is to speak of the trees. There are not two different entities, or two different unions as some argue, but they are one in the same—the forest is made up of the trees. The ordo salutis was not foisted upon Calvin’s doctrine of union to preserve the forensic integrity of justification. Rather, every theologian (Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Arminian, or Reformed) has an ordo salutis. What becomes key in the unfolding of the tradition is how a theologian orders his understanding of redemption. Fourth, related to the previous point, this study will validate the following claim: union with Christ has the double-benefit of justification and sanctification. But the hallmark of an early modern Reformed doctrine of union with Christ is according theological priority to justification over sanctification, or priority of the forensic over the renovative. Another way to say this is that justification is the legal basis of the believer’s redemption. Or still yet, a person can say, “I am sanctified because I am justified.” But he cannot say, “I am justified

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

30

State of the question

because I am sanctified.” For a number of reasons that will surface throughout this study, Reformed theologians recognize that justification and sanctification are dual benefits of union with Christ, but they neither confuse nor separate them. The priority of justification over sanctification sets Reformed views over and against the patristic formulation of Augustine, the medieval views of Bernard, Aquinas, and Gerson, the view of Trent, or the Protestant views of Socinus, Arminius, or Baxter.

1.6 Plan of the present essay 1.6.1 Part I: Intellectual background Part I will address the intellectual backdrop and context for four key issues that arise in the study: the metaphysics of justification, the history of the criticism of the ordo salutis, the history of the development of the ordo salutis, and the antecedent historical backdrop. Approaching two of these key subjects (metaphysics and the ordo salutis) synchronically rather than diachronically is advantageous as it clarifies issues foundational to the rest of the study. Chapter two, therefore explores the metaphysics of salvation. It has been claimed that employing causal language is the exclusive property of Lutheran theology. Chapter two will show that far from being unique to Lutheran theology, it was common to most sixteenth and seventeenth-century theology, Reformed, Lutheran, or Roman Catholic. This was not due to any specific type of understanding of soteriology but rather due to the dominance of the Aristotelian worldview during the period. Chapter three explores the history of the criticism of the ordo salutis and shows that much of it originates in secondary sources apart from a close examination of primary sources. Chapter four then explores primary sources to explain that the ordo salutis, or as it was more commonly called, the golden chain, has been part and parcel of Reformed theology from the earliest days of the Reformation. Rather than a competing model of soteriology, the golden chain was simply a formalization of what Reformation theology had already understood. Far from being a chronological, temporal, or sequential administration of redemption, it is simply a way to prioritize logically the multifaceted nature of a holistic redemption. Chapter five then surveys the antecedent patristic and medieval history leading up to the Reformation with a survey of the views of Augustine (354–430), Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), Thomas Aquinas (1225–74), Jean Gerson (1363–1429), and Johann von Staupitz (ca. 1460–1524). Covering these theolo-

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Plan of the present essay

31

gians demonstrates that union with Christ was not a unique doctrine to Calvin or the Reformed tradition. Rather, it had been employed from the patristic period and throughout the Middle Ages. But what did change is how union with Christ relates to the doctrines of justification and sanctification. From Augustine through the Middle Ages, theologians did not prioritize justification over sanctification. Rather, justification hinged upon the sanctification of the believer. It is not until Staupitz that justification is given theological priority over sanctification.

1.6.2 Part II: Reformation (1517–65) Part II treats a number of key figures from the Reformation (1517–65) that extends far beyond the city walls of Geneva, Switzerland. Regardless of whatever disdain some contemporary Reformed authors have for the Lutheran tradition, the plain truth of the matter is that Martin Luther was one of the foundational theologians of the Reformation. Luther wrote his mature and definitive commentary on Galatians in 1535, one year before Calvin published the first edition of his Institutes. While Calvin was still wet behind the ears, Luther was a seasoned theologian offering his mature thought on the relationship between union with Christ and justification. Chapter six, therefore, surveys the views of Luther. Chapter seven treats the views of Melanchthon, who is something of a villain in the history of theology because he is supposedly responsible for injecting an imbalanced forensicism into the Protestant Reformation, an element that corrupted both Lutheran and Reformed theology. Nevertheless, Melanchthon does have a doctrine of union with Christ. Given his position as a key first-generation reformer, looking at his views is important for understanding his contribution to the Reformation. Chapter eight examines the views of Juan de Valdes (ca. 1509–41), one who articulated a Protestant view of union with Christ and justification as a result of reading the works of Luther and Melanchthon. Valdes hardly, if ever, figures in accounts of the Reformation, but he nevertheless was influential upon others, especially Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562). Chapter nine covers the position of Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75), a key but often neglected first-generation Reformer. Bullinger often stands between the looming peaks of Zwingli and Calvin, hidden in their shadows. However, Bullinger was quite influential upon the development of Reformed theology, particularly through his confession-writing labors. Bullinger was also personally involved in the training of Vermigli. Hence chapter ten will survey the views of Vermigli.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

32

State of the question

1.6.3 Part III: Early Orthodoxy (1565–1630/40) Part III turns to the period of Early Orthodoxy (1565–1630/40) to explore the views of four key figures that often go neglected in discussions about union with Christ: Girolamo Zanchi, Faustus Socinus (1539–1604) and the Racovian Catechism (1605), William Perkins (1558–1602), and Jacob Arminius (1560–1609). Zanchi was trained both by Bullinger and Calvin, and though never formally adopted, wrote a confession of faith that was supposed to supersede Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession. Hence, chapter eleven explores Zanchi’s views. Chapter twelve covers a much maligned but infrequently examined villain of post-Reformation Europe in Faustus Socinus. Socinus presents the historian with an interesting foil because not only does he completely reconstruct the doctrine of justification, but he too also has a doctrine of union with Christ. Moreover, Socinus’ influence was significant through the Racovian Catechism, a document that spread throughout Europe. The chapter on Socinus also lays the groundwork for one of the last chapters in the study, as his name is invoked in the midst of one of the seventeenth-century’s greatest theological debates over justification. William Perkins is usually dismissed from discussions about union with Christ because he is famously known for his promotion of the ordo salutis in his Golden Chaine. Surely one who defends the ordo would not also hold to the doctrine of union with Christ, right? Yet, Heinrich Heppe (1820–79) characterizes Perkins as the theologian of union with Christ. Chapter thirteen, consequently, explores Perkins’ formulations. Arminius is seldom if ever explored, but what might surprise some is that he too held a doctrine of union with Christ, and like Calvin, affirmed the duplex gratia of justification and sanctification. However, this does not mean that Arminius came to the same conclusions. Chapter fourteen on Arminius demonstrates that the affirmation of union with Christ means little, but what really matters is how the Dutchman explains the relationship between justification and sanctification. Like medieval views, Arminius believed that justification did not have priority over sanctification.

1.6.4 Part IV: High Orthodoxy (1630/40–1700) Part IV examines the period of High Orthodoxy (1630/40–1700). Chapters fifteen and sixteen examine the views of John Owen (1616–83) and Richard Baxter (1615–91) respectively. Owen affirmed both the doctrine of union with Christ and its two key benefits of justification and sanctification. But in his

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Conclusion

33

theology Owen formalizes the relationships between predestination and the application of redemption through his use of the pactum salutis. What was formerly expressed in terms of “being predestined in Christ” among earlier Reformed theologians, Owen, along with other theologians of the period, more explicitly coordinated the doctrine of the covenant with his soteriology. In this way Owen gives priority to the forensic dimension of redemption. By contrast, Owen’s sparring partner, Baxter, had a very different understanding of union with Christ and justification. Baxter believed that Owen’s formulations were inherently antinomian because they made no place for the believer’s good works. Baxter’s formulation of union with Christ and justification, therefore, merits attention given its uniqueness among other expressions of the period. Chapter seventeen examines the views of Francis Turretin (1623–87), a theologian who is perhaps the poster-child for Reformed Scholasticism. His views are important because in many ways, his formulations are a garden-variety sample of what was common orthodoxy of the late seventeenth century. The last chapter, chapter eighteen, covers the views of Herman Witsius (1636–1708), who is perhaps one of the best-known scholastic and covenantal Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century. But this chapter examines his views through the lens of a little-known but massive debate in seventeenth-century England on the doctrine of justification.

1.7 Conclusion In many ways, as many figures as this study covers, there are still many gaps to be filled. Nevertheless, this study seeks to create a sketch of the early modern Reformed tradition on union with Christ and justification. The only way that this can be done is to move beyond Calvin and explore what the other luminaries of the tradition have offered. By casting a wide net, one can have a broader understanding of the Reformed tradition as well as benefit from a multi-generational, geographical, and historical reflection upon these two key subjects.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

2. Metaphysics and Justification

2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 Garcia’s claims In recent years there has been a wave of new research on the doctrine of union with Christ as it occurs in both Luther and Calvin.1 In the last several years there have been studies published on the subject of Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ and its relationship with the duplex gratia of justification and sanctification.2 In particular, the published doctoral dissertation of Mark Garcia covers Calvin’s doctrine of union and at points makes a number of comparisons between Calvin’s and Lutheran understandings of both union with Christ and especially the relationship between justification and sanctification.3 Among Garcia’s many conclusions is the claim that in the wake of the justification controversy surrounding Lutheran theologian Andreas Osiander, there was a decided break between Calvin and the subsequent Reformed tradition and the Lutheran tradition on the doctrine of justification.4 Of particular consideration for this chapter is one of the key claims that Garcia makes regarding the differences between Lutheranism and Calvin. Garcia argues that, for Calvin, the duplex gratia of justification and sanctification is grounded in the more fundamental category of union with Christ and therefore justification cannot be accorded any sort of priority over sanctification. By contrast, he concludes that Lutheran theologians do not ground justification and sanctification in union, but rather instead place the two in a causal relationship: justification causes sanctification, or sanctification is the effect of justification.5 In one respect investigating the viability of such a claim would far exceed the scope of this study. So instead of exploring every single claim from Lutheran and See Chapter 1 for relevant literature. J. Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers In Union with Christ (Oxford: OUP, 2007); William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation. Studies in Christian History and Thought (Eugene: Paternoster and Wipf & Stock, 2008). 3 Mark A. Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology. Studies in Christian History and Thought (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008). 4 Garcia, Life in Christ, 251. 5 Garcia, Life in Christ, 61ff, 104–05, 241, 260–61, 264, 267 n. 24. 1 2

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Introduction



35

Reformed theologians on union with Christ, this chapter will focus upon the narrow question of the doctrine of justification and metaphysics in sixteenthand seventeenth-century Reformed theology with particular attention to its relationship to sanctification and union with Christ. Now at first, raising the issue of metaphysics vis-à-vis the doctrine of justification may invoke cries not unlike Tertullian’s (ca. 160–ca. 220), “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” After all, the Reformation was a recovery of the gospel, particularly Paul’s doctrine of justification, and the Reformers’ commitments to sola Scriptura would certainly preclude any talk of metaphysics, would it not? What of Luther and Calvin’s brusque and blunt condemnations of philosophy? Simply stated, the Reformation never completely excised the use of philosophy in theology, not even Luther or Calvin.

2.1.2 Metaphysics defined Metaphysics is perhaps a word that sends shivers down the spines of some biblically minded theologians, but in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century theology, the use of metaphysics was quite common.6 Perhaps many fear metaphysics because in reality, they do not know what the word means. However, as Frederick Copleston (1907–94) explains, everyone in some sense is a metaphysician. An ordinary person who knows nothing of philosophy can place wood in an oven and toss a match upon it knowing that the wood is capable of undergoing change—the wood possesses potentiality. Or a person enters a room and finds a pie with a missing slice; she knows instinctively and by common sense that either someone made the pie that way or someone ate the slice of pie. In other words, there was a cause that can be traced back to explain the missing piece of pie, the effect. Copleston explains: “A metaphysician comes along and announces that finite things are metaphysically composed of act and potentiality and that every event has a cause or causes.”7 In other words, metaphysics abstractly considers everyday occurrences in an effort to understand various events and relationships, whether in terms of act and potentiality, cause and effect, or substance and accidents.8 In this light, metaphysics is not necessarily speculative or rationalistic. One should note that this chapter employs a functional definition of the term. Scholarship has noted that there is no commonly settled definition (see Peter Simons, “Metaphysics,” in A Companion to Metaphysics, ed. Jaegwon Kim / Ernest Sosa [Oxford: Blackwell, 1995], 310–12). 7 Frederick Copleston, Aquinas (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1967), 38–39. 8 Copleston, Aquinas, 81. 6

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

36

Metaphysics and Justification

2.1.3 Thesis In this vein, then, this chapter will demonstrate that causal language was common among Reformed theologians of the Reformation (1517–65) and Early Orthodox (1565–1630/40) periods. Cause and effect language is not the exclusive mark of Lutheran theology. However, beyond this, it is one thing to demonstrate that cause and effect language can be found in Reformed explanations of justification and sanctification and quite another to explain why such language occurs. Hence, going beyond mere observation, this chapter will offer some basic reasons as to why the language is commonly found among Reformed theologians as well as why it ceased to appear in later theological works. In order to prove the thesis of this chapter, that causal language appears in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed theology and is not a phenomenon exclusive to Lutheranism, we will first begin with a brief overview of the use of metaphysics in Calvin’s doctrine of justification. Second, the chapter will survey a number of Reformed works from the Reformation through Early Orthodoxy to show the use of causal language in explanations of the relationship between justification and sanctification. Third and last, the chapter will offer a basic explanation as to why metaphysics was used in the explanation of doctrine and why it eventually vanished.

2.2 Metaphysics in Calvin’s doctrine of justification 2.2.1 Fourfold causality Over the years there have been a number of studies on Calvin’s doctrine of justification, though few have focused exclusively upon the question of metaphysics. Metaphysics is especially relevant when Calvin expounds the relationship between good works and the believer’s holiness and does so using Aristotelian fourfold causality. In a passage that dates back to the 1539 edition of the Institutes, Calvin explains that the efficient cause of obtaining eternal life is the mercy of the heavenly Father; the material cause is Christ and his obedience; the formal or instrumental cause is faith; and the final cause is both the demonstration of divine justice and the praise of God’s goodness.9 Calvin is not off upon a blind Calvin confuses the categories of formal and instrumental causes at this point because as Paul Helm notes, in Calvin’s theology the formal cause would be election, or God’s plan of redemption (see Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas [Oxford: OUP, 2004], 401). 9

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Metaphysics in Calvin’s doctrine of justification

37

flight of philosophical fancy but demonstrates fourfold causality from Scripture. He explains that the final cause appears in Rom 3.23–24, the material cause in Rom 3.25, and the final cause in Rom 3.26.10 Earlier in the Institutes in his refutation of Osiander, Calvin identifies faith as the “instrument for receiving righteousness” and distinguishes it from Christ “who is the material cause.”11 Calvin’s employment of fourfold causality is not restricted to explaining how faith in justification obtains salvation apart from works. Calvin employs the same metaphysical explanation in two other ways: (1) in relating the work of the trinity to the sinner’s redemption; and (2) in explaining the place of works in salvation. First, in more general terms of Aristotelian causality, Calvin explains that the “highest cause or origin” of redemption is God’s love; the “second and proximate cause” is faith in Christ.12 He also explains in book three that the efficient cause of salvation is God’s love, the material cause is the son’s obedience, the instrumental cause is the Spirit’s illumination (namely, faith) and the final cause is the glory of God.13 Recall, Calvin is known as the great theologian of union with Christ. However, when it comes to specific details, he can dissect the various causes of salvation in order to distinguish the multifaceted elements that bear upon a person’s salvation. How does one correlate the work of the trinity and the role of faith without confusing them, or confusing justification and sanctification, faith and works? The answer lies in Calvin’s use of metaphysical distinctions.

2.2.2 Faith and works Calvin explains the relationship between faith and works by again appealing to fourfold causality. After explaining the different roles of the trinity and the 10 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, LCC vol. 20–21, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.14.17. Cf. Aristotle, The Physics, 2 vol. (1929; Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1970), 2.3, 7. 11 Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.7: “quae instrumentum est duntaxat percipiendae iustitiae . . . Christo, qui materialis es causa” (OS 4.189). Calvin uses fourfold causality to explain Eph 1.5–8, where he identifies “the three causes of our salvation” as: Christ the material cause, the efficient cause is God, who has sent his Son, the formal cause is the preaching of the gospel, and he then goes on to mention the fourth, (the final cause) the praise of God’s grace (see idem, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, & Colossians, CNTC, ed. David Torrance / T. F. Torrance [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 126–28). “In hoc membro tres salutis nostrae causas exprimit” (idem, Opera Exegetica, vol. 16, ed. Helmut Feld [Geneva: Droz, 1992], 160–62). 12 Calvin, Institutes, 2.17.2: “Videmus ut priorem locum teneat Dei dilectio, tanquam summa causa vel origo: sequatur fides in Christum, tanquam causa secunda et proprior” (OS 3.510). 13 Calvin, Institutes, 3.14.21.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

38

Metaphysics and Justification

place of faith, Calvin has at this point assigned no place for works in his causal scheme. Calvin then goes on to write: These do not prevent the Lord from embracing works as inferior causes. But how does this come about? Those whom the Lord has destined by his mercy for the inheritance of eternal life he leads into possession of it, according to his ordinary dispensation, by means of good works. What goes before in the order of dispensation he calls the cause of what comes after. In this way he sometimes derives eternal life from works, not intending it to be ascribed to them; but because he justifies those whom he has chosen in order at last to glorify them, he makes the prior grace [justification], which is a step to that which follows, as it were the cause. But whenever the true cause is to be assigned, he does not enjoin us to take refuge in works but keeps us solely to the contemplation of his mercy.14

Calvin is willing to assign good works the role of an inferior cause of salvation, but properly understood and within the context of his explanation it is ultimately a consequence of God’s decision to save the sinner. But what is important to note is that Calvin calls justification a cause of good works. In a concluding thought Calvin closes the chapter by writing concerning causality: “In short, by these expressions sequence more than cause is denoted. For God, by heaping grace upon grace, from the former grace takes the cause for adding those to which follow that he may overlook nothing for the enrichment of his servants.”15 Calvin’s use of metaphysical distinctions here not only shows how the various aspects of redemption relate to one another, but is the way he gives justification priority over sanctification.16 At this point Calvin’s use of metaphysics presents counter-evidence to Garcia’s claim that causal language is the exclusive property of the Lutheran tradition. Calvin, Institutes, 3.14.21: “Priorem gratiam, quae gradus est ad sequentem, causam quodammodo facit” (OS 4.239). 15 Calvin, Institutes, 3.14.21: “Denique istis loquutionibus series magis notatur quam causa: quia Deus gratias gratis cumulando, ex prioribus causam sumit secundas adendi, nequid ad locupletandos servos suos omittat” (OS 4.239). 16 In Garcia’s analysis of this passage he argues that Calvin can use causation language, but that it can only be understood in the context of replication, the idea that believer’s imitate or replicate the conduct of Christ through the power of the Spirit, a concept quite different from Thomas a’Kempis’ imitatio Christi. Hence, causation language must be read in the context of replication: “Calvin regards what comes prior in God’s appointed ordo as ‘causing’ what follows, thus making it possible to insist that Christian obedience, as it comes before the reception of the inheritance of eternal life, yields this reward. Hence, in Calvin’s replication principle, the sequential contextualizes the non-meritorious causal” (Life in Christ, 144–45). While this observation may explain the function of good works as “inferior causes,” it still does not adequately address the priority Calvin gives to justification by placing justification first in the sequence. 14

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Other Reformed witnesses

39

2.3 Other Reformed witnesses Part of the problem with Garcia’s claims is that he examines a narrow crosssection of theologians, largely Calvin, Luther, and Melanchthon and then makes sweeping conclusions about two entire theological traditions without presenting more evidence. To this end, when we expand our study to explore other Reformed witnesses, it will become evident that causal language was present in the Reformed tradition during the sixteenth and seventeenth century.

2.3.1 Reformation During the Reformation Calvin was not alone in the work of reform. Calvin was a second-generation reformer and built upon the labors of Luther, Melanchthon, Ulrich Zwingli, Guillaume Farel (1489–1565), Heinrich Bullinger, and the like. Among Calvin’s co-laborers was Peter Martyr Vermigli. Vermigli was one of the more influential Reformed theologians during his lifetime, especially in his labors at Oxford University. He was instrumental in the formulation of the 1549 Prayer Book, a work on which he collaborated with Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556), as well as the Thirty-nine Articles.17 Like Calvin, Vermigli saw that union with Christ was of great importance for a biblical soteriology.18 Vermigli, for example, writes: “Delivered by the grace of God, we are joined to Christ by the Spirit, to Christ himself being raised from the dead. By this union we may bring forth fruit to God, and no more death and damnation.”19 Vermigli is quite clear, that union with Christ is the source of bearing “fruit to God,” or good works. However, like Calvin, he too could use causal language. Vermigli explains: “Because we do not reject good works, we say that they ought to be held in a place of honor, since a very close connection obtains with the imme-

17 See Frank A. James III, De Justificatione: The Evolution of Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Doctrine of Justification (Ph.D, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, 2000), 199–217, 254–84; John Patrick Donnelly, Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s Doctrine of Man and Grace (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 170–96. 18 For an analysis of correspondence between Calvin and Vermigli on union with Christ see Chapter 9 below. 19 Peter Martyr Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, ed. and trans. Frank A. James III, The Peter Martyr Library, vol. 8 (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2003), 102 (idem, Loci Communes [London: 1576], § 12, p. 581). James, notes, though, that union with Christ does not feature prominently in his locus on justification (De Justificatione, 337–38).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

40

Metaphysics and Justification

diate consequences of justification.”20 Note here that Vermigli considers good works the consequence of justification.21 Like Calvin, Vermigli also couched his explanation of justification and sanctification in the language of fourfold causality. Concerning Rom 1.16, Vermigli writes: “These words touch on the efficient cause of our justification, namely the power of God; the final cause is our salvation; the instrumental cause by which it is received is faith.”22 Some might respond that it is only natural that Vermigli would use such language, as it was quite common to medieval scholasticism and Vermigli received his theological training in Thomism.23 The use of this language is simply the leftovers of scholasticism. While such thoughts might be common, perhaps even some suggesting that the employment of these terms and scholastic precision represents a declension from Calvin’s more pristine biblical theology, they represent an inaccurate understanding of the relationship between the Reformation and Middle Ages.24 Arguably, such language and distinctions never left the theology of the Reformation but remained throughout. However, even beyond the questions of the influence of scholasticism, Vermigli understood such formulations to be much older than the scholasticism of the Middle Ages. One of the key elements in much of the anti-Roman Catholic polemics was the effort to use their own claimed sources against them, in this case, to employ the church fathers for the cause of the Reformation. Calvin is well-known for his letter to Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto (1477–1547) and the claims that the Reformation appropriated the best of patristic theology.25 In this vein, Reformed theologians constantly appealed to the church fathers to support their case and Vermigli was no different. In a section from his locus on justification, which the editor of the critical edition labels, “Good works are the fruit of justification,” Vermigli writes: “Now it remains for us to show from the fathers how 20 Vermigli, Justification, 144: “Et quoniam opera bona non reiicimus, sed ea suo loco colenda dicimus, ut quae arctissima necessitudine adeptam iam iustificationem consequuntur” (Loci Communes, § 36, p. 599). 21 For the sake of brevity, this chapter is focusing upon fourfold causality and cause and effect language, though it should be noted that there are other terms that convey the same ideas, such as necessistas consequentis (necessity of the consequent) (see DLGTT, 200). 22 Vermigli, Justification, 160: “Illis verbis attingitur causa efficiens iustificationis, nempè potentia Dei: et finis, salus videlicet nostra: et instrumentum quo percipitur, fides” (Loci Communes, § 47, p. 607). 23 For a survey of Vermigli’s training see Donnelly, Calvinism and Scholasticism, 13–41; Frank A. James III, “Peter Martyr Vermigli: At the Crossroads of Late Medieval Scholasticism, Christian Humanism and Resurgent Augustinianism,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. R. Scott Clark / Carl R. Trueman (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999): 62–78. 24 See Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 49. 25 See John Calvin, “Reply by John Calvin to Letter by Cardinal Sadolet to the Senate and People of Geneva,” in Tracts and Letters, 7 vol., ed. and trans. Henry Beveridge (1844; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2009): 1.25–70 (OS 1.457–489).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Other Reformed witnesses

41

good works are to be obtained. To be sure, they follow justification as fruits, which spring up and sprout from a true faith.” Vermigli then quotes Origen’s (ca. 184–254) commentary on Romans, which says: “Therefore, the root of righteousness does not come from works, but works grow out of the root of righteousness.” Vermigli also quotes Augustine’s (354–430) epistle to Honorius to the same effect: “Good works derive from the fact that we are justified, and not that we are justified because of prior good works.”26 There is certainly question surrounding the historical theological matter of whether Vermigli’s appeals to Origen and Augustine on the doctrine of justification are accurate. However, this question is better left for another day. What is of greater importance is that the cause and effect language does not only trace back to the medieval scholastics and Aristotelian metaphysics but has an older pedigree in the theology of the patristics, a time when the works of Aristotle were largely unknown. More will be said about this below.

2.3.2 Early Orthodoxy The same use of metaphysics occurs in the writings of Girolamo Zanchi, a transitional theologian of both the late Reformation and Early Orthodox periods. Unfortunately, because of the towering figure of Calvin, Zanchi has not received much attention on matters relating to applied soteriology until only recently.27 Some have been dismissive of his contributions, albeit based entirely upon secondary sources.28 Zanchi was a student of Vermigli but also studied under Calvin for ten months.29 While union with Christ appears somewhat incidentally in Vermigli and appears more strongly in Calvin, union features more 26 Vermigli, Justification, 151–52. “Non igitur inquit, ex operibus radix iustitiae, sed ex radice iustitiae crescit fructus operum. Quod idem Augustinus affirmat ad Honoratum: Ex hoc inquiens, incipiunt bona opera, ex quo iustificamur, non autem quia illa praecesserunt, iustificamur” (Loci Communes § 41, p. 603). 27 See John L. Farthing, “Patristics, Exegesis, and the Eucharistic Theology of Girolamo Zanchi” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. R. Scott Clark / Carl R. Trueman (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999): 79–95; idem, “De coniugio spirituali: Jerome Zanchi on Ephesians 5.22–33,” SCJ 24/3 (1993): 621–52; idem, “Foedus Evangelicum: Jerome Zanchi on the Covenant,” CTJ 29 (1994): 149–67; idem, “Holy Harlotry: Jerome Zanchi and the Exegetical History of Gomer (Hosea 1–3),” in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation, ed. Richard A. Muller / John L. Thompson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996): 292–312; Norman Shepherd, “Zanchius on Saving Faith,” WTJ 36 (1973): 31–47. For a brief but helpful biographical essay on Zanchi, see Christopher J. Burchill, “Girolamo Zanchi: Portrait of a Reformed Theologian and His Work,” SCJ 15/2 (1984): 1–26. 28 So Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 49–50. 29 John Patrick Donnelly, “Italian Influences on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism,” SCJ 7/1 (1976): 88.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

42

Metaphysics and Justification

prominently in Zanchi. In fact, unlike Calvin, it is fair to say that the doctrine of union with Christ took on a greater significance for Zanchi’s soteriology. Calvin’s employment of the doctrine of union with Christ pales in comparison to Zanchi’s use of the same, which lends credence to Karl Barth’s earlier analysis of Calvin’s use of union with Christ. Barth claimed that it was not as thoroughgoing as some contemporary interpreters would like to make it.30 According to Richard Muller, Zanchi’s De Religione Christiana Fides was a confession of faith that set forth the theology of the German Reformed churches a decade before the work of Early Orthodox theologians such as William Perkins and Amandus Polanus (1561–1610). While Zanchi never wrote his Summa, his confession is a window into the overall structure of his theology, as well as representative of Reformed theology of the German Reformed churches of the period.31 Zanchi has chapters on Scripture, theology proper, creation, providence, the fall, man’s freewill, the promise of redemption, on the law, of Christ the redeemer, and then a keystone chapter on union with Christ, a chapter that provides the gateway into his soteriology: “Of the true dispensation of the redemption, the salvation and life, which is laid up in Christ alone, and therefore of the necessary uniting and participation with Christ.”32 Zanchi’s devotion of an entire locus on union with Christ is unparalleled in Calvin. But like the Genevan giant, Zanchi saw union with Christ as key to a biblical soteriology. Drawing upon the language of John 15, Zanchi explains: “For even as the branch can draw no living sap from the vine, nor the branch from the tree, nor the members of any motion, sense or life from the head, unless they are joined to the vine and tree, and these to the head: likewise men cannot receive salvation or life from Christ (in whom it alone consists) unless they are grafted into him, and joined in a true and real union, being joined to abide in him.”33 Like Calvin, Zanchi can also identify the believer’s union with Christ as the source of good works. In the chapter on good works, Zanchi has the following description: “Those who are engrafted into Christ have both whereby they themselves live and bring forth the works of their life for others: this is the principle end of their engrafting.”34 At the same time, Zanchi can also talk about justification and sanctification CD, IV/3.2:552–53. Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 115. 32 Girolamo Zanchi, De religione Christiana fides—Confession of Christian Religion, 2 vol., ed. Luca Baschera / Christian Moser (Leiden: Brill, 2007): § 12 (1.231). 33 Zanchi, De religione, 12.3 (1.232). 34 Zanchi, De religione, 21.1 (1.360–61). 30

31

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Other Reformed witnesses



43

employing causal language. Zanchi begins by explaining that the source of a person’s good works is union with Christ: As vine branches or olive branches do not bring forth fruit from themselves, but only by the power of the vine or live tree in which they are engrafted, so we likewise do not of ourselves do good works, but by virtue of Christ’s Spirit, into whom we are incorporated, and from whom we draw even that life, by which we live, Christ himself working in us by his Spirit ‘both to will and to do of his good pleasure.’ ‘For without me,’ he says, ‘you can do nothing.’35

Now in the very next section Zanchi then goes on write: “Good works are not the cause, but the effects of our union with Christ, and our justification, and our life.”36 Zanchi identifies both union with Christ and justification as the cause of good works. He also drives the cause of good works even further back by arguing: “By our good works, as the effects of our election and calling, we make them both sure, both to ourselves and to others.”37 Zanchi, therefore, drives causality back to election. Not only do these statements show that Zanchi saw no conflict between union with Christ and causality language, but this also helps contextualize Calvin’s doctrine. In a second treatise Zanchi has illuminating statements regarding imputation and impartation using causal language. What makes his explanation of justification and sanctification of special interest is that it comes from a work devoted entirely to the subject of union with Christ.38 Zanchi explains that there are two types of righteousness that believers receive in their redemption, imputed and inherent. Couched in the doctrine of union with Christ, Zanchi explains that righteousness is given to the believer by two different ways: imputation and real communication: “These two means of communicating other good things, and especially the justice and righteousness of Christ, are so joined and linked together in themselves, as it were the cause and the effect, that they are not severed asunder, nor ought to be severed by us, no more then the sun beam can be severed from the sun, or the sun from the beam.”39 Here Zanchi employs an Zanchi, De religione, 21.3 (1.362–63). Zanchi, De religione, 21.4 (pp. 362–63): “Bona opera non esse causam, sed effecta nostri cum Christo unitionis et iustificationis nostraeque vitae.” 37 Zanchi, De religione, 21.7 (pp. 366–67): “Bona opera tanquam per effecta electionis et vocationis certam facimus utramque tum nobis tum aliis.” 38 Burchill, “Portrait of a Reformed Theologian,” 24–25. 39 Jerome Zanchi, An Excellent and Learned Treatise of the Spiritual Marriage between Christ and the Church (Cambridge: 1592), 134; idem, Commentarius in Epistolam Sancti Pauli Ad Ephesos, 2 vol., ed. A. H. Hartog, Bibliotheca Reformata, vol. 5 (Amsterdam: 1888): “Istae porro duae communicandi 35

36

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

44

Metaphysics and Justification

analogy very similar to that of Calvin (the sun and its rays), and possibly even gleaned from him, but yet is not averse to saying that imputed righteousness is the cause of imparted righteousness—they are linked as cause and effect.40 Zanchi was not alone with these types of affirmations. Lucas Trelcatius (1573–1607), professor of theology at the University of Leiden, and one of the key participants in a number of debates with Jacob Arminius, explains the doctrine of justification in terms of fourfold causality in his compendium of Calvin’s Institutes.41 When Trelcatius gets more specific, however, he can write: “The nearest cause indeed of a righteous work, is inherent righteousness; but the chief and principal cause is the Spirit of Christ imputing his righteousness to us and by the power of that imputed righteousness, working this inherent righteousness in us.”42 From this statement it seems clear that Trelcatius is saying that the imputed righteousness is the source (or power) of the inherent righteousness in redemption. Similar statements can be found in other theologians of the period. Guillaume Bucanus (d. 1603), a professor of theology at Lausanne from 1591–1603, for example, in a number of places writes: “Indeed good works are the effects of justification and not the causes thereof.”43 Concerning James 2.21, Bucanus explains: “Because he speaks there not of the cause but of the effect whereby justification may be discerned.”44 Again Bucanus writes: “Sanctification follows justification as an effect thereof ”. And like other theologians of tum alia bona, tum inprimis justitam Christi, rationes ita inter se conjunctae sunt, tanquam causa et effectus: ut ab invecem non separentur, nec separari a nobis debeant, quemadmodum neque radius a sole neque sol a radio se jungi revera potest” (2.378). The cited translation has been updated. 40 On the epistolary friendship between Calvin and Zanchi see, Joseph N. Tylenda, “Girolamo Zanchi and John Calvin: A Study in Discipleship as Seen Through Their Correspondence,” CTJ 10 (1975): 101–41; cf. Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.6. 41 Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 45; Lucas Trelcatius, A Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinity (London: 1610), 2.9 (pp. 259–272); idem, Scholastica, et methodica, locorum communium, s. theologiae institutio didacticè, & elencticè in epitome explicata (London: 1604), 2.9 (pp. 90–100). The cited translation has been updated. What makes Trelcatius’ statements all the more interesting is that they are taken from his compendium of Calvin’s Institutes, which shows how Calvin’s thought was received and understood. On the role of compendiums see O. Fatio, “Prèsence de Calvin á l’epoque de l’Orthodoxie rèformée. Les abrégés de Calvin à la fin du 16e au 17e siècle” in Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor, ed. W. H. Neuser (Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok B. V., 1978): 171–208. 42 Trelcatius, 2.9 (p. 265); idem, Scholastica, et methodica, 2.9 (p. 92): “Iusti operas causa proxima quidem, est justitia inherens, praecipua vero, ac primaria, Spiritus Christi, justitiam Christi nobis imputantis, et vi imputatae illius justitiae, hanc inhaerentem in nobis operantis.” 43 Muller, Reformed Dogmatics, 42; Guillaume Bucanus, A Body of Divinity or Institutions of Christian Religion (London: 1659), loc. 31 (p. 381); idem, Institutiones theologicae, seu locorum communium Christianae religionis (Geneva: 1625), loc. 31.38 (p. 325): “sunt enim bona opera Iustificationis effecta, non causae”. 44 Bucanus, Institutions, loc. 31 (p. 382); idem, Institutiones, loc. 31.39 (p. 325): “Quia non de causa agit, sed de effectu, ex quo Iustificatio agnosci possit.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Other Reformed witnesses

45

the Reformation and Early Orthodoxy, he also explains justification employing Aristotelian fourfold causality.45 Similarly, Johannes Heinrich Alsted (1588–1638), professor of philosophy and later theology at Herborn as well as a delegate to the Synod of Dort (1618– 19), can say very succinctly, “The effects of justification are adoption, freedom, sanctification, and glorification.”46 The Leiden Synopsis explains that the effects of justification are various fruits, which include peace with God, perseverance, and the hope of eternal life.47 Likewise, William Ames (1576–1633) also talks of sanctification being an effect of justification.48 Quite clearly, causal language is part and parcel of Reformed explanations of union with Christ and explanations of the relationship between justification and sanctification. This is not to say that every rank and file Reformed theologian of the two periods explained things in this manner. For example, Johannes Wollebius (1586–1629) argues that the indirect effects of faith are justification, sanctification, assurance of salvation, and Christian freedom. He also explains the doctrines of justification and sanctification using the metaphysical distinction between matter (materia) and form (forma), something unique among the works surveyed in this chapter.49 There are similar statements regarding the effects of faith in Francius Junius (1545–1602) and Johannes Polyander (1568–1646).50 One should note that fourfold causality appears throughout the 45 Bucanus, Institutions, loc. 31 (p. 383); Institutiones, loc. 31.39 (p. 326): “Ex vitae sanctificatione, que tanquam effectus illam sequitur.” 46 Johannes Heinrich Alsted, Synopsis Theologiae (1627), loc. 36 (p. 83): “Effecta iustificationis sunt adoptio, libertas, sanctificatio, et glorificatio;” Muller, Reformed Dogmatics, 42. 47 Johannes Polyander, Andre Rivet, Antonius Thysius, and Antonius Walaeus, Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, ed. Herman Bavinck (Leiden: 1881), disp. 33.33: “Ex hisce causis Justificatio, ut effectus existens, varios item fructus effectusque producit, ut sunt, Pacificatio cum Deo, et in conscientia, aditus ad hanc gratiam, perserverantia in eadem, gloriabunda spes vitae aeternae, gloriatio in afflictionibus, et gloriatio in Deo” (p. 338). 48 William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), loc. 29 (p. 167): “Now we consider the real change, wherein justification is manifested and its consequences, so to speak, brought into being.” “Sic fuit relativa commutatio status fidelium, in justificatione et adoptione: sequitur realis, qua prior illa manifestetur, et quoad effecta quasa executione mandatur” (idem, Medulla S. S. Theologia [London: 1630], loc. 29 [p. 149]). 49 Johannes Wollebius, Christianae Theologiae Compendium (Basil: 1633), loci 30–31; idem, Compendium Theologiae Christianae, in Reformed Dogmatics, ed. and trans. John W. Beardslee (New York: OUP, 1965), 164–74. 50 Synopsis Purioris, disp. 34.1: “Fructus fidei convenientes resipiscentiae, sunt sancta et bona opera, quae semine regenerationis ac radice fidei justificantis nuperrime explicatae, enasccuntur” (p. 345). Also Francis Junius, Opuscula Theologica Selecta, ed. Abraham Kuyper, Bibliotheca Reformata, vol. 1 (Amsterdam: 1882), 33.9: “Effecta denique fidei, quae continentur ab ea, sunt, Regeneratio, at Sanctificatio” (p. 208). However, note that Junius also cites the same statement from Augustine as did Vermigli: “Sed ut effecta a causis prudenter distinguimus; ut recte monet August. Bona opera non praededunt iustificandum, sed sequuntur iustificatum” (35.17, p. 221).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

46

Metaphysics and Justification

various loci on justification and sanctification in Wollebius, the Leiden Synopsis, and Junius. Given the presented evidence, it is sufficient to say that one cannot draw a line of division between Lutheran and Reformed theologians of the Reformation and Early Orthodox periods on the use of causal language with regard to justification, sanctification, and union with Christ.

2.4 Why was Aristotelian metaphysics so prominent? 2.4.1 Aristotelian hegemony So the question remains, Why was Aristotelian metaphysics so prominent in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed theology? In one sense, this question cannot be answered without interrogating every single theological work of the two periods and hunting for clues. However, some general trends can be observed. The simple truth that contemporary readers of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century theological texts must recognize is that the Aristotelian manner of describing the natural world was dominant. As stated in the introduction of this chapter, the Protestant reformers never eradicated all use of philosophy in their theology, not even Luther or Calvin.51 And granted, theologians of Early and High Orthodoxy made a greater use of Aristotelian metaphysical distinctions than their Reformation predecessors, but this use is one of emphasis or degree, not one of substantive difference.52 Metaphysics was part of the theology of the day—simply look at the various analyses of the pronouncements of the Council of Trent (1546), which explain justification using fourfold causality. The Reformers responded in kind with the same distinctions.53

2.4.2 Philosophical eclecticism At the same time, while Aristotelian metaphysics was dominant during the sixteenth- and seventeenth-centuries it was not unreconstructed Aristotelianism. Even medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225–74) modified key 51 See D. V. N. Bagchi, “Sic et Non: Luther and Scholasticism,” and David C. Steinmetz, “The Scholastic Calvin,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. R. Scott Clark / Carl. R. Trueman (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999): 3–15, 16–30; also PRRD, 1.360–67. 52 PRRD, 1.404–05. 53 See John Calvin, “Acts of the Council of Trent: with the Antidote,” in Tracts and Letters, ed. and trans. Henry Beveridge (1851; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2009), 3.95–96.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Aristotelian metaphysics



47

points in Aristotle’s thought.54 Or in a similar vein, theologians such as Vermigli wrote commentaries on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and praised many of his conclusions. But at the close of each section, Vermigli also takes issue with and criticizes many of Aristotle’s conclusions.55 Another element that should be mentioned is that while Aristotelian metaphysics was dominant during the Reformation and post-Reformation periods, theologians could be quite eclectic in their appropriation of philosophical distinctions. Muller has surveyed and noted all of these trends and has consequently described sixteenth- and early to middle seventeenth-century Aristotelianism in the following manner: If we allow the term ‘Christian Aristotelianism,’ with the broad or loose application of the notion to Aristotelianism noted above and then modified variously in terms of the tradition of debate among Thomists, Scotists, and nominalists—a tradition of debate that did not end with the Middle Ages, but continued through the Reformation and late Renaissance—the term can be used with reference to a generalized philosophical perspective that, as Voetius argued, akin to basic common sense, offered a stable epistemological and ontological backdrop to the theology of the seventeenth century. This is a perspective that draws significantly on a set of terms and concepts that belong to Aristotle and the Aristotelian tradition, but it is also a model drawn into dialogue with Christian doctrine in such a way as to render it distinct both from rationalism of ancient Aristotelianism and from the new forms of rationalism that emerged in the seventeenth century.56

Noteworthy is Muller’s reference to Gisbert Voetius (1589–1676), who characterized Aristotelian metaphysics as “common sense”. Recall Copleston’s observations about the person who knows nothing of metaphysics and still is aware of act and potentiality and cause and effect. In this respect, it seems that Aristotelian categories and terms were adapted, modified, and employed during the Middle Ages, Reformation, and post-Reformation periods because it was the common way for theologians to explain the world around them. Hence, the metaphysical explanation of justification and its relationship to sanctification as well as union with Christ is an effort to relate the various and sundry parts as a whole. This is something that Garcia does not seem to grasp. Garcia writes: “Within Calvin’s soteriological model, to make sanctification See, e.g., Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, trans. Richard J. Blackwell, et al (Notre Dame: Dumb Ox Books, 1999), 94–98. 55 Peter Martry Vermigli, Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, ed. Emidio Campi / Joseph C. McLelland, The Peter Martyr Library, vol. 9 (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2006). 56 PRRD, 1.372–73. 54

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

48

Metaphysics and Justification

follow justification as an effect is to concede the theological possibility that one may be truly justified but not yet sanctified, with the result that the legal fiction charge, to which Calvin was always sensitive, would be validated.”57 Yet such a conclusion misses the point of employing metaphysics and causality to explain the relationship between justification and sanctification and reflects an Enlightenment view of causality where observed causes and effects might not be linked, or even torn asunder. With respect to Calvin, Paul Helm has shown that Calvin’s use of causal language arranges each step of soteriology in such a way so as to show how each element builds upon the other and how they are all inextricably bound together. There can be no justification without the material cause, Christ’s obedience, or any of the other causes of justification.58

2.4.3 Pre-Enlightenment concepts of causality The language where sanctification is identified as an effect of justification is one way of saying they are inseparable. In sixteenth- and seventeenth-century metaphysics and the created realm, there are no effects without causes. All effects have a cause. In other words, justification and sanctification can be distinguished, but are inseparable. To state this metaphysical principle in the terms of Copleston’s common illustrations of metaphysics, there are no fires without a source, something to burn. The use of fourfold causality as well as cause and effect language in expositions of justification and sanctification convey the unity and inseparability of the different aspects of redemption. However, it should be noted that it was metaphysical distinctions that preserved the priority of justification over sanctification. A repeated mantra that appears in various Reformed works is that sanctification does not cause justification. This point was made not only through cause and effect statements, but also by appealing to the patristics, such as Augustine, to make the same point.

2.4.4 The demise of Aristotelian concepts of causality The last question that deserves some attention is the whole matter of how and why such language dropped out of post-Reformation theology. In many respects the answer to this question comes with the advent of the Enlightenment, spe57 58

Garcia, Life In Christ, 264. Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 404.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Aristotelian metaphysics



49

cifically the philosophy of René Descartes (1596–1650). Behind the aphorism attributed to Descartes, Cogito ergo sum, lies an entirely different epistemology from what was commonly employed. No longer was a person’s perception of the world a given fact but instead doubt was the new epistemic foundation. In other words, observed causes and effects might not be connected. There is a complex web of intersecting ideas, both philosophical and theological, in the transition from the Aristotelian hegemony of the sixteenth- and seventeenth centuries to Enlightenment paradigms. Nevertheless, a few examples can illustrate how Aristotelian metaphysics came into disuse. Descartes, for example, rejected fourfold causality, arguing that final causes were improper for natural philosophy.59 In addition to this Descartes also discounted the connections between form and substance, which critics such as Voetius believed led to a denial of secondary causality. To say the least, Descartes kicked over a hornets’ nest of opposition from both the Roman Catholic and Protestant camps.60 However, this fierce opposition was not universal. Some of the Reformed camp, most notably students of Johannes Cocceius (1603–69), embraced elements of Cartesian philosophy. The employment of Cartesian principles created and fueled a debate between the disciples of Voetius and Cocceius.61 This debate is beyond the scope of this chapter, nevertheless it begins to account for the shift and disuse of Aristotelian metaphysics in Reformed theology specifically, and Protestant and Roman Catholic theology generally. From Descartes it is not a far step to David Hume (1711–76), who according to Enlightenment lore, hammered the nail in the coffin of causality.62 In this changing landscape the metaphysical underpinnings of the sixteenth- and seventeenth centuries were knocked away and therefore fell into disuse.

Roger Ariew, Descartes and the Last Scholastics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), 15–16; PRRD, 1.375–76. 60 Theo Verbeek, Descartes and the Dutch: Early Reactions to Cartesian Philosophy 1637–1650 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992), 19, 37–38; also Ariew, Descartes, 5. 61 See Aza Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625–1750: Gisbert Voetius, Petrus van Mastrict, and Anthonius Driessen (Leiden: Brill, 2006); J. A. van Ruler, The Crisis of Causality: Voetius and Descartes on God, Nature, and Change (Leiden: Brill, 1995); Ernestine G. E. van der Wall, “Cartesianism and Cocceianism: a natural reliance?” in De l’humanisme auz lumières, Bayle et le protestantisme, ed. Michelle Magdelaine / et al (Paris: University of Voltaire Foundation, 1996): 445–55. 62 Hume argues that there are only efficient causes; he rejects the other causes of Aristotelian metaphysics (David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge [1888; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973], 1.3.14 [p. 171]). For a brief survey of Hume on causality, see Frederick Copleston, History of Philosophy, 9 vol. (New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1958), 5.277–88. 59

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

50

Metaphysics and Justification

2.5 Conclusion This study began with claims of Garcia identifying casual language as the trademark of historic Lutheran theology. The evidence gathered here challenges the viability of such a thesis. While lines of division can certainly be drawn between Lutheran and Reformed theologians, the employment of causality and metaphysics in the doctrines of justification, sanctification, and union with Christ is not one of those lines. Aristotelian metaphysics is common to both camps. This raises important questions that are best illustrated by one of Garcia’s claims. Garcia argues that Melanchthon’s cause and effect explanation of justification and good works later became standard in the Lutheran tradition; he then goes on to quote Charles Hodge (1797–1878), “There has never been any real difference of opinion among Protestants. . . It was universally admitted that good works are not necessary to our justification; that they are the consequences and indirectly the fruits of justification, and therefore cannot be its ground.” Garcia argues that Hodge’s statement is “rather remarkable,” implying that at minimum, the statement has more in common with Lutheran expressions, or at maximum, that Hodge is Lutheran at this point.63 Given the uncovered evidence, Garcia’s claim actually makes an important, albeit unintended, point. While space does not permit a full elaboration of the point, Hodge’s expression has a great deal in common with sixteenth- and seventeenth-century expressions. Given Hodge’s commitment to the Westminster Standards (1646), a confession written during a time when Aristotelian metaphysics was quite common in Reformed theology, it is only natural that he would retain such expressions in his theology.64 In other words, Hodge seems to be more in tune with sixteenth- and seventeenth-century expressions than Garcia. In fact, some of the recent literature that has eschewed metaphysical explanations and sought to eliminate the use of the ordo salutis in favor of a model that employs union with Christ as the controlling paradigm, begs the following question: What 63 Garcia, Life in Christ, 267 n. 24. Garcia quotes, Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vol. (1871; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 3.238. 64 See, e.g., Aristotelian metaphysical distinctions in the Westminster Confession appear where it refers to “second causes” (3.1) in connection with the eternal decree; it also refers to second causes that fall out necessarily, freely, or contingently (5.2). Likewise, concerning repentance unto life, the divines employ causal language by saying that repentance is not “any cause of the pardon” (15.3). The form-matter distinction is employed regarding good works done by the unregenerate, “although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands . . . cannot please God” because they are not done from faith (16.7). The form-substance distinction also arises in the discussion of the Lord’s Supper (29.5). However, keep in mind that such distinctions appear only incidentally, as they are part of “school” or technical theology and are therefore not often found in confessions of faith, which are intended for the broader church, not the academy.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Conclusion



51

philosophical paradigm is being employed in contemporary formulations?65 Theologians cannot claim there are no philosophical ideas in their theology. Garcia’s conclusion and even desire to eliminate causal language from historic and dogmatic soteriological formulations has more in common with postEnlightenment theology than that of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.66 To say, for example, that to employ cause and effect language to explain the relationship between justification and sanctification is to admit that they can be separated is more indebted to Enlightenment views of causality than those of the sixteenth or seventeenth century. Reformers and Early Orthodox theologians knew nothing of effects without causes. Or to claim that to employ cause and effect language implies that it corrupts justification as a forensic declaration because justification becomes generative of sanctification has more in common with Enlightenment mechanistic views of causality than sixteenth- and seventeenth-century metaphysical models.67 For example, to illustrate the point, Reformed theologians of the era explain that faith is passive—like an open handing receiving Christ. How, then, can faith be denominated an instrumental cause if it is passive? There are problems if one assumes an Enlightenment view of causality, but if the metaphysical distinction is understood in terms of its historical context, there is no problem. The Reformers and Early Orthodox theologians are simply delineating how faith relates to the rest of redemption, not attributing generative powers to it. In the post-Enlightenment world, on the other hand, such certainty is not the norm. Garcia, therefore, appears to be using an Enlightenment grid to analyze the causal language of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and hence produces questionable results. To be sure, such issues lie beyond the scope of this chapter. Nevertheless, they do pose interesting questions. In the age of quantum physics and theories of relativity, are there better paradigms to be employed in the explanation of soteriology? Has Aristotelian metaphysics seen its best and brightest days? On the other hand, perhaps Copleston’s observations should alert us to the fact that at one level, this is simply a common-sense explanation of how to explain the relationship between Canlis, for example, who argues that salvation should not be understood as a process (i.e., ordo salutis) but as union with Christ. She cites Richard Gaffin as one who has re-appropriated “union over a traditional ordo salutis” (Canlis, “Calvin, Osiander, and Participation,” 173 n. 13; cf. 183 n. 55). Canlis cites, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (Phillipsburg: P & R, 1987). 66 To see how Garcia takes the historical conclusions of his work and employs them dogmatically, see Mark A. Garcia, “Imputation and the Christology of Union with Christ: Calvin, Osiander, and the Contemporary Quest for a Reformed Model,” WTJ 68/2 (2008): 219–51. 67 Garcia, Life in Christ, 105. 65

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

52

Metaphysics and Justification

the multifaceted aspects of our redemption. Recall that Vermigli went behind medieval theology to Origen and Augustine to explain the relationship between justification and sanctification. Such questions are certainly worthy of exploration. Suffice it to say for the time being that causal language is common to sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed theological explanations of justification and sanctification and union with Christ. So what has metaphysics to do with sixteenth and seventeenth-century Reformed theology? In a word, certain metaphysical assumptions and rhetorical categories were an integral part of the Reformation and Early Orthodox doctrine of justification. The next chapter will explore matters related to the criticism of the ordo salutis. In many respects, Garcia’s over all case against employing language of cause-and-effect in the relationship between union with Christ, justification, and sanctification, are part of a broader trend of criticism leveled against the idea of the ordo salutis. But from where does this criticism originate? What are the motivations behind the criticisms of the ordo salutis? These and other questions regarding the origins of the criticisms of the ordo salutis will be addressed in the next chapter.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

3. Rejection and Criticism of the Ordo Salutis

3.1 Introduction The twentieth century has not been kind to the doctrine of the ordo salutis. A host of scholars coming from various disciplines, including systematic theology, historical theology, and New Testament, have lodged their criticism and rejection of the ordo. In a word, the over arching argument is this: the ordo salutis is less than scriptural. The biblical manner in which to elaborate redemption is union with Christ. This argument may be familiar to most, but what is perhaps less known is the history of the rejection of the ordo in the twentieth and early twenty-first century. Many people likely read the works of G. C. Berkouwer (1903–96), Karl Barth, Otto Weber (1921–2001), Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928 - ), Herman Ridderbos (1909–2007), Richard Gaffin, and William Evans. But what some may not know is that all of these theologians are united not only by their criticism and rejection of the ordo salutis, but also by the common arguments and bibliography they all employ in their efforts. This chapter will survey the history of the criticism of the ordo salutis in historical order starting with Berkouwer. This chapter will then summarize the arguments that have been leveled against the ordo. The following chapter will then address these summary points as it explores the history of the development of the ordo salutis.

3.2 Critics of the ordo salutis 3.2.1 G. C. Berkouwer The well-known Dutch systematic theologian, G. C. Berkouwer, is perhaps one of the chief sources for introducing criticism of the ordo salutis in the twentiethcentury. Berkouwer contends that employing an ordo would not ensure purity of doctrine nor ensure whether God’s grace in redemption takes priority over man’s actions and response.1 Aside from this observation, Berkouwer believes 1 G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, Studies in Dogmatics, trans. Lewis B. Smeades (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 30.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

54

Rejection and Criticism of the Ordo Salutis

the traditional Reformed appeal to Rom 8.30 is incorrect; this one verse cannot sustain the concept of the ordo salutis, though Berkouwer also includes other texts (1 Cor. 1.30; 6.11; Titus 3.5). Berkouwer, approvingly citing an article on the ordo salutis by Reinhold Seeberg (1859–1935), states: “Only the richness, not the order, of the way of grace comes to expression” in Paul’s famous text.2 Rather than the ordo salutis, Berkouwer argues that Paul merely describes the way of salvation. Berkouwer believes that if Paul was giving an ordo salutis, then how could he forget to mention sanctification?3 Berkouwer does not believe that Paul has a specific order in mind in Rom 8.30, but rather the richness of the salvation that comes from the Father’s heart. If Paul intended an order, then when appealing to 1 Cor 6.11, one would find a contradiction because Paul begins with sanctification, not election or calling. Moreover, Berkouwer believes: “If the ordo salutis were really intended to be a straight line drawn through a sequence of causal factors it would be open to the same objections that we have against the Roman Catholic concept of the function of faith as a preparatory phase preceding justification or infused grace.”4 Rather, Berkouwer believes that ensuring the integrity of sola fide is the best way to guard against heresy. This is Paul’s point in Rom 8.30—that the entire way of salvation is only intended to highlight sola fide and sola gratia. While it may not seem like much now, Berkouwer’s citation of Seeberg as well as his own dissatisfaction would echo for the next half-century in literature critical of the ordo salutis.

3.2.2 Karl Barth Even more famous than Berkouwer, Karl Barth is another theologian who rejects the ordo salutis. Barth explains that later Lutheran dogmaticians tried to understand justification and sanctification as a series of steps in the so-called ordo salutis, something that began with calling and illumination, followed by a separate process of regeneration, conversion, mystical union, and then glorification.5 Barth contends, “For the most part this ordo salutis was thought of as a temporal sequence, in which the Holy Spirit does His work here and now in men—the 2 Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, 31; cf. Reinhold Seeberg, “Heilsordnung,” in Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ed. Johann Jakob Herzog, vol. 7 (1853–68; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’ Buchhandlung, 1899), 596. 3 Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, 31. 4 Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, 32. 5 CD, VI.2:502.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Critics of the ordo salutis



55

outworking of the reconciliation accomplished there and then on Golgotha.”6 Barth believes that this temporal sequence corresponds to the pattern found in the christology of pietism: humiliation and then exaltation. Barth’s chief criticism was that this temporal sequence was the result of “psychologistic pragmatics” conforming to the “historicist pragmatics” of christology.7 Barth’s criticism can be restated as: pietist theologians were looking to replicate the via dolorosa for the Christian life—extending the imitatio Christi to dogmatic formulation. Barth explains that this pietistic pragmatic view of the ordo is not the position of the Reformers. The original goal was to explain the application of grace by the Holy Spirit, that which is summed up in book three of Calvin’s Institutes: “The way in which we receive the grace of Christ: what benefits come to us from it, and what effects follow.”8 But Barth asks the question, If this reception (precipere) consists in a series of steps, is it not more comprehensible as a series of spiritual awakenings, movements, actions, and states of a religious and moral type?9 Barth does draw attention to the fact that the previously described temporal succession is how theologians in the seventeenth-century understood the ordo. Barth argues that there is a glimmer of light, however, in the statements of Johannes Quenstedt’s (1617–88) explanation of the ordo. According to Barth, Quenstedt argues that justification and sanctification take place at the same time and are more closely united than a mathematical point so that they can not be separated.10 Barth opines: This is inevitable if we are really thinking of the act of God as it comes to man in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit. If Quenstedt and that whole theology had taken this insight seriously, it would have meant that they could not have understood that ordo as a series of different divine actions, but only as the order of different ‘moments’ of the one redemptive occurrence coming to a man in the simul of the one event.11

For Barth, simultaneity is a crucial point to maintain in the application of redemption. When Barth argues for the simultaneity of the different moments of redemption, one should keep in mind that he has far more ambitious goals than most CD, IV.2:502. CD, IV.2:502. 8 CD, IV 2:502; cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, LCC, vols 20–21, ed. John T. McNeil, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.1.1. 9 CD, IV.2:502. 10 CD, IV.2:502. 11 CD, IV.2:502. 6 7

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

56

Rejection and Criticism of the Ordo Salutis

theologians. Barth contends that maintaining simultaneity might have led to the collapse of the historicist pragmatic dualism between an “objective achievement of salvation there and then and a subjective appropriation of it here and now, in favor of a recognition of the simultaneity of the one act of salvation whose subject is the one God by the one Christ through the one Spirit.” Barth continues: The God who in His humiliation justifies us is also the man who in His exaltation sanctifies us. He is the same there and then as He is here and now. He is the one living Lord in whom all things have occurred, and do and will occur, for all. Unfortunately, however, the recognition of this simul did not lead even to a serious consideration of the relationship between justification and sanctification, let alone to any general advance in this direction.12

Barth believes that by dividing redemption into a series of acts, one followed by another, redemption is separated and no longer a definitive work of the triune God.

3.2.3 Otto Weber One who followed Barth and Berkouwer in their rejection of the ordo is Otto Weber. Like Barth before him, Weber follows the same historical-theological path and places the origins of the ordo with seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Lutheran dogmatics. Though he does acknowledge that Heinrich Bullinger first employed the concept in his De Gratia Dei iustificante (1554). Weber nevertheless credits Lutheran theologians Quenstedt, Abraham Calovius (1612–86), Johann Franz Buddeus (1667–1729), and Jakobus Karpov (1699–1768), as the originators of the term. Weber draws attention to the fact that while Reformed theologians did employ the term, it did not appear until very late in the work of Daniel Wyttenbach (1746–1820).13 One should note, though, that like Barth, Weber draws his historical information from secondary sources, including the works of Seeberg, Otto Ritschl (1860–1944), and the compendiums of Heinrich Heppe and Heinrich Schmid (1811–85). Though, it is Berkouwer who apparently first cites Seeberg’s article on the ordo. Weber also explains: “When the CD, IV.2:502. Weber cites M. Koch, Der ordo salutis in der alt-Lutherischen Dogmatik (1899), E. Wacker, Die Heilsordnung (1898); O. Ritschl, Dogmengeschicte des Prostantisumus (1908–27), R. Seeberg, “Heilsordnung,”; and Schmid, Evangelical Theology of the Lutheran Church (Otto Weber, Foundations for Dogmatics, 2 vol., trans. Darrel Guder [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983], 2.336 n. 68). 12

13

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Critics of the ordo salutis



57

believer speaks of faith, and not of his own religiosity, he means God’s act. This act cannot be incorporated into history under the specter of death, not even into that history in the life of the individual.”14 Despite this fact, preliminary forms of the ordo (found in Calovius and Quenstedt on the Lutheran side, and Samuel Maresius (1599–1673) and Francis Turretin on the Reformed) still try to incorporate faith as God’s act in the ordo. One of the unintended consequences of this move, according to Weber, is that justification merely appears as one event in the chain among others, and it cannot bear the eschatological character that it should. Weber also argues: “All of the proponents of the so-called ‘order of salvation’ appealed to Romans 8.29f.”15 Weber marshals an exegetical point in his effort to disprove the doctrine by noting that Paul’s so-called ordo consists of a series of aorist verbs, which indicates that all of these events have already occurred and therefore cannot refer to the events of human life. Weber criticizes what he perceives is the common view of the ordo, a temporal succession of events: If the idea implicit in the ‘order of salvation’ projection of the salvation event onto the level of a time-line were true, then we would have to assume that the various phases of the salvation process would successively follow and replace each other. In that process, the individual contents of the various phases would not need to disappear and be meaningless for later phases.16

Weber contends that, given the concept of the ordo, justification would be surpassed by sanctification, and the former would become a passive fact, something that already occurred in the timeline of the ordo. Moreover, justification and sanctification would no longer be linked but merely different phases of a process where they are, in abstract and isolation, considered one part of the whole process.17 Instead, Weber argues Calvin’s view is commendable because he never separates justification from sanctification—a person cannot have one without the other; whereas Orthodox theologians (whether of the Reformed or Lutheran stripe) were unable to follow Calvin in this path because the various stages of the ordo did not overlap each other. For Weber, Calvin’s emphasis on sola fide not only governs the person but his works because there is no other path but Weber, Foundations, 2.337. Weber, Foundations, 2.337. 16 Weber, Foundations, 2.337. 17 Weber, Foundations, 2.337. 14 15

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

58

Rejection and Criticism of the Ordo Salutis

to be “in Christ”.18 What Weber finds so appealing about Calvin’s view, is that both justification and sanctification are grounded in the participatio Christi.19 It should be noted, that Weber does not strike out on his own to arrive at this conclusion but follows Barth’s analysis of Calvin.20

3.2.4 Wolfhart Pannenberg Wolfhart Pannenberg travels what is now a well-worn path. Pannenberg poses the question as to how the divine verdict of justification becomes a reality for believers. He too appeals to the article by Seeberg and identifies seventeenthcentury dogmaticians as the source of the ordo salutis. Pannenberg, like Barth, also mentions Buddeus and Quenstedt as other sources of the ordo. Though, Pannenberg does cite the works of other Lutheran theologians, he adds a reference to David Hollaz (1648–1713).21 Pannenberg’s objections, however, do not center upon the idea of the ordo as a temporal sequence but rather of its use to protect the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Pannenberg agrees that justification is certainly a forensic declaration and is a great insight of the Reformation. But he then accuses Melanchthon of imposing the non-Pauline concept of the imputed merit of Christ upon the soteriology of the Reformation.22 Pannenberg argues that by the imposition of imputed merit, it led to a false objectification of righteousness. Even though Lutheran theologians affirmed the doctrine of mystical union, this doctrine could not correct the error because union with Christ is viewed as a consequence of the divine verdict rather than as a part of the believer’s union as Luther explains it. Pannenberg believes that in the effort to fend off the criticisms of Arminians and Socinians, theologians mistakenly focused upon the extra nos of justification, especially in imputation, and affirmed a teaching much closer to Anselm’s (ca. 1033–1109) satisfaction theory of the atonement rather than the teaching of Scripture.23 The disastrous result is a broken link between justification and ethics, which before the seventeenth century had never occurred. The emphasis in theological exposition moved from God’s redemption to humanity’s religious and ethical subjectivity. Weber, Foundations, 2.338. Weber, Foundations, 2.340. 20 Cf. CD, IV.2:513–522; Calvin, Institutes, 3.16.1, 3.14.9. 21 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3 vol. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 3.228–29 nn. 422–30. 22 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3.229. 23 Cf. Anselm of Canterbury, The Major Works, ed. Brian Davies / G. R. Evans (Oxford: OUP, 2008), 260–306. 18 19

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Critics of the ordo salutis



59

Pannenberg’s solution, an alternative to the ordo salutis, is to affirm “faith fellowship with Jesus Christ,” in other words, union with Christ. Pannenberg argues in favor of Barth’s impressive insight: focus upon the christological dimension of justification. Christ was judged and raised in the place of the believer and that, in Christ, the believer finds God’s pardon. Pannenberg believes that in such a construction there is no room for imputed righteousness because believers would then only share in Christ’s pardon, and not his righteousness. Pannenberg writes: “In Paul faith is declared righteous, and this embraces not only the righteousness that accrues to Jesus himself before God but also the covenant righteousness of God in relation to us that is revealed in him.”24 For Pannenberg, the ordo salutis and union with Christ are mutually exclusive.

3.2.5 Herman Ridderbos As we depart the views of Berkouwer, Barth, Weber, and Pannenberg, all systematic theologians, we cross into the field of New Testament studies. For Herman Ridderbos, Paul’s definitive presupposition for his theology is not anthropology but redemptive history, that is, all that is eschatological, christological and pneumatological in nature.25 What does Ridderbos mean by this threefold assertion (eschatology, christology, and pneumatology)? According to Ridderbos, the content of Paul’s preaching can be summarized as the proclamation that the eschaton has arrived in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Ridderbos appeals to Gal 4.4, “In the fullness of time” and Eph 1.10’s, “The fullness of the times,” to support his claim.26 The Spirit is the eschatological gift, who not only anointed Christ in his ministry, but also brings the revelation and application of Christ’s work to the church.27 This appeal to redemptive history is formative for Ridderbos’ views regarding the ordo salutis. Ridderbos begins his book on the theology of Paul with a survey of the history of the interpretation of Paul and covers the Reformation as one of the key interpretive events for the understanding of the apostle’s theology. Ridderbos informs the reader that two traditions emanated from Calvin and Luther; and the doctrine of justification was dominant for both reformers and their respective traditions. However, relying upon the work of Berkouwer, Ridderbos argues that questions arose regarding the order of salvation and how believers Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3.231; cf. CD IV.1:568ff, 608ff. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 205. 26 Ridderbos, Paul, 44. 27 Ridderbos, Paul, 86–90. 24 25

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

60

Rejection and Criticism of the Ordo Salutis

appropriated redemption, though there was increasing attention given to the historia salutis. Both Luther and Calvin placed great emphasis upon the redemptive historical event of Christ’s death and resurrection, but with the advent of pietism, mysticism, and moralism, emphasis shifted from the theological to the anthropological.28 This historical observation informs Ridderbos’ later analysis, as he argues that Paul’s thought is decidedly conditioned by redemptive-history and not in terms of anthropology, namely the ordo salutis.29 For Ridderbos, to follow Paul is to follow redemptive history; conversely, to use the ordo salutis is to pursue anthropology, not theology. Ridderbos states: The anthropological significance of salvation not only has its ground in Christ, but in its various facets has also been designated out of that which has taken place in and with Christ. The result is that in Paul’s preaching there is no such thing as a systematic development of the ordo salutis, a detailed doctrine of the anthropological application of salvation. The cause for this is not only that the character of Paul’s doctrine is not ‘systematic’ in the scientific sense of the word, but above all that his viewpoint is a different one.30

To illustrate this point, Ridderbos appeals to 2 Cor 5.17 and the believer’s new life.31 For Ridderbos, old and new do not designate pre- and post-conversion (or regeneration)—this is the anthropological thinking process of the ordo salutis, something absent in Paul. Paul’s theology, contends Ridderbos, is of a different order: the history of redemption. Paul is not primarily interested in what happens before and after a person comes to faith but in the march of history, but in what has taken place once-for-all in Christ, in whom his people have a part, a corporate identity.32 In a word, Ridderbos writes of the believer’s union with Christ. Ridderbos explicates the believer’s union with Christ in terms of the twoAdam (first and last) model of redemptive history as found in Rom 5.12–21. Ridderbos explains that the two Adams are determinative for all of those respectively united to them; though Ridderbos stipulates that Paul does not explain the nature of this unity, whether it is realistic or federal.33 At this point, Ridderbos once again relies upon the analysis of Berkouwer.34 Instead of finding the Ridderbos, Paul, 14. Ridderbos, Paul, 211. 30 Ridderbos, Paul, 206. 31 Ridderbos, Paul, 206. 32 Ridderbos, Paul, 63. 33 Ridderbos, Paul, 61. 34 Cf. G. C. Berkouwer, Sin, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 436–65. 28 29

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Critics of the ordo salutis



61

doctrine imputation, Ridderbos, quoting Albrecht Oepke (1881–1955), states: “Adam and Christ are spoken of here as ‘universal personalities . . . construed cosmically and eschatologically,’ who comprehend within themselves all the members of the generations of men pertaining to them, or, with a term that has found still more acceptance, as a ‘corporate personality.’”35 What is significant about Ridderbos’ quotation from Oepke, is that the latter draws his idea of the “universal personalities” partly from Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) and presumably his The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle.36 It is in his book where Schweitzer made his now famous statement: “The doctrine of righteousness by faith is therefore a subsidiary crater, which has formed within the rim of the main crater—the mystical doctrine of redemption through being-in-Christ.”37 In addition to this, most know that Schweitzer believed that justification was one part of the whole, that is, union with Christ, but that mystical union and justification were different incompatible streams of thought in Paul’s theology.38 Now, while Schweitzer does not cite any sources to support his claim, he does note that the Reformation did lock onto the forensic at the expense of the mystical: At the Reformation this Pauline doctrine of justification rose up and cast off the fetters which the Church had laid upon it. In this way there arose in Western Christianity a movement which professed an absolute allegiance to Paul’s teaching. The fateful thing is that the Greek the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it. The true continuation of the Gospel of Jesus is found only in the authentic Primitive-Christian eschatological Paulinism.39

On this point Schweitzer appears as a precursor and perhaps an influential source upon Ridderbos. Both Ridderbos and Schweitzer argue that the soteriology of the Reformation was less than faithful to the Pauline corpus. Like Ridderbos, Schweitzer identifies the subsidiary doctrine of righteousness by faith as the “traditional view” (presumably the Reformation view) and mystical union as the decidedly Pauline view.40 Ridderbos, Paul, 61. Albrecht Oepke, “ἐν Χριστ ᾿Ιησο , ἐν κυρίῳ and Related Formulae,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vol., ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 2.541–42. 37 Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (1953; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1998), 225. 38 Schweitzer, Mysticism, 225. 39 Schweitzer, Mysticism, 392–93. 40 Schweitzer, Mysticism, 225, also 392–93. 35 36

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

62

Rejection and Criticism of the Ordo Salutis

The underlying assumption for Schweitzer is that the Reformers were ignorant of the doctrine of union with Christ. This conclusion is especially evident when Schweitzer writes: In the doctrine of justification by faith, redemption and ethics are like two roads, one of which leads up to one side of a ravine, and the other leads onwards from the opposite side—but there is no bridge by which to pass from one side to the other. But Paul is here in the favorable position, as compared with the Reformers, of not having to make desperate efforts to procure the unprocurable material necessary to build this bridge. For in the mystical being-in-Christ he possesses a concept of redemption from which ethics directly results as a natural function of the redeemed state. In this concept there is a logical foundation for the paradox, that the man before redemption was incapable of good works, but afterwards not only can but must bring them forth; since it is Christ who brings them forth.41

From Schweitzer’s statement, it appears that he viewed the Reformers as positing justification as a stand-alone doctrine or event, and therefore because it was divorced from union with Christ, Reformation doctrine was incapable of bridging the gap between justification and ethics. For Paul, according to Schweitzer, there is no gap between justification and ethics because the apostle conceives of redemption as union with Christ, the foundation and path to ethics. Though there are differences between Schweitzer and Ridderbos, both offer very similar arguments. It should be noted that Ridderbos does not encounter Schweitzer as a secondary source mediated through Oepke, but is also familiar with Schweitzer through his own primary source analysis, though he is certainly critical of him on a number of points.42 And while one should always presume that Scripture forms a theologian’s views, those views are at the same time often influenced by other ideas. In this respect, there is a resonance between Schweitzer and Ridderbos, though one ought not to attribute Ridderbos’ rejection of the ordo salutis entirely to the influence of Schweitzer; Ridderbos clearly relies upon Berkouwer’s historical and exegetical work.

41 42

Schweitzer, Mysticism, 295. Ridderbos, Paul, 29–32.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Critics of the ordo salutis

63

3.2.6 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. The trends that appear in Ridderbos continue in the work of Richard Gaffin, who was originally professor of New Testament and later transitioned to teach systematic theology. Like Ridderbos, though with significant reference to the writings of Geerhardus Vos, Gaffin also argues that the historical realization of history has been reached in the eschatological manifestation in the death and especially the resurrection of Christ.43 Like Ridderbos, Gaffin contends that Reformed theology has traditionally accessed Paul’s theology through the ordo salutis rather than through the biblical-theological regulative principle of redemptive history.44 Gaffin challenges the ordo salutis, “as it is traditionally conceived,” and the assumption that it “is Paul’s central interest”.45 Instead, approvingly citing Ridderbos, Gaffin argues that the resurrection is the central event of redemptive history and the center of Paul’s preaching; therefore Paul’s eschatology is his theology.46 Gaffin’s understanding of the regulative nature of redemptive history leads him to reject the ordo salutis, with this important caveat—as it is traditionally conceived. First, Gaffin acknowledges that the typical elements of the traditional ordo salutis (calling, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification) are all Pauline, and therefore biblical. Second, Gaffin perceives a weakness: the traditional ordo is based primarily on Rom 8.29–30. To support his contention, Gaffin cites Louis Berkhof (1873–1957) and John Murray (1898–1975).47 Gaffin’s chief criticism at this point is that “exegesis (biblical theology)” must regulate systematic theology, not vice versa.48 Here Gaffin’s criticism is not as sharp as Ridderbos’ claim that the ordo is anthropology and redemptive history is theology. Nevertheless, the error Gaffin attributes to

43 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (1978; Phillipsburg: P & R, 1987), 13. 44 Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 11–12. 45 Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 13. 46 Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 14. 47 Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 137; cf. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938), 416; John Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 100–03. 48 This appears to be the opposite of Gerhardus Vos’s view, who argues that biblical theology is a handmaid to systematic theology. In Gaffin’s formulation, it appears the handmaid has become the lady of the house (cf. Geerhardus Vos, “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, ed., Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. [Phillipsburg: P & R, 1980], 3–24, esp. 23–24; Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” WTJ 38/3 [1976]: 281–99).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

64

Rejection and Criticism of the Ordo Salutis

traditional Reformed theology is deducing a doctrine largely from one text, in other words, proof-texting. While Gaffin’s criticism may be lost on some, a helpful illustration on the regulative nature of biblical theology comes from Norman Shepherd (1933 - ), a former colleague of Gaffin’s at Westminster Theological Seminary. Shepherd argues that “cosmic salvation through union with Christ” has attending benefits including sanctification, adoption, and justification.49 One should note that the order in which Shepherd lists the benefits of union with Christ is deliberate. Shepherd contends that even though what he suggests is the reverse of the traditional ordo salutis, this is the ordo presented by Paul in Eph 1.1–10: sanctification (v. 4), adoption (v. 5), and justification (v. 7). Shepherd explains his point: This order appears appropriate to the order of cosmic salvation, and therefore, perhaps is not wholly inappropriate to the order of personal salvation. This suggestion deserves fuller elaboration than can be provided at this point. Of course, not sanctification, but Jesus Christ is the foundation of justification; and by the same token, not justification, but Jesus Christ is the foundation of sanctification. This is Paul’s concern in 1 Corinthians 1.30. Similarly, in Ephesians 1, each of the benefits of Christ is related directly to Christ, whether considered in particular (vv. 4f., 7) or in sum (v. 3).50

What may not be immediately evident is what drives Shepherd’s observations. Like Ridderbos and Gaffin, Shepherd’s understanding of redemptive history, what he terms “cosmic salvation through union with Christ,” drives his formulation of personal redemption: redemptive history (or biblical theology) is regulative for systematic-theological formulation. Gaffin’s reformulation of the ordo, though driven by the same presupposition as Ridderbos and Shepherd, leads him to different conclusions than Shepherd. In a three-point comparison between the traditional ordo and Paul’s soteriology, Gaffin argues that the first deficiency is that the ordo lacks the eschatological character that marks Paul’s doctrine of redemption. Gaffin explains: In the [traditional ordo salutis], justification, adoption, sanctification (and regeneration) are deprived of any eschatological significance and any really integral connection with the future. Eschatology enters the ordo salutis only as glorification, standing at a more or less isolated distance in the future, is discussed within the locus on ‘last things.’51 Norman Shepherd, “The Resurrections of Revelation 20,” WTJ 37 (1974–75): 42. Shepherd, “Resurrections,” 42 n. 8. 51 Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 138. 49 50

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Critics of the ordo salutis



65

Eschatology is key, as it entails christology and pneumatology, and this is a missing element in the traditional ordo salutis according to Gaffin. Gaffin’s second criticism is that the traditional ordo insists that justification, adoption, and sanctification are separate acts, though occurring simultaneously at the beginning of the application of redemption. Gaffin cites Murray, Berkhof, Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920), Charles Hodge, and W. G. T. Shedd (1820–94), as examples.52 Gaffin contends that Paul’s understanding is as follows: redemption is not a series of individual acts but one single act—union with Christ. Gaffin argues that with Paul’s model, there are no inherent problems of looking to establish temporal, logical, or causal priorities. If salvation is a series of acts, then Gaffin asks whether the other acts of redemption (justification, sanctification, and adoption) are necessary (exclusive of the progressive character of sanctification and future glorification) if the believer is existentially united to Christ at the inception of redemption through regeneration.53 According to Gaffin, the traditional ordo prevents theologians from affirming that upon which Paul grounds the entirety of redemption—union with the resurrected Christ.54 At this point, Gaffin might sound quite radical, but he is careful to recognize that one can speak of an ordo at the inception of redemption. That is, there is a point when a person is without Christ (Eph 2.12) and later existentially united to him (Eph 2.5ff). But Gaffin insists—once a person is united to Christ in regeneration, he possesses the whole Christ and all of his benefits—they are not to be parceled out one at a time. For some, Gaffin’s formulation might pose a problem because, How can a person be united to Christ before his justification? Gaffin’s answer is twofold: (1) there should not be an ordered consideration of redemption, which thereby eliminates the perceived problem; and (2) older Reformed dogmatics did not perceive any such problem because they equivocated on the idea of union with Christ. That is, Reformed theologians have lacked precision in their use of the doctrine of union because they employed the doctrine of the covenant to conceive of the unity between Christ and his people.55 Gaffin’s third and final criticism is that according to the traditional ordo, theologians must begin with the doctrine of regeneration, or the principle, or seed of new life; Hodge, Berkhof, Kuyper, and Bavinck, are guilty of employing this pattern.56 Instead, Gaffin argues that Paul makes reference, not to a concept of regeneration, but to redemptive history—namely, the in-breaking Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 138 n. 9. Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 138–39. 54 Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 139. 55 Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 139 n. 40. 56 Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 140. 52 53

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

66

Rejection and Criticism of the Ordo Salutis

of the eschaton through the outpouring of the Spirit of Christ.57 Gaffin writes: “It would appear, then, that in Paul’s soteriology there is a correlation between Christ as life-giving and the sinner as life-receiving (i.e., Christ-receiving) which carries back to the very point of inception of salvation, a correlation which characterizes the single act of being joined to Christ.”58 In spite of everything Gaffin has written about the ordo, it is unclear whether Gaffin wants to dispense with the ordo salutis (which is the impression one gets from reading Resurrection and Redemption) or if he wants to whittle the ordo down to more fundamental categories. In a recent article, for example, Gaffin takes issue with Ridderbos’ reading of Paul, Calvin, and the Reformed tradition, and does not believe there is as wide a chasm as Ridderbos posits.59 But as Gaffin begins to build his case for the historical understanding of the ordo, he makes reference to the historical work of Berkouwer, particularly the Dutch version of Faith and Justification, because the English translation omits information. Gaffin writes: The first occurrence of ordo salutis, apparently is in the sense in the 18th century within emerging pietism from where it is taken over and eventually becomes widely current in both Lutheran and Reformed orthodoxy. A precursor is present already at the time of the Reformation in Bullinger, who speaks of the dispensatio salutis. While that expression does not take hold, the basic area that Bullinger (and later ordo salutis thinking) has in view, the application of salvation, is a major concern for other reformers, like Luther and Calvin, as well as subsequent Reformation orthodox, and increasingly in the period after the Synod of Dort, Reformed theology focuses on the ‘ordo’ aspect.60

Gaffin, however, not only cites Berkouwer, who relies upon Seeberg for this information, but also cites Otto Weber. As explained above, Weber is reliant upon Barth, Seeberg, Heppe, and Schmid, among others.61 Nevertheless, it is evident that Gaffin treads upon a well-worn path as he repeats this historical information about the origins of the ordo. From the above stated quotation, it appears that Gaffin argues that Calvin has “major concerns” about the same issues as subsequent Reformed theologians as it pertains to the ordo salutis, which gives the impression that Calvin holds to some form of the ordo. But when Gaffin actually states Calvin’s position, he Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 140–41. Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 142. 59 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards,” WTJ 65/2 (2003): 165. 60 Gaffin, “Biblical Theology,” 167 n. 6. 61 See Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, 26; Weber, Foundations, 2.336–38. 57 58

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Critics of the ordo salutis



67

argues that Calvin has no ordo: “This, in a nutshell, is Calvin’s ordo salutis: union with Christ by the (Spirit-worked) faith: being and continuing to be united with Christ by faith, faith that, through the power of the Spirit, ‘embraces Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.’”62 To be sure, Gaffin draws attention to the study of Craig Carpenter, as one who has reached similar conclusions.63 Among Carpenter’s claims is the idea that Calvin was indifferent on the relationship between justification and sanctification: “It appears that Calvin’s ordo salutis does not require the logical or temporal priority of a forensic act to a renovative act. . . . Calvin may have been reluctant to join either side in subsequent Reformed debates about the priority of one aspect to the other.”64 Gaffin goes on to contrast Calvin with subsequent Reformed theologians where he states that there was “something of a shading of Calvin”. Gaffin caveats that he does not want to overstate the case, but that in the wake of the Arminian conflict, Reformed theologians became preoccupied with the interrelations present in Christ’s work seeking a logical, causal, and “sometimes temporal” ordo. Gaffin’s fear is that through this grid, union with Christ is either lost or merely becomes one benefit among others.65 There are three questions that arise from Gaffin’s argument. First, does Calvin have an ordo or not? How can an ordo have no list, sequence, or prioritization of elements? What is there to order if there is only one thing? Second, Gaffin does not cite any sources to support his claim that later Reformed theology shaded Calvin’s view. This claim, however, is problematic in itself because Calvin is not prescriptive for the tradition, so to say that other Reformed theologians shaded his views, contains a false premise. Additionally, while Gaffin tries to mitigate the differences between Calvin and the later tradition, if Calvin does not have an ordo and the later tradition does, then this seems like a very big difference. Third, when Gaffin does cite historical evidence to illustrate his point, he appeals to two contemporary Lutheran theologians, Franz Pieper (1852–1931) and J. T. Mueller (fl. 1950s), and Schmid’s Doctrinal Theology, to show the Lutheran relationship between justification and union with Christ. Gaffin does cite A. A. Hodge and John Murray, but not as evidence for his claims, but only to illustrate that both theologians have noted the apparent tension between union with Christ and justification that Gaffin perceives.66 So while Gaffin wants to Gaffin, “Biblical Theology,” 172. Gaffin, “Biblical Theology,” 177 n. 26; Craig B. Carpenter, “A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification,” WTJ 64 (2002): 363–86, esp. 371–84. 64 Carpenter, “Union with Christ,” 381. 65 Gaffin, “Biblical Theology,” 173. 66 Gaffin, “Biblical Theology,” 173 nn. 18–19. 62 63

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

68

Rejection and Criticism of the Ordo Salutis

distance himself from Ridderbos, and wants to bridge the gap between Calvin and Reformed orthodoxy, it is unclear how he has accomplished either goal. Gaffin’s most recent work is marked by the same lack of clarity. In By Faith, Not By Sight, Gaffin reaffirms his commitment to Ridderbos and Vos’s insight regarding the regulative function of redemptive history.67 Gaffin then addresses the question of the ordo salutis in Paul’s theology. Gaffin begins by dismissing efforts to locate a specific doctrinal center of Paul’s thought; Gaffin appears to have in mind, though never mentions by name, those who consider justification to be the center of Paul’s thought.68 Instead, Gaffin makes the statement that Paul’s “controlling focus is the historia salutis, not the ordo salutis”.69 But what does Gaffin mean by this statement? Answers come from how Gaffin defines the ordo salutis, which does give the reader something of an interpretive key to Gaffin’s writings as well as explain questions raised above (i.e., How can one talk of an ordo if there is only one element, union with Christ?). Gaffin defines the ordo salutis in two ways, a general and specific definition. Gaffin writes: As it has been employed, ordo salutis can have two distinct senses, one more general, the other more elaborated. The latter sense, more detailed and technical, is its usual, more common usage. It has in view the logical and / or causal, or even chronological ‘order’ or sequence of various discrete saving acts and benefits, as these are unfolded within the actual life of the individual sinner.70

Important to note at this point is that Gaffin supports this definition by appealing to “secondary sources,” and then makes a summary statement that is substantively the same argument made in his earlier writings. Namely, the first instance of the use of the term ordo salutis occurred in the eighteenth century within pietism, and it was then employed by Orthodox theologians, Lutheran and Reformed.71 Gaffin then gives a second definition for the ordo: The expression ordo salutis may also be used, without having yet settled on or having in view a particular ‘order’ or even that there is one in the sense just indicated. It may refer, 67 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., By Faith, Not By Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2006), 5. 68 Gaffin, By Faith, 18–26. 69 Gaffin, By Faith, 24. 70 Gaffin, By Faith, 18. 71 Gaffin, By Faith, 18 n. 1; Gaffin makes the exact same point in his discussion of the ordo salutis in his essay: “Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections,” in, Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology, ed. A. T. B. McGowan (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006), 275–77 n. 8.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Critics of the ordo salutis



69

more generally, to the ongoing application of salvation, in distinction from its once-forall accomplishment, from what we may call, following Herman Ridderbos in coining a Latin counterpart, historia salutis, the history of salvation.72

Gaffin provides no evidence that the term ordo salutis has ever held this meaning. This statement is also slightly misleading, as not even Ridderbos employs the term in this manner. But one thing Gaffin’s definition does provide, is an answer to his claim about Calvin’s ordo salutis. When Gaffin writes that Calvin’s ordo salutis is union with Christ, a clearer statement would be: Calvin does not have an ordo salutis, but the application of redemption (applicatio salutis) brings union with Chirst. What is a continued point of confusion in Gaffin’s work, is that he employs both definitions of the ordo salutis, but does not always signal when he uses the general or specific term. Additionally, while he wants to talk of the ordo in general terms, he still continues to promote elements of the traditional (or specific) ordo despite his criticisms. In other words, he employs the very categories that he rejects. For example, Gaffin affirms that though the ordo is union with Christ, but then maintains that there are three aspects to union, which have a temporal order to them: the predestinarian (Eph 1.4), redemptive-historical, and present (or existential) union. Gaffin stipulates that these three terms define aspects of the singular union with Christ.73 Gaffin sub-divides the present union and discusses the “appropriation or application of salvation,” but then discusses, not the general union, as he previously defines it, but rather the “ordo salutis aspect of union”. The ordo salutis union has is both representative (or legal) and mystical.74 With this distinction Gaffin seeks to preserve the traditional distinction between justification and sanctification.75 This is a marked difference from the position of Berkouwer, who bypasses imputation as a scriptural concept. Gaffin is jealous to preserve the distinction between justification and sanctification and has elsewhere written about the priority of justification to progressive sanctification: This priority of justification to sanctification, if it needs to be said, is not at issue or in any way disputed by me . . . For Calvin and, more importantly, in Scripture, justification is prior to sanctification in the sense that the latter, as a life-long and imperfect process, follows the former as complete and perfect from the inception of the Christian life. Gaffin, By Faith, 18. Gaffin, By Faith, 37. 74 Gaffin, By Faith, 38. 75 Gaffin, By Faith, 44–52; cf. Resurrection and Redemption, 132, esp. n 159; By Faith, 51. 72 73

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

70

Rejection and Criticism of the Ordo Salutis

Furthermore, in God’s sight the full forgiveness granted by the former covers the sins and imperfections of the latter.76

Gaffin clearly affirms the priority of justification to sanctification, but this is the confusing piece of the puzzle: Is this not the precise point historic iterations of the ordo salutis have sought to preserve? Despite all of Gaffin’s criticisms of the traditional ordo salutis, he appears to affirm the very points he critiques.

3.2.7 William Evans One historian who finds Gaffin’s arguments compelling is William Evans. In his published dissertation, Evans essentially argues that Calvin is paradise and Reformed Orthodoxy represents the fall. Evans argues that Calvin conceives of justification in dynamic terms, because it is undergirded by the more fundamental category of union with Christ, in contrast with the Reformed Orthodox, who see justification as a static punctiliar event. Evans claims that with the introduction of the ordo salutis in Orthodoxy, justification became a logically and temporally prior act to sanctification and the other benefits of redemption.77 To what sources does Evans appeal in support of his claim? Evans cites Gaffin’s Resurrection and Redemption and echoes Gaffin’s criticisms regarding the traditional ordo salutis.78 Evans claims that Lutheran Orthodoxy surrendered union with Christ as the overarching soteriological category and made it one of the many benefits of the ordo salutis. On the other hand, Reformed Orthodoxy maintained union with Christ as an umbrella category, but changed it from Calvin’s dynamic formulation to a static one, one driven by the ordo rather than union. Evans draws these points not only from Gaffin, but also from Barth, Weber, and Berkouwer. He also cites Schmid’s compendi76 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “A Response to John Fesko’s Review,” Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 106–07; cf. J. V. Fesko, “A Tale of Two Calvins: A Review Article,” Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 98–104. Note, Gaffin stipulates elsewhere that justification has priority to progressive sanctification, not definitive sanctification (see “A Response,” 107; idem, “Calvin’s Soteriology: The Structure of the Application of Redemption in Book Three of the Institutes,” Ordained Servant 18 [2009]: 74). The doctrine of progressive sanctification was first offered by John Murray and arguably is historically unprecedented as a doctrinal category in early modern Reformed theology (see John Murray, “Definitive Sanctification,” in Collective Writings of John Murray, vol. 2, Systematic Theology [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977], 277–84; cf. J. V. Fesko, “Sanctification and Union with Christ: A Reformed Perspective,” EQ 82/3 [2010]: 197–214, esp. 207–13). 77 William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation: Union with Christ in American Reformed Theology (Carlisle / Eugene: Paternoster / Wipf and Stock, 2008), 37. 78 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 54 n. 42.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Methodological Analysis



71

um.79 Evans essentially cites the same secondary sources as Gaffin. But Evans significantly departs from Gaffin’s analysis when it comes to the relationship between Calvin and Reformed Orthodoxy. Gaffin goes to great lengths, as noted above, to minimize the differences between Calvin and Reformed orthodox theologians, using phrases like, “shading Calvin,” to describe the latter’s soteriology.80 Evans, on the other hand, uses much stronger language; Evans argues Reformed orthodox theologians employed a “bipolar” approach to redemption, positing two separate unions: one forensic and the other mystical, all as a result of a pronounced federalism.81 Evans then writes: A decisive break with the ordo salutis thinking that has vitiated Reformed thought since the early seventeenth century is clearly implied here. This historical record shows that as long as justification is viewed as taking place at a specific point in time (either in eternity or upon the exercise of faith) it is nearly impossible to find a meaningful relationship between justification and sanctification and the economy of faith (the ongoing life of obedience). Only when the traditional ordo salutis is eschewed can a truly forensic and synthetic doctrine of justification that is at the same time relational and dynamic be articulated.82

For Evans, the answer to improving the dogmatic formulations of Reformed theology lies in a return to Calvin’s soteriology—one that is governed by union with Christ rather than the bipolar federalism of the ordo salutis.83

3.3 Methodological Analysis 3.3.1 Insufficient primary-source research What should be evident is that the criticism of the ordo shares much of the same bibliographic DNA. There is a path of theological breadcrumbs that starts with Seeberg’s 1899 article on the ordo that runs through Berkouwer, Barth, Weber, Pannenberg, Ridderbos, Gaffin, and Evans. The situation is such that this narrative has become lodged in the theological scene as an unquestioned Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 54–55 nn. 43–44. Gaffin, “Biblical Theology,” 173. 81 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 262. 82 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 265. 83 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 262. 79 80

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

72

Rejection and Criticism of the Ordo Salutis

fact. In Sinclair Ferguson’s article on the ordo salutis in the New Dictionary of Theology, for example, he more or less repeats the same story, though he is more sympathetic to the ordo than the above surveyed critics. Ferguson cites Buddeus and Karpov as the originators of the term, though he adds that the concept goes back to Luther’s personal struggle to find a gracious God.84

3.3.2 Over-reliance upon Seeberg When we look more carefully into the bibliography of this argument beginning with Seeberg’s article, he lists a number of sources including Schmid’s Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as well as Heppe’s Reformed Dogmatics.85 Recent scholarship has demonstrated that Heppe (and presumably Schmid given the similar characteristics of his work) as helpful as his work is for gathering snapshots of doctrinal positions for their respective traditions, is an inadequate substitute for primary source research. Heppe’s Reformed Dogmatics has been likened to Lombard’s Sentences. And Heppe’s work did not come out of a vacuum, but originated from within a nineteenth-century milieu that was typically interested in driving a wedge between the theology of the Reformation and post-Reformation periods.86 The view that Protestant Orthodox theologians imposed an unnecessary doctrinal structure upon the Scripture is evident in Seeberg’s assessment of the ordo as well as his characterization of Lutheran and Reformed dogmatics. Seeberg explains: “Among the older Lutheran dogmaticians and among the Reformed essentially the same order is found, but the division of the Reformed was superior to that of the Lutherans in its simplicity and its conspicuous subordination of religious conditions to divine effects.”87 But even then, Seeberg’s article is not merely historical, but also dogmatic, as he makes the claim: “From Sinclair Ferguson, “Ordo Salutis,” in New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Sinclair Ferguson / David Wright / J. I. Packer (Downers Grove: IVP, 1988), 480–81. 85 Seeberg, “Heilsordnung,” 593. Note, Seeberg works from the German editions, not English translations. 86 Ryan Glomsrud, “Karl Barth as historical theologian: the recovery of Reformed theology in Barth’s early dogmatics,” in Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques, ed., David Gibson / Daniel Strange (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008), 89; Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: OUP, 2003), 63–65. 87 Reinhold Seeberg, “Ordo Salutis,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 8, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (1908–14; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), 253. Note, the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia is based upon the Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche in which Seeberg’s article, “Heilsordnung” appears. Seeberg’s article entitled, “Ordo Salutis,” is the abbreviated English-translation of his earlier 1899 article. 84

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Methodological Analysis



73

what has been said it is clear that the traditional scheme of the order of salvation is not found in Scripture and thus has no absolute authority.”88 Scholars are certainly within their rights to make both historical and dogmatic judgments, but Seeberg’s article has been treated more as a historical source in the subsequent literature and his arguments have been repeated, apparently, without confirmation from primary source research.

3.3.3 Common bibliographic sources While other theologians have been quoted in an exemplary manner by the aforementioned authors, Quenstedt, is cited by Seeberg, Barth, Pannenberg, and Weber. Seeberg also quotes Calov and Hollaz, both of whom are cited by Pannenberg. Weber cites Hollaz and Heppe’s compendium. Additionally, one should note that Barth is familiar with the work of Berkouwer, and Weber cites Barth.89 While the Gaffin-strand of this bibliographic tree avoids the BarthWeber and Pannenberg branches, it is still firmly rooted to both Berkouwer and Seeberg via Ridderbos; and Evans is grounded in Gaffin but also appeals to Schmid. The following illustrates the overlapping nature of the commonly cited sources: Seeberg

Primary: Ames, Baier, Buddeus, Calov, Carpov, Heidegger, Hollaz, Quenstedt, Wyttenbach Secondary: Schultz, Wacker

Berkouwer Barth Weber

Seeberg Quenstedt Primary: Buddeus, Calov, Carpov, Maresius, Quenstedt, Turretin, Wyttenbach Secondary: Barth, Fahlbusch, Heppe, Ritschl, Seeberg, Schultz, Wacker Pannenberg Primary: Baier, Buddeus, Hollaz, Quenstedt Secondary: Seeberg, Weber Ridderbos

88 89

Berkouwer, Oepke (Schweitzer)

Seeberg, “Ordo Salutis,” 253. CD, IV.2: 501; Weber, Foundations, 2.336–38.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

74

Gaffin Evans Ferguson

Rejection and Criticism of the Ordo Salutis

Primary: Calvin Secondary: Berkouwer, Ridderbos, Schmid Gaffin, Schmid Primary: Buddeus, Carpov, Calvin Secondary: Berkouwer, Barth, Ridderbos

Since 1899 and the publication of Seeberg’s article, it seems fair to say that the criticism of the ordo salutis, considered as a historical-theological phenomenon, has been stuck in a rut. It appears that few have consulted sixteenth-century sources to confirm Seeberg’s original historical arguments. Moreover, those who argue that Ridderbos, for example, is engaged in biblical (not systematic or historical) theology, have to contend with the fact that he makes dogmatic assertions based upon the exegetical and historical work of Berkouwer. In other words, no one can claim they have an inherently superior argument because they are only appealing to the Scriptures, or they are merely appealing to the structure of redemptive history. B. B. Warfield (1851–1921) once noted that despite the names, biblical theology is not more biblical than systematic theology.90 In this respect, there appears to be an inherent antipathy, mild in some and hostile in others, against Reformed orthodox theologians, and their Lutheran counterparts; they were both supposedly engaged in something less than scriptural theology. This trend is especially evident in those such as Evans, who argues that Reformed orthodoxy vitiated Calvin’s soteriology with the ordo, or when Ridderbos claims that the ordo is anthropological. To advance the discussion, it is necessary to set aside this self-referential historical-theological circle and explore primary sources on the question of the development and use of the ordo salutis.

3.4 Summary and Conclusion The unfolding narrative of the history of the rejection or criticism of the ordo salutis can be summarized in the following points: 1. Appeal to Rom 8.30 is exegetically insufficient to support the doctrine of the ordo salutis. 2. The ordo salutis though present in seminal form in some early reformers, 90 B. B. Warfield, “The Idea of Systematic Theology,” in The Works of B. B. Warfield, ed. Ethelbert D. Warfield / et al. (1932; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 9.49–87, esp. 66–67.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Summary and Conclusion

75

such as Bullinger, is ultimately the creation of seventeenth- or eighteenthcentury Lutheran pietist theologians, and Reformed theologians later adopted the concept. 3. The ordo salutis represents, at minimum, a shading of or declension from Calvin, or at maximum, something that has vitiated Reformed theology. Some, such as Berkouwer, have gone as far as to say it is foreign to Scripture and represents anthropology, not theology. 4. Union with Christ and the ordo salutis are incompatible. 5. The ordo salutis is a logical, temporal, or causal structure that parcels out redemption in a step-by-step sequence rather than bestow redemption simultaneously, as with union with Christ. 6. The ordo salutis was created to protect the unscriptural notion of imputed righteousness. 7. Biblical theology (or redemptive history) is regulative for systematic theology, therefore the ordo salutis (given its anthropological character) should be excluded from a genuine scriptural theology. 8. The ordo salutis has two distinct meanings: (a) the ordered application of redemption; or (b) the application of redemption. These eight summary points have become so common that they have almost become unquestioned. In the next chapter, we will critically engage these eight points by exploring the history of the development of the ordo salutis. As stated in the beginning of this chapter, it should be immediately evident that all of the surveyed critics of the ordo share a common theological bibliography. This common bibliographic heritage requires exploration and demythologization.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

4. The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis

4.1 Introduction The previous chapter covered the history of the criticism of the ordo salutis. A cross-section of theologians from three disciplines, New Testament, Systematic, and Historical theology raised their criticisms or outright rejections of the ordo. These points of criticism largely focus around several issues. First, the ordo salutis did not arise until eighteenth-century Lutherans first used the term; Reformed theologians later borrowed and employed the term. This is an assertion that has reached the level of fact. For example, Jaroslav Pelikan (1923–2006) explains, without citation, that although the term was first used in a ninth-century poem to denote the plan of redemption, it was only later adopted in the post-Reformation period as a technical term.1 Second, post-Reformation theologians base the ordo salutis largely upon one text, Rom 8.30. Third, union with Christ and the ordo salutis are incompatible. Fourth, the ordo salutis is a declension, shading, or distortion of John Calvin’s theology. Fifth, biblical theology is regulative for systematic theology; given that the ordo salutis is inherently anthropological, only a redemptive-historical (eschatological) approach to redemption through union with Christ can properly account for a biblical doctrine of salvation. This chapter will set forth evidence to demonstrate that as common as these claims are, they do not accord with the historical record. In fact, the opposite is true. The ordo salutis substantively appears in the earliest days of the church and is used as a term by first generation Reformers. It should be noted, though, that this chapter deals with the development of the ordo salutis. In other words, one should understand that the term ordo salutis does not denote the later technical dogmatic term, one that encompasses a specific series of soteric elements that begins with election and includes effectual calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification. Hence, the term sequence will be periodically employed to remind the reader that the technical (narrower) use of the term is not intended.2 1 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vol. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971–89), 3.108. 2 See Richard A. Muller, “Union with Christ and the Ordo salutis: Reflections on Developments in Early Modern Reformed Thought,” in Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: Studies on the Work of Christ

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Introduction

77

One of the key missing elements in the criticism of the ordo salutis is, critics fail to search the historical record for synonyms, such as the golden chain and other related terms. Critics also fail to read explanations of the ordo in the broader context of the works in which the term appears; there is no consideration of the theological and methodological context of how Reformation and post-Reformation theologians did dogmatics. Several critics who are beholden to biblical theology, do not consider to what lengths they have imbibed from the higher critical well of presuppositions and structures in their own theological constructions. Critics have also made great use of secondary and tertiary literature without checking historical assertions against the primary-source record. Hence, this chapter will first cover the development of the concept of the ordo salutis. The second section covers the terminology of the ordo salutis and explores synonymous terms such as the golden chain to show that the ordo has pedigree that begins with first-generation Reformers. The third section treats the exegetical arguments that early modern Reformed theologians offer in support of the ordo salutis. Far from citing one proof-text, theologians build their variously expressed ordos upon a host of biblical texts. The fourth and last section demonstrates that eschatology enters the ordo salutis earlier than glorification, contrary to the claim of some critics. Though the reformers did not employ the same nomenclature one now finds in contemporary biblical theology, in the terminology of the period, they have an eschatological cast to their understanding of salvation. Though, before we proceed, the reader should note that this chapter will focus primarily upon Reformed theologians, though some illustrations will come from Luther and Melanchthon. Appeal to Luther and Melanchthon is necessary for two reasons. First, citing illustrative examples from their work helps paint the broader theological picture, not only of Reformed, but also for Lutheran, expressions. Second, though some of the critics see the ordo salutis as a foreign Lutheran concept that has hijacked the Reformed understanding of redemption, the reality is that Luther and Melanchthon influenced Reformed theologians.3 Hence, appeal to Luther and Melanchthon is not only historically interesting but also necessary. and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker, forthcoming), chp. 7. Among the key works Muller cites that treats the development of the specific technical term is, Markus Matthias, “Ordo salutis – Zur Geschicte eines dogmatischen Begriffs,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 115/3 (2004): 318–346. 3 Richard A. Muller, “John Calvin and later Calvinism: the identity of the Reformed tradition,” in The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology, ed. David Bagchi / David C. Steinmetz (Cambridge: CUP, 2004): 132. On Luther as the origin of the Lutheran and Reformed doctrine of justification, e.g., see R. Scott Clark, “Iustitia Imputata Christi: Alien or Proper to Luther’s Doctrine of Justification?” CTQ 70 (2006): 274; W. Stanford Reid, “Justification by Faith According to John Calvin,” WTJ 42

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

78

The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis

4.2 The Rise of the concept 4.2.1 Augustine While likely not one of the first to offer a sequence, Augustine (354–430) articulated such an idea in his sermons on the gospel of John. In his sermon on John 6.41–59, Augustine explains what Christ means when he says that a person must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to be saved. Augustine argues that there is a distinction between temporal and eternal life, and that Christ does not refer to the former. Many people have eaten bread and yet still die, but this is not the case with those who partake of the Lord’s body and blood. The person who does not partake of the Lord’s body and blood has no life; conversely, the one who does partake of it has eternal life. Augustine then writes: And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified stains and believers. Of these, the first is already effected, namely, predestination; the second and third, that is, the vocation and justification, have taken place, and will take place; but the fourth, namely, the glorifying, is at present in hope, but a thing future in realization.4

Though he does not reference the text, Augustine echoes Rom 8.30 in this quotation. Additionally, while Augustine does not employ the term ordo salutis, he has an order or sequence in mind. But there are two things to note about Augustine’s sequence. First, his order is temporal, but not in the sense that there must be a sequential (temporal, logical, or causal) unfolding of redemption. Rather, Augustine merely notes that the poles of redemption, predestination and glorification, are temporally distinct—one has occurred before the creation and the other will occur at the consummation. Second, Augustine explains that vocation has already taken place, which likely refers to what theologians will later call effectual calling (or regeneration), and justification has yet to occur. Recall that Augustine did not distinguish between justification and sanctification.5 The (1980): 290–307; David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (Oxford: OUP, 1995), 117–18; Joseph Wawrykow, “John Calvin and Condign Merit,” ARG 83 (1992): 74–75; François Wendel, Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 255–63. 4 Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John, in NPNF, vol. 7, tractate 26.15 (pp. 172–73). 5 Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: CUP, 2005), 38–54.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



The Rise of the concept

79

believer needs God’s grace in redemption, but his good works are nonetheless constitutive of his justification. But the point still stands, Augustine offers a sequence based upon Rom 8.30.

4.2.2 Peter Lombard Later medieval theologians, such as Peter Lombard (ca. 1100–1160), picked up on Augustine’s doctrine of justification and argued for a similar sequence. When Lombard explains the nature of faith, he argues that faith is what is believed, or that which is stipulated by the Athanasian Creed: “This is the Catholic faith; whoever does not believe it faithfully and firmly cannot be saved.” Lombard then argues, citing both Augustine and Ambrose (ca. 337–97), that when a person believes, if it is joined with charity, is a virtue, and charity is the origin of all other virtues; or faith working through love creates other virtues. Lombard quotes Augustine as saying: “The foundation is Christ Jesus, that is, faith in Christ, which works through love, through which Christ lives in our hearts, and which allows no one to perish. None other is the foundation.”6 Once again, here is a sequence: a person must first be united by faith to Christ before he can produce charity, and faith and charity that produce the other virtues. So while Augustine and Lombard have no explicitly stated ordo salutis, their discussions of redemption substantively confirm that they saw some sort of sequence originating from Scripture.

4.2.3 The Reformation During the Reformation theologians such as Melanchthon discuss salvation in terms of a sequence. For example, Melanchthon explains Rom 8.29–30 in his 1540 commentary and writes that Paul, “Wanted to embrace the whole order [totum ordinem complecti voluit], according to which the church was founded by God. And he first reminds us that the election is the cause for the calling, not human merit or the righteousness of the law.”7 Likewise, Calvin cites Rom 8.30 in a similar manner: 6 Peter Lombard, Sentences, 4 vol., trans. Guilio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007), 3.23 (vol. 3, p. 98). 7 Philip Melanchthon, Commentary on Romans, trans. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concorida, 1992), 181–82 (CR 15.674).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

80

The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis

Those whom the Lord has destined by his mercy for the inheritance of eternal life he leads into possession of it, according to his ordinary dispensation, by means of good works. What goes before in order of dispensation he calls the cause of what comes after. In this way he sometimes derives eternal life from works, not intending it to be ascribed to them; but because he justifies those whom he has chosen in order at last to glorify them (Rom. 8.30), he makes the prior grace, which is a step to that which follows, as it were the cause.8

Both Melanchthon and Calvin invoke the concept of sequence, and do so either explaining or citing Rom 8.30. Other theologians of the period invoke more than the concept, but in fact employ the term ordo salutis (or “order of salvation”). In Heinrich Bullinger’s 1543 commentary on the gospel of John, he states that the ordo salutis is the ratio of our redemption.9 In his commentary on Genesis, Peter Martyr Vermigli invokes both the concept and the term as he explains how Noah was righteous—the relationship between Noah’s righteousness and the grace of God (salutis ordo). According to Vermigli, we are first made just and holy and then our holiness and righteousness are observed.10 One of Vermigli’s students and reformer in his own right, Girolamo Zanchi, writes very simply and succinctly in his De Tribus Elohim: “The ordo salutis must be observed. The first step is election. The Father gives us to Christ. Second is faith in Christ. For we come to Christ, drawn, by faith given from the Father. Third, we are united to Christ, and eternal salvation.”11 Another occurrence of the term appears in the work of a little-known reformer, Huguenot theologian Augustine Marlorat (1506–62). Marlorat was recommended by Genevan reformer, Pierre Viret, to minister to a congregation John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 20–21, LCC, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.14.21: “Priorem gratiam, quae gradus est ad sequentem, causam quodammodo facit” (OS 4.239); cf. idem, Institutionum Christianae Religionis Libri Quatuor (1559) (Amsterdam: Apud viduam Ioannis Iacobi Schipperi, 1671). 9 Heinrich Bullinger, In divinum Iesu Christi domini nostri evangelium secundum Ioannem (Zurich: Apud Frosch, 1543), 4.8 (p. 103): “Porrò ratio sive ordosalutis [sic] ac iustificationis nostrae in his eleganter consignatur.” 10 Pietro Martire Vermigli, In primum librum Mosis, qui vulgo Genesis dicitur (1569; Zurich: Excudebat Christophorus Froschouerus, 1579), 31–32: “Quia te vidi iustum. Ne putemus hanc Nohae iustitiam fuisse illius salutis causam, sed hoc inducitur, quòd par sit & aequum Deum illos servare quib iustitiae inunus antea concessit. Is enim nostrae salutis ordo descibitur.” 11 Hieronymi Zanchii, De tribus Elohim, aeterno Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, uno eodemque Iehova (Neustadt an der Weinstrasse: Typis Matthaei Harnisii, 1589), 4.3.4 (p. 85): “Observandus est etiam ordo salutis. Primus gradus est electio. Damur enim Christo à Patre. Secundus, Fides in Christum. Venimus enim ad Christum, tracti, fideque donati à Patre. Tertius: insitio in Christum, aeternaque Salus.” 8

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



The Rise of the concept

81

in Grissier, which is near Lausanne. He ministered to a number of congregations and represented the French Protestants at the Colloquy of Poissy (1561) with Theodore Beza (1519–1605) and Vermigli in debate against Roman Catholic theologians from the Sorbonne. Marlorat also prepared the indices for Calvin’s Institutes.12 In his exposition on the gospel of John, specifically John 17.8, Marlorat writes: For Christ to come out from the Father, and to be sent of the Father, is even as much as that which went before, where Christ says, that whatsoever he has is of the Father. M. He might have made mention of signs, which testify also, that he came out from God: but this is the note of the Children of God, to believe his word. C. The sum is this, that faith ought rightly to behold Christ, but so that it deem and judge no earthly or contemptible thing to be in him: and that it ought to be lifted up to his divine power, that it may certainly be persuaded that God, and whatsoever belongs unto God is perfectly in him. B. Behold here therefore the order of salvation. First of all the Gospel is preached to the elected: then it is given unto them to believe: thirdly in the Gospel, and by it, God is known: hereof by and by spring a trust in him, and the love of him: from whence consequently grows the love and desire of piety and holiness, and also the duty which we owe unto our brethren.13

The sequence Marlorat gives is slightly different from Zanchi’s order, for example. As we will see below, there is a sense in which there is no single monolithic sequence among Reformation and post-Reformation theologians. Nevertheless what all the above quoted Reformed theologians intend by use of the concept or term (ordo salutis, salutis ordo, or order of salvation), is to explain the relationship between God’s actions in redemption and man’s response. Attention partially focuses upon the order of benefits in redemption, not 12 T. Schott, “Marlorat, Augustin,” in New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff (1908–14; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), 186. For a recent brief biographic profile, see Irena Backus, Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse: Geneva, Zurich, and Wittenberg (Oxford: OUP, 2000), 61–62. 13 Augustin Marlorat, A Catholike and Ecclesiasticall Exposition of the Holy Gospell after S. John, trans. Thomas Timme Minister (London: Thomas Marshe, 1575), 559, emphasis. NB: The capitalized letters in the quotation are initials to theologians; in other words, Marlorat is citing the statements of others to construct his commentary. Irena Backus notes that in his Revelation commentary, Marlorat identifies the following theologians: A = Marlorat, B = Bullinger, C = Calvin, M = Wolfgang Musculus, OE = Oecolampadius, V = Pierre Viret, etc. However, she also notes that both Marlorat’s key and author identification are very reliable (cf. Backus, Reformation Readings, 62; Augustin Marlorat, The Catholic Exposition of the Revelation of St. John [London: Henrie Binneman, 1574], i). Though there is no such key in his commentary on John, the letters likely indicate that the statement is comprised of quotes from Musculus, Calvin, and Bullinger.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

82

The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis

out of a desire to parcel out the work of Christ in a series of steps, but rather exegetically to distinguish Protestant expressions from Roman Catholic ones; or in the mind of the Reformers, to differentiate a biblical doctrine of redemption from a non-biblical doctrine. Both Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians, for example, affirm the doctrine of union with Christ.14 But they differ in the relationship between justification and sanctification. Is sanctification constituent to justification? Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians answer this question differently. Calvin, for example, in his response to the Council of Trent (1546), writes: We, indeed, willingly acknowledge, that believers ought to make daily increase in good works, and that the good works wherewith they are adorned by God, are sometimes distinguished by the name of righteousness. But since the whole value of works is derived from no other fountain than that of gratuitous acceptance, how absurd were it to make the former overthrow the latter . . . In short, I affirm, that not by our own merit but by faith alone, are both our persons and works justified; and that the justification of works depends on the justification of the person, as the effect on the cause. Therefore, it is necessary that the righteousness of faith alone so precede in order, and be so pre-eminent in degree, that nothing can go before it or obscure it.15

Calvin, and the other reformers, sought to give justification a priority over sanctification to distinguish a biblical from a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian soteriology. Furthermore, all of the above-cited theologians (Melanchthon, Calvin, Bullinger, Vermigli, Zanchi, Marlorat) affirmed both an ordo (sequence) and union with Christ.16 Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, (Allen: Christian Classics, 1948), Ia q. 44 a. 4. This survey of Aquinas’s views on union is based upon the helpful summaries provided in Julie Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 38–39; and A. N. Williams, “Mystical Theology Redux: The Pattern of Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae,” Modern Theology 13/1 (1997): 53–74; Dogmatic Degrees of the Council of Trent (1545–63), sess. 6, chp. 16, in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 3 vol., ed. Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss (Yale: Yale UP, 2003), 2.835; Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3 vol. (1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 2.108. 15 John Calvin, “Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote,” in Selected Works, ed. and trans. Henry Beveridge, 7 vol. (1851; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 3.128 (CO 7.455), emphasis. 16 See Philip Melanchthon, Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine: Loci Communes 1555, trans. and ed. Clyde L. Manschreck (Baker: Grand Rapids: 1965), 217–18; Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.1; Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, 2 vol. (1849–52; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 4.4 (3.186); idem, Sermonum decades quinque, de potissimis Christianae religionis capitibus, in tres tomos digestae (London: Impensis Radulphi Newberii, et Hugonis Iaksoni, 1587); Jerome Zanchi, An Excellent and Learned Treatise of the Spiritual Marriage between Christ and the Church (Cambridge: 1592); idem, Commentarius in Epistolam Sancti Pauli Ad Ephesos, 2 vol., ed. A. H. Hartog, Bibliotheca Reformata, vol. 5 (Amsterdam: 1888); Marlorat, Exposition of the Gospell of S. John, 499–50. 14

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The Rise of the concept



83

4.2.4 Early Orthodoxy Early modern Reformed theologians do not share the same presuppositions as post-Enlightenment theologians, such as Albert Schweitzer, who believed that union with Christ was incompatible with a forensic doctrine of justification.17 Amandus Polanus (1561–1610), on the other hand, typifies a common Reformed approach to union and its benefits. Polanus explains that the believer’s communion with Christ is a benefit of God that is also called union with Christ. Without hesitation, Polanus immediately discusses the various benefits of union: “The parts of our communion with Christ are these: justification, and regeneration, adoption, and the freedom of the sons of God.”18 Polanus then explicates the different elements and states that justification involves the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. He contrasts justification, which is forensic, where God accounts the obedience of Christ to the believer, with regeneration (or sanctification). Note, sixteenth-century theologians often used the term regeneration as a synonym for what is now known as sanctification. Sanctification, writes Polanus, is either begun or perfected—the former belongs to this life and the latter to the life to come.19 As Polanus elaborates these points, and treats them in a successive order, he does not give the slightest hint that the different benefits are something other than union with Christ.

4.2.5 Summary The surveyed evidence thus far shows both that the concept and the term do not originate with eighteenth-century Lutheran theologians only later to be adopted by Reformed theologians. In fact, Richard Muller explains that Reformed, not Lutheran theologians, developed (not originated) the concept of the ordo salutis in the sixteenth century; in the wake of the predestinarian controversies between the Reformed and Lutherans, and in the wake of the Formula of Concord (1577), Lutheran theologians then created a more carefully defined ordo.20 But the concept can be likely traced back to the earliest days of the church and is especially prominent in the theology of Augustine; the great

Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (1953; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1998), 225. Amandus Polanus, The Substance of Christian Religion (London: R. F., 1595), 1.34 (pp. 91–93); idem, Partitiones Theologicae (London: n. d.), 1.35 (pp. 56–57). 19 Polanus, Christian Religion, 1.35 (pp. 94–95); idem, Partitiones, 1.35 (pp. 57–58) 20 DGLTT, 215–16, s. v. ordo salutis. 17

18

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

84

The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis

African theologian highlighted the priority of God’s grace over man’s actions.21 So the concept does not originate with the Reformers; instead, the Reformers simply sharpen the relationship between justification and sanctification and give priority of the former over the latter to protect the gratuitous nature of redemption and exclude sanctification from justification.

4.3 The terminology of the ordo salutis 4.3.1 Synonymous terms Beyond the presented evidence thus far, there is the need to expand the exploration of the origins of the ordo salutis beyond the specific term. The secondary literature for the last century appears to be fixated upon the term and does not inquire whether there were other terms that convey the same concept. The gateway to synonymous terms for the ordo salutis lies with Rom 8.30. Critics of the ordo salutis chide Reformed theologians for citing Rom 8.30 as a so-called proof-text for the ordo, but then little to no attention is given to the fact that theologians call Rom 8.30 the catena aurea or armilla aurea, the golden chain.22 Robert Barclay (1648–90), a seventeenth-century Quaker theologian, confirms the connection between the two terms. Concerning Rom 8.30, Barclay writes: “This is commonly called the golden chain, as being acknowledged to comprehend the method and order of Salvation.”23 The common citation of Rom 8.30 for both terms (ordo salutis and catena aurea) opens another vista upon the ordo that has largely been ignored.

4.3.2 Perkins, Rennecher, and Beza The first, and perhaps best-known, illustration of this point comes from William Perkins and his Golden Chaine (1592). Perkins’ work was erroneously characterized as a predestinarian system, but more responsible scholarship has See, e.g., Augustine, To Simplician—On Various Questions, in Augustine: Earlier Writings, ed. John Baillie / et al., trans. John H. S. Burleigh, LCC 6 (London: SCM Press, 1953), 1.2.3 (p. 388); B. B. Warfield, “Augustine and the Pelagian Controversy,” in The Works of B. B. Warfield, ed. Ethelbert Warfield / et al., 10 vol. (1930; Grand Rapids: Backer, 1981), 10.289–412. 22 DGLTT, 60–61, s. v., catena. 23 William Barclay, An apology for the true Christian divinity, as the same is held forth, and preached by the people, called, in scorn, Quakers (Aberdeen: John Forbes, 1678), 145. 21

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



The terminology of the ordo salutis

85

identified it as a schematized ordo salutis.24 And like his predecessors, Perkins also prominently affirms the doctrine of union with Christ. In fact, Heinrich Heppe explains that union with Christ is one of the chief themes of Perkins’ theology.25 But Perkins is not alone, as a contemporary, Herman Rennecher (b. 1550) also wrote a treatise by a similar name, Aurea Salutis Catena (1597).26 In fact, the works of Rennecher and Perkins were anticipated by Beza’s Summa totius christianismi. Beza’s intent is to show the order of causes of salvation and damnation, not to set forth an entire system of doctrine some have alleged.27 Beza’s little work includes a chart, much like the chart in Perkin’s Golden Chaine, which is intended to be read from the bottom to the top; in other words, the reader is supposed to progress in the same way Paul proceeds in Romans: Unless something prevents them, they should begin at the lowest degrees and so ascend up to the highest (as Paul in his epistle to the Romans which is the right order and way to proceed in matters of theology, from the law to the remission of sins, and then by degrees as he gradually progresses to the highest degree) or else let them consist in that point which is most agreeable to Scripture or matter which they have in hand, rather than begin at the very top descend to the bottom.28

In Beza’s mind, he was following the order of degrees (or causes) found, not simply in Rom 8.30, but in the entirety of Romans.

24 Richard A. Muller, “Perkins’ A Golden Chaine: Predestinarian System or Schematized Ordo salutis?” SCJ 9/1 (1978): 68–81. 25 Heinrich Heppe, Geschicte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der Reformirten Kirche (Leiden: Brill, 1879), 24–26; also see Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 131–32. 26 Herman Rennecher, Aurea Salutis Catena (Lichae: 1597); idem, The Golden Chayne of Salvation (London: 1604). 27 For relevant literature see Richard A. Muller, “The Use and Abuse of a Document: Beza’s Tabula Praedestinationis, The Bolsec Controversy, and the Origins of Reformed Orthodoxy,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. Carl R. Trueman / R. Scott Clark (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999), 33–35. 28 Theodore Beza, Summa totius Christianismi, sive descriptio et distributio causarum salutis electorum, & exitii reproborum, ex sacris literis collecta (Geneva: Iohannis Crispini, 1570), §7; idem, A Brief Declaration of the Chiefe Poyntes of Christian Religion Set Forth in a Table (London: n. d.). Cf. Muller, “Use and Abuse,” 52–53. Note, the old English translation has been compared and amended based on the Latin original.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

86

The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis

4.3.3 Robert Rollock More evidence surfaces in the early seventeenth-century characterization of the work of another well-known early orthodox Scottish Reformed theologian, Robert Rollock (ca. 1555–99). Rollock was known both in Scotland and abroad on the continent, evidenced by Beza’s hearty approval of Rollock’s commentaries on Romans and Ephesians: For why should not I esteem as a treasure, and that most previous, the Commentaries of my honorable brother, Master Rollock, upon the Epistle to the Romans and Ephesians, both of them being of special note among the writings apostolical? For so I judge them And I pray you, take it to be spoken without all flattery or partiality, that I never read or met with any thing in this kind of interpretation more pithily, elegantly, and judiciously written.29

Assuming Beza read the commentaries, he would have been exposed to Rollock’s explanation of Rom 8.30; Rollock describes this verse as that which contains a chain of gold that briefly elaborates the benefits of God (continetque auream quasi catenam beneficiorum Deu omnium breviter comprehensorum). For Rollock, this text is a locus classicus or sedes doctrinae for the golden chain. Rollock treats the foreknowledge and predestination of God, predestination to death, how the elect are called by the decree, effectual calling, sin, free will, the covenant of God, faith, hope, repentance, the sacraments, the church, justification and glorification, and good works. Rollock then moves on to exegete the verse that follows Rom 8.30.30

4.3.4 Other theologians In addition to Perkins, Rennecher, Beza, and Rollock, there are a host of theologians that employ the term in reference to the ordo salutis. In this light, the ordo is therefore quite common and exists well before the eighteenth century. Theologians who employ the term golden chain in its English or Latin forms, for example, include, but are not limited to: William Whitaker (1547–95), Richard Turnbull (d. 1593), John Downame (1571–1652), William Pemble (1591–1623), 29 Theodore Beza, “Master Beza’s Epistle,” in Robert Rollock, Select Works of Robert Rollock, 2 vol., ed. William M. Gunn (rep.; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 1.10. 30 Rollock, Works, lxxii, n. 2; cf. idem, Analysis Dialectica . . . in Pauli Apolstoi Epistolam ad Romanos (Edinburgi: 1594), 138–218.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The exegetical support of the ordo salutis



87

Richard Sibbes (1577–1635), George Walker (1581–1651), Thomas Edwards (1599–1647), Edward Leigh (1602–71), John Arrowsmith (1602–59), Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641), Samuel Annesley (1620–96), Francis Turretin, Melchior Leydekker (1642–1712), and Leonard Rijssen (ca. 1636–1700).31

4.4 The exegetical support of the ordo salutis At this point, some may concede the historical argument and grant that early modern Reformed theologians employ the terms of a sequence (ordo salutis, salutis ordo, armilla aurea, catena aurea, golden chain), but then raise the dogmatic criticism: Reformed theologians proof-text the doctrine of the ordo upon one solitary verse, Rom 8.30. Therefore, while the historical argument should be altered, the dogmatic case fails because of faulty exegesis. While the dogmatic question is certainly an important and interesting one, there is still an underlying historical issue: Do Reformed theologians base the ordo on Rom 8.30 alone? Granted, a number of theologians simply cite Rom 8.30 after they mention the term(s) for the ordo. However, the pertinent question here is: Do they cite the term as a crass proof-text, evidence that dogma has drifted far from Scripture, or is it simply short-hand for reference to the exegetical-theological tradition that stands behind the ordo? While the former opinion is certainly popular among critics, the latter is a more accurate description. William Whitaker, An answere to the ten reasons of Edmund Campian (London: Felix Kyngston, 1606), 234; Richard Turnbull, An exposition upon the canonicall epistle of Saint James (London: John Windet, 1606), 122; John Downame, The Christian Warfare (London: William Stansby, 1634), 158, idem, The Summe of Sacred Divinitie (London: William Barret, n. d.), 299–300, 453; William Pemble, Vindiciae fidei, or a treatise of justification by faith (Oxford: John Adams, Edw. And John Forrest, 1659), 154; Richard Sibbes, A Breathing After God (London: R. M., 1639), 148; George Walker, Socinianisme in the fundamentall point of justification discovered, and confuted (London: John Bartlet, 1641), 346; Thomas Edwards, The third part of Gangraena. Or, A new and higher discovery of the errors, heresies, blasphemies, and insolent proceedings of the sectaries of these times; with some animadversions by way of confutation upon many of the errors and heresies named (London: Ralph Smith, 1646), 13; Edward Leigh, A treatise of divinity consisting of three bookes (London: William Lee, 1646), 5; Franciscus Gomarus, Selectorum evangelii Iohannis locorum illustratio, in Opera theologica omnia (Amsterdam: Joannis Janssonii, 1644), 442; John Arrowsmith, Armilla catechetica. A chain of principles; or, An orderly concatenation of theological aphorismes and exercitations (Cambridge: Printed by John Field, 1659), 321; Samuel Annesley, The morning exercises at Cripplegate, volume v (1652; London: Thomas Tegg, 1844), 270, 349, 532; Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vol., ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2002–07), 16.1.1 (p. 633), 9.4 (p. 683), 17.1.11 (p. 691); idem, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, 3 vol. (Edinburgh: John D. Lowe, 1847); Melchior Leydekker, Melchioris Leydeckeri S.S. Theol. Doctoris & Professoris de veritate religionis reformatae seu evangelicae (Utrecht: Typis Rudolphi à Zyll, 1688), 579; Leonard Rijssen, Compendium theologiae didactico-elencticae (Amsterdam: Apud Georgium Gallet, 1695), 146, 159. 31

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

88

The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis

4.4.1 Herman Rennecher Rennecher, for example, begins his work with reference to the golden chain and its causes and cites Rom 8.29–30.32 Rennecher first explains that the ordo is logical, not temporal (causarum salutis ordo).33 He also argues that the ordo is unbreakable; were one of the links to be removed, the entire chain would crumble to pieces.34 When Rennecher explains the chain, he does not loiter exclusively on Rom 8.29–30, but fans out into the rest of the Scriptures to argue his case. For example, when he discusses predestination, Rennecher cites Matt 20.16, 15.15, and 10.16 to show that Christ has called many, but few are chosen and that there are many sheep that have yet to hear his voice. Rennecher also cites Eph 1.4 in support of his arguments.35 There are a host of texts that Rennecher cites in his discussion of predestination, including 2 Tim 1.9, Rom 9.13, Mal 1.3, Eph 3.9, Col 1.26, Rom 16.25 (to discuss the hiddenness of the decree of election), 1 Pet 1.20 (to show that Christ was ordained as the redeemer before the creation), Psa 103.11–12 and Eph 3.18–19 (to show that election is based in the mercy of God), and Eph 1.5.36 A similar pattern of texts surfaces when Rennecher discusses justification; he cites: Rom 4.6–7, Rom 10, Psa 32.1, 2 Cor5.19, Col 2.14, Phil 2, and many others.37

4.4.2 Robert Rollock In Rollock’s A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling, one might expect him to make abundant reference to Rom 8.30, given how he explains the text in his Romans commentary. However, reference to the locus classicus appears only once in the treatise.38 Instead, Rollock resorts to a host of other texts to explain the nature of effectual calling. For example, Rollock contends that repentance is connected to effectual calling, and is an effect of faith, which is also another part of effectual calling. He then notes that regeneration (i.e. sanctification), is the beginning of a person’s glorification, as well as the birth of a new creature. But then, based upon other texts, Rollock argues: Rennecher, Golden Chayne, §1 (p. 1); idem, Aurea Salutis Catena, §1 (p. 1). Rennecher, Golden Chayne, §2 (p. 5); idem, Aurea Salutis Catena, §2 (p. 5). 34 Rennecher, Golden Chayne, §2 (p. 8); idem, Aurea Salutis Catena, §2 (p. 8). 35 Rennecher, Golden Chayne, §5 (pp. 18–20); idem, Aurea Salutis Catena, §5 (pp. 18–20). 36 Rennecher, Golden Chayne, §§8–11 (pp. 40–70); idem, Aurea Salutis Catena, §8 (pp. 42–73). 37 Rennercher, Golden Chayne, §§24–26 (pp. 170–92); idem, Aurea Salutis Catena, §§24–26 (pp. 163–86). 38 Rollock, Works, 1.30. 32 33

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The exegetical support of the ordo salutis



89

Repentance goes before justification, even as faith and hope; for of the Baptist it is said, that he preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1.4, Luke 3.3). But regeneration [sanctification] follows justification; for, being justified, we receive the Spirit of sanctification, whereby we are renewed, and, as it were, find a new creature begun even in this life. Repentance is the cause, regeneration [sanctification] is the effect; for therefore God does renew us in Christ, and make us new men, because we repent us of our old life, and begin to be wise after sin committed. Notwithstanding, in the middle place, betwixt repentance and regeneration [sanctification], comes in justification, when as God does of his mere mercy account and repute us as just.39

Rollock’s understanding of the golden chain is perhaps more easily apprehended in the following: Effectual Calling

Justification

Sanctification (effect)

Faith → Repentance (cause)

One thing Rollock’s explanation illustrates is that grace, in terms of effectual calling, takes priority over man’s response, and justification is distinguished from man’s renovation. Also noticeable is that Rollock’s golden chain is a bit different from other versions. But once again, Reformed theologians can differ in their explanation of the ordo salutis. William Pemble, for example, explains that sanctification is included under vocation (or effectual calling).40

4.4.3 Edward Leigh Edward Leigh, a Westminster divine, in his Treatise on Divinity, a treatment of the doctrine of God, predestination, and creation, likewise cites a host of texts when he notes that the “the ancient fathers call that verse, Rom. 8. 30. The golden chain of our salvation.” Leigh then immediately cites the following texts in support of predestination: Eph 1. 3, 4, 5, 6; Rom 11. 22; Mal 1.2, 3; John 3.16; Rom 9. 23; Eph 2.14; and Tit 3.5.41 In his A Body of Divinity, which is a complete theological system in contrast with his Treatise on Divinity, Leigh Rollock, Works, 1.245. Pemble, Vindiciae Fidei, 154. 41 Leigh, Treatise of Divinity, 5. 39 40

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

90

The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis

elaborates upon soteriology in the seventh book of his work. The seventh book is under the rubric of union with Christ and the spiritual benefits that come through union. Leigh begins with union with Christ and then treats effectual calling, conversion (free will), faith, adoption, justification (remission of sins and imputation), sanctification, mortification, and vivification.42 As Leigh explains union with Christ, he does so prioritizing the various benefits of union. Noticeable is his treatment of adoption before justification. Leigh argues, “As soon as a soul is by faith united to Christ, he is made the child of God in the sonship of Christ.” He goes on to argue that adoption “is a gracious sentence of God the Father on a believer, whereby for Christ’s sake he calls believers his children, and really admits them into the state and condition of children.”43 So Leigh prioritizes adoption over justification. Why does he do this? Leigh prioritizes adoption because in his mind, it highlights the gratuitous nature of the believer’s sonship. However, this prioritization does not mean that Leigh fails to recognize that other aspects of the believer’s union with Christ must be logically considered first. Leigh explains: “There is a great difference between vocation and justification, vocation precedes, justification follows. Justification praesupponit aliquid, viz. faith and repentance, effectual calling ponis hac, non auton presupponit.” Leigh then states that the rest of the benefits are found elsewhere in Scripture: “The doctrine of predestination is handled in the ninth chapter of the Romans and the first of the Ephesians; of Justification in the third and fourth chapter of the Romans.” He also acknowledges that justification and sanctification go together, but in the marginal note, Leigh expresses his disapproval of the common Roman Catholic view, citing Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) as one who confounds justification and sanctification. In the marginal note Leigh also highlights the fact that the Roman Catholics do not distinguish (non distinguntur) between justification and sanctification whereas Protestants separate them (multis Protestantibus separamur).44 Two things should be noted about Leigh’s exposition: (1) he affirms the golden chain (ordo salutis); (2) he believes that the sequence is undergirded in its entirety by union with Christ; but (3) he still allows for logical priorities in terms of the various benefits of union with Christ. For Leigh, union with Christ and the golden chain are one and the same.

Leigh, Body of Divinity, 671–749. Leigh, Body of Divinity, 707. 44 Leigh, Body of Divinity, 710. 42 43

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



The exegetical support of the ordo salutis

91

4.4.4 Francis Roberts Francis Roberts (1609–75) was a contemporary and colleague of at least two key Westminster divines, Robert Baillie (1602–62) and Cornelius Burgess (1589– 1665).45 In his massive Mysterium & medulla bibliorum, a work on covenant theology, Roberts explains: “Remission of sins is in-linked and interwoven with all saving blessings of the New Covenant in Christ: that where Remission of sins is bestowed, all other blessings are bestowed likewise.” Notice that Roberts links redemption, covenant, and union with Christ (by the use of his “in Christ” language). Roberts then elaborates the relationship between the remission of sins to the golden chain: This is part of that golden chain of salvation, from which no link can be taken away; whom he has predestinated, them he has called; whom he has called (Rom 8.29–30) them he has justified, (there’s remission of sins) and whom he hath justified, them he has glorified. All other spirituals are inseparably knit unto this remission of sins, either as causes or effects; as antecedents, concomitants, or consequents; in one regard or another: so that our actual interest in this, does most sweetly and effectually interest us in all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ. Eph. 1. 3. to 12. Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8, etc. and 5. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. and 8. 29, 30. Heb. 9. 12, 13, 14, 15. and 10. 10. to 22. Rev. 1. 5.

Within the context of this quote, Roberts makes reference to Rom 8.29–30, but he does not refer to this text alone but to a number of other passages to confirm his argument.46

4.4.5 Exegetical-theological methodology Rennecher, Rollock, Leigh, Roberts, and other Reformed theologians do not proof-text when they refer to Rom 8.30. Rather, Rom 8.30 is merely the tip of an exegetical iceberg where a concatenated series of texts from the Old and New Testaments form the core of the understanding of redemption. Reformed theologians do not posit that calling comes before justification merely because 45 Nicholas Keene, “Roberts, Francis (1609–75),” in DNB, 48.377–78; Tai Liu, Puritan London: A Study of Religion and Society in the City Parishes (Lanham: University of Delaware Press, 1986), 57. 46 Francis Roberts, Mysterium & medulla bibliorum. The mysterie and marrow of the Bible: viz. God’s covenants with man, in the first Adam, before the fall: and in the last Adam Jesus Christ, after the fall; from the beginning to the end of the world; unfolded & illustrated in positive aphorisms & their explanations (London: George Calvert, 1657), 1488.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

92

The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis

Paul lists them in this order. Rather, they place regeneration (or effectual calling) first because they understand from Scripture that man must be translated from the state of sin to the state of grace.47 So, for example, though Leigh states, “Our union with Christ by the Spirit is wrought in our effectual calling,” he can also write that “regeneration . . . is to be preferred before salvation, the one a translation from the state of nature into the state of grace, the other is only a translation from the state of grace into the state of glory.” In support of this point Leigh cites 2 Pet 1.3, 1 Thess 4, John 10.44, and Rom 8.30.48 That Leigh coordinates Rom 8.30, as it specifically pertains to effectual calling, with several other texts is evidence that he employs the Reformed principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. Or, in technical terms, Leigh employs a good and necessary consequence. In this regard, “Worlds may arise ex nihilo, doctrinal formulae probably do not.”49 In other words, the standard mode of biblical interpretation for early modern Reformed theologians is the idea that doctrines can arise from either explicit statements in the Scriptures, or from the collation and comparison of doctrinally related biblical texts. This point appears in William Whitaker’s Disputations on Holy Scripture (1588). Whitaker writes: ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness;’ which every body knows to have taken place after his call: secondly, because afterwards he proceeds to the example of David, whom all know to have been a holy man, regenerated by the Spirit of God, and called by God. We must needs therefore confess that the term ‘justification’ is taken in different senses, unless we choose to suppose that the apostles are at variance, and pronounced contradictory declarations. In James, therefore, to be justified means to be declared and shown to be just, as Thomas Aquinas himself confesses upon that place; but, in Paul, to be justified denotes the same as to be absolved from all sins, and accounted as righteous with God.50

There are two important features to note about this quotation. First, Whitaker places Abraham’s effectual call before his justification. Whitaker prioritizes the grace of God in redemption and does so by means of sequence. Second, he determines that Paul and James use the term justify in different senses. Whitaker makes his remarks in order to prioritize justification over sanctification; in other Leigh, Body of Divinity, 677. Note, Leigh cites Robert Rollock, Treatise on Effectual Calling, § 24. Leigh, Body of Divinity, 678. 49 Richard A. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept,” MAJT 18 (2007): 14. 50 William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture, trans. William Fitzgerald (1849; Orlando: SDG, 2005), 9.5 (pp. 471–72); cf. PRRD, 2.490. 47

48

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The eschatological nature of the ordo salutis



93

words, he argues that James does not contradict Paul in terms of the place of works (which is a part of sanctification) in justification. Whitaker arrives at these conclusions, not by eisegesis, but by good and necessary consequence, or the analogy of Scripture. In the surrounding context, Whitaker explains that in order to make a judgment such as this, one must consider its antecedents and consequents, the scope of a passage, the passage must be compared and collated with other texts, such as the plain or less obscure texts, it should not only be compared with similar but also dissimilar passages, and the exegetical-theological conclusion should accord with the analogy of faith.51 Whitaker’s employment of these interpretive rules is not peculiar to him but characteristic of the early modern Reformed tradition as a whole.52 Evidence of this widespread use appears in the codification of this interpretive principle in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646): “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”53 Far from proof-texting, the historic understanding of the ordo salutis (golden chain or sequence) is not based upon one text but rather upon a host of collated texts.

4.5 The eschatological nature of the ordo salutis 4.5.1 Contemporary assumptions The last issue that deserves attention is the criticism that the traditional ordo salutis does not bear the eschatological character of Paul’s soteriology. Some scholars argue that eschatology only enters the last step of the ordo in glorification. One of the presuppositions that likely drives this criticism is the tendency to read early modern works through the lens of contemporary biblical theology; in other words, rather than a contextual reading of these documents, analysts approach it in a Whiggish manner—they read these texts through the lens of contemporary discussions. Some even assume that biblical theology is a relatively new discipline.54 Richard Gaffin makes this case, though he does Whitaker, Disputations, 471–72. PRRD, 2.493–500. 53 Westminster Confession of Faith (1646; Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1995), 1.6. 54 Gaffin argues in such a way to maximize the newness of biblical theology but at the same time tries to minimize its novelty. For example, Gaffin characterizes Vos’s contribution to the Reformed tradition as “creative” and a “fresh impulse”. But on the other hand, Gaffin stipulates that he does not 51 52

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

94

The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis

acknowledge that the substance of biblical theology has been present since the earliest days of the church.55 Nevertheless, the assumptions and categories of contemporary biblical theology cloud the analysis of sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury sources, when and if they are read. Contemporary biblical theology operates on a number of presuppositions that are different from early modern Reformed theology. For example, Ridderbos’ work focuses almost exclusively on the theology of Paul. While a theologian can certainly focus upon one portion of the corpus of Scripture, the Reformers in contrast set forth the theology of the whole of Scripture. This theological commitment to the whole of Scripture appears in the common places approach to explicating the doctrines of Scripture. Additionally, the order of loci was not derived from logic, but in some cases, such as Lombard’s Sententiae, upon the unfolding of redemptive history (God, creation, redemption, sacraments, and eschatology), and in others, was based upon the order of doctrinal topics presented in Romans.56 What many advocates of biblical theology have arguably not wrestled with is whether the earlier structures of the biblical theology of higher criticism can be employed without distorting the biblical message. The likes of Johann Gabler (1753–1826) or F. C. Baur (1792–1860), for example, write of the theology of Peter or Paul; such positions were tenable because they denied the divine inspiration of the Bible.57 Therefore, Paul and Peter have different theologies. Is it desirable or prudent to argue for a theology of one portion of the Scriptures if it is divorced from the whole if the individual authors of Scripture believed in its unity and inspiration? While this is a dogmatic question, it is not divorced

want to create the impression “that biblical theology brings something totally new into the life of the church”. Instead, he believes “it is largely a matter of correcting and balancing certain trends of the more recent post-Reformation past” (Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” WTJ 38/3 [1976]: 287, 292). 55 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards,” WTJ 65/2 (2003): 166. 56 Karl Rahner, “Scholasticism,” in Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology, 6 vol. (London: Burns & Oates, 1970), 6.26; Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: OUP, 2000), 27–31; idem, “Ordo Docendi: Melanchthon and the Organization of Calvin’s Institutes, 1536–1543,” in Melanchthon in Europe: His Work and Influence Beyond Wittenberg, ed. Karin Maag (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 123–40. 57 See, e.g., Johann P. Gabler, “An Oration on the Proper Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each,” in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology, 1930–90, ed., Ben C. Ollenburger / Elmer A. Martens / Gerhard F. Hasel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 497, 500–01; F. C. Baur, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ (1873; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The eschatological nature of the ordo salutis



95

from the historical issue of how early modern Reformed theologians understand the nature of theology and the inspiration of Scripture.58 Another unchecked presupposition is that contemporary biblical theologians claim to wrestle exclusively with the biblical text, therefore their formulations are inherently superior because they are unencumbered by dogmatics.59 This assumption has certainly been the case with the biblical theology of higher critics, but at times also appears in the assumption of conservative biblical theologians.60 The argument runs as follows: if we follow Paul’s theology, then all soteriology is eschatology because it involves the advent of the Messiah (christology) and the outpouring of the Spirit (pneumatology), both of which occur in the last days, or the eschaton.61 It seems that a number of biblical theologians believe this is a new insight, and therefore assume its absence from early modern expressions. And, if the traditional ordo is anthropology, as Ridderbos contends, then Reformed theologians of the past do not properly consider Paul’s soteriology; hence, the traditional ordo salutis lacks an eschatological character.62 The problem with this line of thought is not the dogmatic claim—such theses can be made and tested against the Scriptures. Rather, there is little presented evidence to validate the historical claim.

In the Scripture index to Gaffin’s published doctoral dissertation, the lion’s share of the references comes from the Pauline corpus. This is to be expected since Gaffin’s study is on Pauline soteriology. There are 26 references to the Old Testament, 17 to the gospels, 403 to the Pauline corpus, and 6 to Hebrews and 1–2 Peter (Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology [1978; Phillipsburg: P & R, 1987], 147–50). It is allowable to narrow the scope of investigation to one portion of the canon, but to draw dogmatic answers on questions such as the ordo salutis, as Gaffin does, with such an imbalance in biblical references creates greater probabilities of missing key elements of the ordo in other portions of Scripture. Regarding regeneration, for example, what about passages in John’s gospel (John 3) or the Johannine epistles? Paul’s statements are certainly normative for dogmatics, but one must remember they are occasional; Paul addresses specific concerns, he does not set forth a biblical or systematic theology in the contemporary sense of these terms. This myopia is less likely in the dogmatics of Reformation and post-Reformation theologians. Yes, the Reformation has rightly been called a renaissance of the apostle Paul’s epistles in the life and doctrine of the church, but not to the exclusion of the rest of Scripture as embodied in the common places method of doing theology. In this respect, biblical theology cannot regulate systematic theology as Gaffin contends (Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 11–12). Rather, systematic theology must regulate biblical theology. Biblical theology is certainly necessary for a sound systematic theology, but the results of a biblical-theological exegesis cannot stand alone but must be tested against the whole of Scripture. Testing doctrine against the whole of Scripture is the core of a good and necessary consequence, or the analogia Scripturae. 59 Gabler, “Biblical and Dogmatic Theology,” 493. 60 In the past Gaffin has argued against the term systematic theology and has wanted instead to use the term biblical theology, which in his view, is more able to accommodate a redemptive-historical regulated exegesis (Gaffin, “Biblical and Systematic Theology, 298). 61 Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 86–90. 62 Ridderbos, Paul, 30; Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 138. 58

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

96

The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis

4.5.2 Eschatology in early modern theology When we explore the works of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century theologians, we can begin at one of the main driving forces for the Reformation: the doctrine of justification. What seems to be missed, however, is that the big difference between Roman Catholic and Protestant formulations hinges precisely upon eschatology. In historic Roman Catholic formulations, justification is not an eschatological reality because it hinges upon the believer’s good works (sanctification). A person is initially justified in baptism, and then through the infusion of habits and virtues, labors to become more just. The believer’s declaration of righteousness awaits the consummation, as God never declares a person righteous until he is actually righteous.63 The Protestant position is strikingly different and visible in Luther’s aphorism, simul iustus et peccator, “simultaneously righteous and a sinner.” Quite literally, two worlds are bound together in this statement, or in terms of contemporary biblical theology, this present evil age and the age to come; or, this phrase is the sixteenth-century way to affirm the already and not-yet of redemption. The concept, though originating with Luther, was not his alone but was adopted by Reformed theologians as well.64 Nevertheless, the formula rests upon the idea that the Christian receives the imputed righteousness of Christ in the present, and on the basis of this imputation the believer lives the Christian life. As Heiko Oberman has explained the historic position, the righteousness of Christ is not our property, but is our possession.65 When a person borrows a book from the library, for example, he possesses the book but does not own it.66 In this context, to be justified is a relational term that does not refer to a person’s inward state. It is the declaration that a person has been reckoned righteous coram Deo.67 This means that a person lives in two worlds, or two different points in time. The Christian lives from the eschaton, the future, because he is justified, irreversibly and indefectibly, now.68 Johannes “Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent,” session 6, chps. 7–8, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 2.94–100. 64 Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1–4 (1535), LW vol. 26, 49; idem, Werke, 40.1, 367; cf. John Calvin, Romans and Thessalonians, CNTC, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), Rom. 8.1 (p. 156); idem, Institutes, 3.14.9; cf. Muller, “John Calvin and later Calvinism,” 132. 65 Heiko Oberman, “‘Iustitia Christi’ and ‘Iustitia Dei’: Luther and the Scholastic Doctrine of Justification,” HTR 59/1 (1966): 21, 25; cf. Daphne Hampson, Christian Contradictions: The Structures of Lutheran and Catholic Thought (Cambridge: CUP, 2001), 24. 66 Hampson, Christian Contradictions, 24. 67 Hampson, Christian Contradictions, 25. 68 Hampson, Christian Contradictions, 27. 63

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The eschatological nature of the ordo salutis



97

Maccovius (1588–1644), a delegate to the Synod of Dort (1618–19), for example, states justification is an act of God that is never revoked.69 The Christian is not placed at the beginning of his journey in order to obtain his future; rather, he lives from the eschaton because he has been declared righteous. Or, as Daphne Hampson characterizes Luther’s view, “Faith is eschatological in that through belief in that other future it is actualized in the present.”70 In other words, for Roman Catholicism, redemption is linear—a person must move from one point of salvation to the next. By contrast, historic Reformation theology is dialectical; the believer’s future is secured in the present—his good works do not secure his place in heaven, the works of Christ do.71 In a word, for the Reformers, justification is eschatological. Part of the problem of the criticism of the traditional ordo is that seldom do contemporary biblical theologians explore the primary sources, let alone the early modern context against which to compare those sources. In other words, critics have not compared the theology of Roman Catholicism and the Reformation. Or, they have made slight comparisons, but have done so looking for the nomenclature of contemporary biblical theology rather than understanding the substance of what the Reformers and post-Reformation theologians were saying. The evidence gathered so far indicates that eschatology does not only enter the ordo at glorification but also at justification.72 Related to this point is Vermigli’s explanation of the link between justification and the resurrection of Christ. Vermigli, approvingly citing Augustine, argues that the believer’s faith is primarily directed to the resurrection of Christ. Unbelievers deny that Christ was raised from the dead; conversely, believers affirm the resurrection by faith. Moreover, faith is the instrument by which believers are justified. Vermigli then links faith, justification, and the resurrection when he explains Rom 10.9: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Vermigli argues: “It appears that salvation and justification are attributed unto the faith of Christ’s resurrection.”73 To be clear, Vermigli does not employ any of the language of contemporary biblical theology (i.e., the resurrection of Christ as an eschatological event). But he does link the resurrection with justification, Johannes Maccovius, Distinctiones et regulae theologicae ac philosophicae (Oxford: Impensis Roberti Blagravii, 1656), 13.15 (p. 128). 70 Hampson, Christian Contradictions, 27. 71 Hampson, Christian Contradictions, 1–4, 85. 72 Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 138. 73 Peter Martyr Vermigli, Common Places, trans. Anthony Marten (London: 1583), 2.17.17–17 (pp. 608–09); idem, Loci Communes (London: 1583), 418. 69

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

98

The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis

which shows that substantively, though not formally, he was arguing for the eschatological nature of justification vis-à-vis the resurrection. One theologian who draws out the connections between justification, resurrection, and eschatology is Melanchthon. Concerning Rom 4.25, Melanchthon explains it is not enough to speak about trust or faith in the promise of the gospel, but that a person must embrace the mediator. In order to be saved, a person must “believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus, who was delivered for our offenses and raised again for our justification.” For Melanchthon, a concomitant of Christ’s resurrection is his ascension. “Paul distinguishes,” writes Melanchthon, “death and resurrection, and when mention is made of resurrection, the reign of Christ and his priesthood should be understood.” What is so important about the connection between resurrection and ascension? Melanchthon writes: Because Christ lives and reigns, he gives the Holy Spirit and makes alive, frees from wrath and eternal death, and raises the dead. And faith apprehends both and applies them to us. . . . Not only the death of Christ must be apprehended, but also that our high priest with the Father has been raised again, that he truly hears us, is truly efficacious, truly gives life, gives the Holy Spirit, helps us, frees us from eternal death, will raise the dead, and will give new and everlasting life, wisdom, and righteousness. Paul has included all these things when he says, ‘He rose again for our justification.’74

Melanchthon unites eschatological categories (eternal life, Christ’s resurrection, reign, and ascension) and links them to faith and justification. He may not have the specific terms of contemporary biblical theology but certainly has the eschatological substance. Other theologians such as Zanchi are keenly aware of the eschatological character of salvation. Zanchi, based upon Romans 5 and using what is now called a two-Adam christology or the two epochs connected to the first and last Adams, argues that what was lost in Adam is restored in Christ: “First, because that right and dominion which as given to Adam over the rest of the creatures before his fall, is in Christ our husband and head restored to us, who are made one flesh with him. Because in the same Christ we have not only a right over all things, but we have also a perfect possession of all things.”75 Zanchi bases the idea that believers hold the reign of Adam through Christ in the present on Melanchthon, Romans, 120–21 (CR 15.609–10). Jerome Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 130; idem, Commentarius, 2.376; cf., e.g., James Dunn, The Theology of the Apostle Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 317–19; Ridderbos, Paul, 57–64; Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (1930; Phillipsburg: P & R, 1994), 9–12. 74

75

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The eschatological nature of the ordo salutis



99

the fact that Christ has ascended to reign at the right hand of the Father and the elect sit with him in the heavenly places. Zanchi argues that believers share in the reign of Christ because of their union with him.76 Related to Zanchi’s point that believers now share in the eschatological reign of Christ is one of the larger contextual issues that has been ignored by critics; namely the doctrinal structure of the covenants of works and grace. For example, note how Zanchi explains the significance of the two Adams: We must firmly hold this foundation, which we have laid before: that as the apostle makes two Adams, the first and the second, the earthly and heavenly, as it were two heads and principles of mankind, one after the flesh, another after the spirit: so also even out of that history of Moses, he gathers and sets down to us, that there is a double marriage, the first and the second, a carnal and a spiritual marriage, the one simply for the creating and multiplying of men in this world, the other for the replenishing and filling of the kingdom of heaven with the sons of God.77

While Zanchi does not use the formal terms of the covenants of works and grace, as they will later flower in Reformed theology, he substantively expounds the doctrines. The initial covenant of creation (or nature, works, or life) and subsequent covenant of grace is part of the warp and woof of Reformation and post-Reformation theology.78 Bound with these two covenants are the same substantial concerns of contemporary biblical theologians when they write, for example, of Paul’s two-aged construction of redemptive history. Some, such as Geerhardus Vos, have been aware of the significance of the covenants of works and grace and their historic biblical-theological and dogmatic importance.79 Others, such as Berkouwer, Farthing, “Eschatology of Zanchi,” 341. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 30; idem Commentarius, 3.342–43. 78 Cf. Lyle D. Bierma, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age: The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 31–62; Richard A. Muller, “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional: John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology,” MAJT 17 (2006): 17–27. 79 Geerharuds Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P & R, 1980), 234–70. One point of weakness in Vos’s essay, is his reliance upon ninetheenth-century Lutheran theologian Matthias Schneckenburger (1804–48) to support the notion that the Lutheran doctrine of justification is different than Reformed expressions. Vos claims that for Lutherans, union with Christ is an effect of justification, whereas for the Reformed union with Christ undergirds all of redemption (Vos, “Covenant in Reformed Theology,” 256–57; cf. Matthias Schneckenburger, Vergleichende Darstellung des Luterhischen und Reformirten Legrbegriffs, vol. 1 [Stuttgart: 1855], 203– 04). In Vos’s own day, B. B. Warfield (1851–1921) was critical of Schneckenburger’s claims (see B. B. Warfield, “Calvinism,” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, 10 vol., ed. E. D. Warfield / William Park 76 77

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

100

The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis

question one half of the equation and dismiss the covenant of works.80 If the covenant of grace is connected to the work of the second (or last Adam), then all soteriology, even the dreaded ordo salutis, is inherently eschatological, even if historic Reformed expressions do not employ the specific nomenclature. Even then, one of the common expressions found among early modern Reformed theologians is the “first and second” (or last) Adams; this phrase frequently occurs in contemporary biblical theology.81 If fidelity to the biblical text is the hallmark of good biblical theology, even in the so-called “scientific” exegesis of the higher critics, then it appears that early modern formulations are inherently superior to many contemporary biblical theologies. Ridderbos, for example, follows the higher critics in narrowing the scope of investigation to Paul’s theology, whereas classic Reformed theology through the analogia Scripturae maintains focus upon the entire canon. In fact, the interest in doing theology from the whole canon is a recent phenomenon in mainstream circles.82 Canonical theology is based upon the Scriptures as a whole to construct a biblical theology, but there are few concerns about its truth-claims. Early modern Reformed theologians believe the Bible is the Armstrong / C. W. Hodge [1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981], 5.535–60). Additionally, Berkouwer notes that Schneckenburger’s arguments have not withstood scrutiny against primary sources: “A brief excursion into a few Lutheran confessions will reveal that Schneckenburger’s thesis holds no water, that in the crucial points there is a profound correspondence between the Reformed confessions as we have already seen them and the Lutheran ones” (G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, Studies in Dogmatics [1954; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 48). Yet, former students of Gaffin, such as Lane Tipton, continue to cite Vos, and hence Schneckenburger’s disproven thesis (Lane G. Tipton, “Union with Christ and Justification,” in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us In Justification, ed. K. Scott Oliphint [Fearn: Mentor, 2007], 44). 80 G. C. Berkouwer, Sin, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 206–07, cf. 449–65. 81 Cf., e.g., William Tyndale, Doctrinal treatises and introductions to different portions of the Holy Scriptures (Cambridge: The University Press, 1848), 500; John Calvin, 1 Corinthians, CNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 338–39; Thedore Beza, The Christian Faith, trans. James Clark (Lewes: Focus Christian Ministries Trust, 1992), 3.18; idem, Confessio Christianae fidei, & eiusdem collatio cum papisticis haeresibus (Geneva: Ioannis Crispini, 1570); Girolamo Zanchi, De tribus Elohim, aeterno Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, uno eodemque Iehova (Neustadt: Typis Matthaei Harnisii, 1589), 5.5.11 (p. 218); Caspar Olevianus, An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, trans. Lyle D. Bierma (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009), 34, 68, 72; idem, Expositio Symboli Apostolici, sive articulorum fidei (Frankfurt: Apud Andream Wechelum, 1576), 38, 88, 105; Jeremias Bastingius, An Exposition or Commentarie upon the Catechisme of Christian Religion Which Is Taught in the Schooles and Churches both of the Lowe Countryes, and of the Dominions of the Countie Palatine (Cambridge: John Legatt, 1589), 19, 45–46, 82 Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven, Yale UP, 1974); Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). Cf. Dale A. Bruggemann, “Brevard Childs’ Canon Criticism: An Example of Post-Critical Naïveté,” JETS 32/3 (1989): 311–26.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Conclusion



101

inspired word of God.83 What has therefore likely driven much of the criticism of the ordo salutis and its lack of eschatological character, whether consciously or unconsciously, is the assumption that higher critical presuppositions and structures are superior to those of pre-critical theologians.84 In other words, early modern theologians are ignorant of contemporary biblical-theological insights because they were not scientific in their approach to the Scriptures. While such an opinion could be true, it must be checked against the primary sources; secondary sources that are two, three, or perhaps four steps removed from the original source cannot and should not be cited as evidence to criticize historic iterations of the ordo salutis (golden chain or sequence). Nor does it appear that early modern Reformed theologians were ignorant of eschatological categories in their soteriological formulations of the ordo salutis.

4.6 Conclusion In a word, the common criticisms of the ordo salutis do not withstand scrutiny against the record of the primary sources. The ordo salutis is not a late development in Reformed theology, whether with respect to the term itself or the concept. First generation reformers such as Bullinger, Vermigli, and Marlorat employ the term ordo salutis. Second-generation Reformers such as Zanchi also employ it. The term by which most theologians know the ordo is golden chain (in all of its English and Latin variants). Moreover, the doctrine of the ordo salutis, contrary to claims of the critics, does not rest upon Rom 8.30 alone but upon a host of collated texts from the whole canon of Scripture. If the doctrine of the ordo salutis were based merely upon one verse in Scripture, would not Roman Catholic critics, for example, exploit this exegetical weakness to their advantage? The criticism does not accurately characterize Reformed exegesis on this point but rather the lack of familiarity with the exegetical and theological methodology of early modern Reformed theology. The evidence also demonstrates that moderns may believe that union with Christ and the golden chain (or a forensic doctrine of justification) are mutually exclusive, but this is not the case for Reformation and post-Reformation theologians. Union with Christ and the golden chain are one and the same. Lastly, early modern Reformed theologians are more aware of eschatology than their PRRD, 1.230–50. Cf. David C. Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Precritical Exegesis,” in A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation, ed. Donald McKim (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 65–77. 83

84

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

102

The Development and Use of the Ordo Salutis

contemporary critics allow. In fact, eschatology not only divides Reformation expressions of justification from Roman Catholic ones, but also undergirds the covenants of works and grace, the works of the first and last Adams. When the criticisms of the ordo are compared against the historical evidence, it appears that this is yet another version of Calvin vs. the Calvinists. Though there are some exceptions, it seems that the majority of critics, such as Barth or Evans, want to drive a wedge between Calvin and Reformed orthodoxy. Such claims, in the end, are driven by dogmatic interests (even dogmatic interests clothed in the seemingly theologically-neutral garb of biblical theology) rather than by the evidence. In the end, theologians and historians must remember that everyone brings dogmatic presuppositions to theological and historical exercises. The way to find the truth is not to feign neutrality, but rather to check one’s presuppositions against a wide spectrum of evidence. In this case, the claims of the critics of the ordo fail because they inadequately investigate the historical evidence.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

5. Union with Christ and Justification Before the Reformation

5.1 Introduction The story of the doctrines of union with Christ and justification does not begin with the Reformation. Scholars have long dispelled the myth that the Reformation was a de novo break with the theological past. Rather, the onset of reform was a gradual and progressive movement that, at least in popular history, reached its pinnacle on October 31st, 1517 when Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the castle door at Wittenberg. Luther did not start a reform movement so much as light the powder keg that had already been gathering. Moreover, what should be noted in the study of these two doctrines is that Luther sparked a reform movement, not the creation of a new understanding of theology as a whole. In other words, reformers took already existing categories, such as union with Christ or justification, and reformed them—made corrections. They did not invent the doctrines whole cloth. In fact, there were a number of doctrines that remained largely untouched, such as the doctrine of God, the inspiration of Scripture, the doctrine of creation, or christology, as there was no disagreement between Roman Catholics and Protestants over these matters. In this light it is important to see that the doctrine of union with Christ did not arise de novo from the pen of Calvin or any other Protestant reformer. Rather, this doctrine had been in the theological water going back to the earliest days of the church. In one sense, it is not that much of an exaggeration to say that every theologian has a doctrine of union with Christ. However, what should also be factored is that while every theologian holds the doctrine of union with Christ, this does not mean that there is one monolithic version of the doctrine. As the following survey shows, there are a number of different iterations of the doctrine. This diversity of expression will become evident as we survey the various figures, but especially the closer we get to the period of the Reformation. In other words, all theologians affirm the forest (union with Christ), but when examined in greater detail, not all theologians agree about the trees (how union with Christ is formulated, and how it relates to the different aspects of redemption, such as justification and sanctification).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

104

Before the Reformation

In fact, the historical backdrop to the rest of this study is of paramount importance for comparing Reformed views of union with Christ with antecedent patristic and medieval views. In effect, this chapter sets the necessary backdrop and aids in demonstrating the hallmark of a Reformed understanding of union with Christ, namely, the priority of justification over sanctification. Patristic and medieval views almost invariably hinge the believer’s justification upon his sanctification, whereas Reformed views historically argue that a person can say he is sanctified because he is justified, but he cannot say he is justified because he is sanctified. Either the believer’s justification is grounded upon his own good works (a part of sanctification) or the works of Christ. Either justification is a once-for-all definitive forensic declaration changing a person’s judicial status in foro Dei, or it is a life-long process that is begun at an alpha-point of baptism (for Roman Catholic views) and completed at the omega-point of the final judgment. Seeing historic Reformed views, then, against this antecedent backdrop will facilitate the identification of hallmark characteristics of the Reformed doctrines of union with Christ and justification. Before we proceed, however, readers should note that what follows is the briefest of historical sketches and should not be construed as a comprehensive survey. Rather, select theologians are surveyed to give the reader snapshots into various constructions of the doctrines of union with Christ and justification. The survey therefore begins with St. Augustine, and then moves to the Middle Ages with examinations of Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, and Jean Gerson. The chapter concludes with the late medieval views of Johann von Staupitz, Martin Luther’s confessor.

5.2 Augustine 5.2.1 Union with Christ Theologians and historians have long observed that Western theology in many ways is a series of footnotes to the theology of St. Augustine (354–430). This statement is not far from the truth, as Augustine sets the trajectory for many theological discussions and debates. While Augustine does not place great emphasis upon the doctrine of union with Christ, he does have a few key statements concerning the doctrine.1 In Augustine’s homily on a locus 1 Contra Bernard McGinn, “Love, Knowledge, and Mystical Union in Western Christianity: Twelfth to Sixteenth Centuries,” CH 56/1 (1987): 8.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Augustine



105

classicus for the doctrine of union (John 15) he does expand upon the theme even if he never employs the phrase, union with Christ. Augustine explains that when Jesus calls himself the vine and his disciples the branches, and exhorts them to abide in him, and that he will abide in them, “They are not in Him in the same kind of way that He is in them.” Augustine elaborates: “For the relation of the branches to the vine is such that they contribute nothing to the vine, but from it derive their own means of life; while that of the vine to the branches is such that it supplies their vital nourishment, and receives nothing from them.”2 Augustine insists that Christians need to understand and rely upon their union with Christ, this vine-branches relationship. Augustine berates those who do not submit to the righteousness of God in Christ and instead think they can supply their own: Let the self-complacent answer it, who think they have no need of God for the performance of good works. Fight they not against such a truth, those men of corrupt mind, reprobate concerning the faith, whose reply is only full of impious talk, when they say: ‘It is of God that we have our existence as men, but it is of ourselves that we are righteous?’ What is it you say, you who deceive yourselves . . . Why, your assertion that man of himself works righteousness, that is the height of your self-elation. But the Truth contradicts you, and declares, ‘The branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine.’3

Augustine is adamant about the believer finding the source, not only of his nourishment, but also of his righteousness in his union with Christ. Augustine goes as far as to say: “For whoever imagines that he is bearing fruit of himself is not in the vine, and he that is not in the vine is not in Christ, and he that is not in Christ is not a Christian.”4 Augustine not only connects the doctrine of union with Christ to his soteriology, but also to his ecclesiology. Once again, Augustine does not employ the specific phrase; nevertheless the concept is present when he describes the nature of the church as the body of Christ. Commenting on Rom 12.3–6, Augustine writes: “This is the sacrifice of Christians: we, being many, are one body in Christ.”5

Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate, 81.1 (chp. 15.4–7), in NPNF 5.345. Augustine, Gospel of John, tractate 81.2, in NPNF, 5.345. 4 Augustine, Gospel of John, tractate 81.2, in NPNF, 5.345. 5 Augustine, City of God, 10.6, in NPNF 2.184. 2 3

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

106

Before the Reformation

5.2.2 Justification So though Augustine does not mention the phrase per se, he does expound its substance. But this is not to say that he systematically integrates it with his doctrines of justification and sanctification. The distinction but not separation of these two dual benefits of union with Christ, as Reformed theologians later describe it, is absent in Augustine. It is well known that Augustine does not distinguish between justification and sanctification. He emphasizes the necessity and priority of God’s grace as an antecedent condition to a person’s justification. But unlike the Reformers, who treats justification as a forensic declaration, Augustine’s thought is colored by realism, which likely contributes to his conflation of justification and sanctification. In other words, a person must actually be truly and really righteous before he can be declared righteous. Augustine’s famous statement about the necessity of God’s grace illustrates this point: “Good works do not produce grace but are produced by grace. Fire is not hot in order that it may burn, but because it burns. A wheel does not run nicely in order that it may be round, but because it is round.”6 If this statement is applied to the doctrine of justification, then it explains why for Augustine, inherent holiness is necessary for justification.7 But the point should not be lost, even though Augustine conflates justification and sanctification, he still believes that both are grounded in the believer’s union with Christ. In his On the Trinity, for example, Augustine sets forth the believer’s justification in terms of participation in the trinity.8 Augustine does not give justification priority over sanctification. Instead, justification hinges upon sanctification; justification hinges upon the believer’s good works.

5.3 Bernard of Clairvaux 5.3.1 Union with Christ If there is any medieval theologian who is best known for his doctrine of union with Christ, it is Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153). One of the places where Bernard’s reference to and exposition of his doctrine of union appears is in his Augustine, To Simplician—On Various Questions, 1.2.3, in Augustine: Earlier Writings, ed., John Baillie / et al., trans. John H. S. Burlieght, LCC 6 (London: SCM Press, 1953), 388. 7 Cf. Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, Third Edition (1986; Cambridge: CUP, 2005), 46–49. 8 Augustine, On the Trinity, 14.12.15, in NPNF 3.191–92; cf. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 48. 6

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Bernard of Clairvaux

107

sermons on Song of Songs. For example, Bernard writes concerning the spiritual marriage between the believer and God: “When she will have attained to it and become perfect she will celebrate spiritual marriage; and they shall be two, not in one flesh but in one spirit, as the apostle says: ‘He who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.’”9 So for Bernard, Christ and the believer are joined in a spiritual union.10 But just because Christ and the believer are in spiritual union does not mean they are mixed, thereby obliterating the believer’s individual existence, as he is absorbed into Christ. Bernard clarifies: The Father and Son cannot be said to be one person because the Father is one and the Son is one. Yet they are said to be, and they are, one, because they have and are one substance, since they have not each separate substance. On the contrary, since God and man do not share the same nature and substance, they cannot be said to be a unity, yet they are with complete truth and accuracy, said to be one spirit, if they cohere with the bond of love. But that unity is caused not so much by the identity of essence as by the concurrence of wills.11

Bernard compares the unity between Christ and the Father to that between Christ and the believer to show the nature of the believer’s union with Christ. In Bernard’s sermons on Song of Songs, not only are references to union in abundance but so are references to Christ.12 For Bernard, Christ is the only one through whom approach to God and union with him can be secured. Christ is the well-head and ultimate source of all virtue. Bernard believes that the believer must constantly depend upon Christ in his pursuit of union with God: “Let the torrent that springs in heaven be channeled back to its starting point, and be poured on the earth again with fertilizing power.”13 Bernard holds that in the believer’s union with Christ, the Father and Son have different roles. The Word, Christ, is supposed to instruct the believer’s soul in wisdom. The Father’s responsibility is to love, and therefore infuse the believer with love.14

9 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs, 5 vol. (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1979), serm. 61.1. 10 Dennis E. Tamburello, Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard (Louisville: WJK, 1994), 68. 11 Bernard, Song of Songs, serm. 71.8; cf. Tamburello, Union, 68. 12 Tamburello, Union, 74. 13 Bernard, Song of Songs, serm. 13.1. 14 Bernard, Song of Songs, serm. 69.2.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

108

Before the Reformation

5.3.2 The twofold benefit of union In a passage from his sermons on Song of Songs, Bernard describes the nature and benefit of union with Christ through the imagery of the bride kissing her husband on the feet, hands, and mouth (cf. Song 1.2). Bernard describes the sinner’s approach in terms of being prostrate in the mud, covered in sin, whence the sinner hears that his sins are forgiven. Repentance is the “first grace” that the sinner receives through his union with Christ. The “second grace” is perseverance, so that a person does not return to his sinful ways like a dog to its vomit.15 Through these two graces of union with Christ, the believer is able to seek by way of degrees to a higher and holier state. From the mud the sinner rises to kiss the feet of Christ, but he does not immediately arise to kiss him on the mouth. Bernard explains that the sinner first kisses the hand: “Yesterday you were lifted from the mud, today you wish to encounter the glory of his face? No, his hand must be your guide to that end. First it must cleanse your stains, then it must raise you up. How raise you? By giving you the grace to dare to aspire.”16 Bernard then explains that once the believer has the “twofold experience of God’s benevolence,” he may pursue greater intimacy. Bernard writes: You have seen the way that we must follow, the order of procedure: first, we cast ourselves at his feet, we weep before the Lord who made us, deploring the evil we have done. Then we reach out for the hand that will lift us up, that will steady your trembling knees. And finally, when we shall have obtained these favors through many prayers and tears, we humbly dare to raise our eyes to his mouth, so divinely beautiful, not merely to gaze upon it, but—I say it with fear and trembling—to receive its kiss. ‘Christ the Lord is a Spirit before our face,’ and he who is joined to him in a holy hiss becomes through his good pleasure, one spirit with him.17

Hence, Bernard contemplates a union with Christ that proceeds and advances by degrees until it is perfected and consummated. Bernard is a child of his times and therefore does not distinguish between justification and sanctification, as is common during the Reformation. But he does affirm the necessity for God’s grace in redemption like Augustine before him.18 But unlike later developments, such as in Aquinas, Bernard does not place great emphasis upon the sacraments. Bernard, Song of Songs, serm. 3.3; cf. Tamburello, Union, 48. Bernard, Song of Songs, serm. 3.4. 17 Bernard, Song of Songs, serm. 34. 18 Tamburello, Union, 47–50. 15 16

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Bernard of Clairvaux



109

For Bernard, the chief sacrament is the marriage of Christ and the church, and as such, all other sacraments are subordinate to it.19

5.3.3 Justification What is key for Bernard is the contemplation and pursuit of God’s glory. In such a pursuit, the believer not only experiences God’s glory but is inevitably drawn to its source, God himself. But bare contemplation is insufficient, as a person also has to pursue God’s glory through good works, effected by grace.20 Concerning the marriage bed, Bernard explains: You must take care to surround yours with the flowers of good works, with the practice of virtues, that precede holy contemplation as the flower precedes the fruit. Otherwise, instead of seeking rest after labor you will want to slumber on in luxurious ease. Indifferent to the fertility of Leah you desire the pleasure of Rachel’s embraces only. But it is a perversion of order to demand the reward before it is earned. . . . Do not imagine that love of your own repose is to become an obstacle to the way of obedience and the traditions of the seniors. If so, the Bridegroom will not sleep in the same bed with you, especially if, instead of the flowers of obedience, you have bestrewn it with the hemlock and nettles of disobedience. Because of this he will not listen to your prayers. When you call he will not come. Nor will this great lover of obedience who preferred to die rather than to disobey, put himself into the power of one who will not obey.21

Here, though Bernard speaks of the necessity of grace in other places, there is an undifferentiated relationship between justification and sanctification, all within the context of the believer’s union with Christ.22 The believer’s union with Christ hinges upon his own fidelity, albeit a faithfulness that originates in divine grace.

Tamburello, Union, 81. Tamburello, Union, 65. 21 Bernard, Song of Songs, serm. 46.5. 22 Tamburello, Union, 66. Tamburello notes that others, such as Albrect Ritschl (1822–89), have identified the above-quoted passage as an example of works-righteousness in Bernard (Tamburello, Union, 135 n. 10; 116 n. 15). Cf. Albrecht Ritschl, A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, trans. John S. Black (Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1872), 95–101. 19 20

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

110

Before the Reformation

5.4 Thomas Aquinas 5.4.1 Union and creation Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) is best known for his monumental Summa Theologia, a work that became the gold standard for systematic presentations of doctrine for centuries to come. What might not be known, however, is that union with the triune God is one of the key themes of his Summa. In the overall scope of Thomas’s work, the various subdivisions rotate upon the axis of union with God. Thomas explains, for example, in the first part of his Summa that when God created all things, and in particular, mankind, he designed man to seek him and his goodness as the end of all things. The pursuit of God’s goodness, however, is not merely a pilgrimage to obtain an abstract ideal, but rather to desire God himself and to participate in his being by virtue of the fact that man bears his image.23 Thus God creates man in his image, which evidences his participation in God, and gives to him the goal of returning to God—this is the divine side of the coin, as it is entailed in the act of creation.

5.4.2 Union and redemption In the second part of the Summa, Aquinas treats the flip side of the coin, namely man’s return to God via union with him. Union with God is offered as the chief purpose of creation. In a sinless world, man would have been capable of this return to God, but such is not the case in a sin-fallen world. The entrance of sin necessitates the intervention of the mediator and the incarnation. The incarnation, according to Thomas, establishes a union between God and mankind generally in the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ. Aquinas writes: “The full participation of the Divinity, which is the true bliss of man and end of human life; and this is bestowed upon us by Christ’s humanity; for Augustine says in a sermon (xiii, de Temp.): ‘God was made man, that man might be made God.’”24 Here Thomas favorably cites Augustine on the nexus that exists between

23 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, (Allen: Christian Classics, 1948), Ia q. 44 a. 4. This survey of Aquinas’s views on union is based upon the helpful summaries provided in Julie Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 38–39; and A. N. Williams, “Mystical Theology Redux: The Pattern of Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae,” ModTh 13/1 (1997): 53–74. 24 Aquinas, Summa, IIIa q. 1 art. 2.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Thomas Aquinas

111

Christ’s union with mankind through the incarnation and man’s union with God through Christ in his redemption.25

5.4.3 Union and justification So for Aquinas, soteriology as a whole can be characterized as union with Christ, but how does he explain the various elements of the believer’s union with Christ? What is the relationship between justification and sanctification? Like Augustine and Bernard, Aquinas does not distinguish between justification and sanctification. For Aquinas, justification is a process by which man grows in his sanctification: “The justification of the ungodly,” writes Aquinas, “is a certain movement whereby the human mind is moved by God from the state of sin to the state of justice.”26 How does the sinner move from a state of sin to one of righteousness? For Aquinas, this movement (or process) is brought about by the infusion of grace.27 One can summarize Aquinas’s understanding of justification as a four-stage process: 1. The infusion of grace; 2. The movement of the free will directed towards God through faith; 3. The movement of the free will directed against sin; 4. The remission of sin.28

Given that justification is a process, this means, once again, that the believer’s just status hinges upon his sanctification. This is not to say, however, that man does not require God’s grace in the process of justification. On the contrary, like Augustine and Bernard, Aquinas believes that the grace of God is of the utmost necessity. Aquinas does not let the theme of union with the triune God drop out of view in his doctrine of justification. Rather, Aquinas explains: The gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is 25 Jean Porter, “Right Reason and the Love of God: The Parameters of Aquinas’ Moral Theology,” in The Theology of Thomas Aquinas, ed. Rik van Nieuwenhove / Joseph Wawrykow (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 187. 26 Aquinas, Summa, IaIIae q. 113 art. 5. 27 Aquinas, Summa, IaIIae q. 113 art. 6. 28 McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 64; cf. Aquinas, Summa, IaIIae q. 113 art. 8.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

112

Before the Reformation

impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness as, it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle.29

There are two things to note about this statement. First, Aquinas coordinates the infusion of grace with union (or participation), as he coordinates the bestowal of grace with his exegesis of 1 Pet 2.4. Second, when Aquinas writes of infused grace, he has in mind the infusion of habits, or virtue. It is through these infused habits that Christians are enabled to pursue the imitatio Christi, which leads to the completion of their justification. In his lectures on the Gospel of Matthew, specifically Matt 24.47, Aquinas explains that a blessing of the imitation of Christ is union with him: “In this world, we do not reach perfection except by following the footsteps of Christ, just as, in the other world, eternal happiness is only obtained through union with Christ.”30 Hence, for Aquinas, the believer’s growth and ultimate justification hinges upon his sanctification, but this is a process that is enveloped in the person’s union with Christ. In a word, for Aquinas, Christ is both the road and the goal of the believer’s redemption.31

5.5 Jean Gerson Jean Gerson (1363–1429) is perhaps a little-known medieval theologian when compared to other greats such as Lombard, Bonaventure, or Aquinas. Gerson was, nevertheless, quite well-known in his own day, as he was a professor and chancellor of the University of Paris, a persecutor of John Hus (ca. 1369–1415), and a promoter of Joan of Arc (ca. 1412–31).32 What makes a brief survey of Gerson profitable is his treatise De mystica theologia speclativa. This is not a comprehensive treatment on soteriology where he treats union, justification, and sanctification. Rather, he explains a number of key points about mystical theology, but in particular, outlines a number of different views that were popular in his own day. Gerson’s work, therefore, shows that there is not a uniform Aquinas, Summa, IaIIae q. 112 art. 1. Thomas Aquinas, Super Evangelium S. Matthaei lectura, 24.47, lect. 4, as quoted in Jean-Pierre Torrell, O.P., Saint Thomas Aquinas, 2 vol. Trans. Robert Royal (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 2.368. 31 Torrell, Saint Thomas, 2.368. 32 Jean Gerson, Selections from A Deo exivit, Contra curiositatem studentium, and, De Mystica theologia speculativa, ed. and trans. Steven E. Ozment (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 1. 29 30

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Jean Gerson



113

doctrine of union with Christ. Rather, theologians affirm the doctrine of union but express it in a number of different ways.

5.4.1 Union Generally speaking, Gerson gives a basic description of union when he writes: “He who is so united with God and clings to Him through the most loving conformity of will truly abide in and with Him.”33 Gerson argues in a similar fashion to Aquinas, who argues that union with God is implied by virtue of man’s creation in God’s image: “Since God is spirit and likeness is the cause of union, it is clear that the rational spirit, so purified and cleansed, is united with the divine Spirit because it has become like Him.”34 Gerson gets a bit more specific when he explains: “The soul possesses a disposition to the blessed and holy Trinity. This is no doubt resultant from the fact that it is created after the Trinity, formed in its likeness and established as its image.”35 Elsewhere in his treatise Gerson contrasts his own understanding of union with a number of differing views. He first states his own view regarding the nature of the believer’s mystical union: “The loving union of the heart and mind with God which occurs through mystical theology is appropriately called a transformation.”36 And according to Gerson, mystical theology is “experiential knowledge of God attained through the union of spiritual affection with Him”. Gerson believed this experiential knowledge of God is acquired chiefly through prayer.37

5.4.2 Six different views on union By contrast, there are five out of six other opinions that Gerson rejects for various and sundry reasons. Gerson first writes that some “maintain that creaturely love to God is nothing else than God Himself, so that the rational spirit loves God properly through the Holy Spirit.” Some, argues Gerson, attribute this position to Peter Lombard.38 Lombard, for example, explains that the Holy Spirit “is said to be sent or given when he is in us in such a manner as to make us love God and Gerson, Mystica theologia, 49. Gerson, Mystica theologia, 57. 35 Gerson, Mystica theologia, 61. 36 Gerson, Mystica theologia, 49. 37 Gerson, Mystica theologia, 65. 38 Gerson, Mystica theologia, 51. 33 34

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

114

Before the Reformation

neighbor, by which we remain in God and God in us.”39 Lombard then elaborates that the Holy Spirit is the charity of God the Father and God the Son by which they love one another and love believers, but it is also the charity that is poured into the hearts of believers enabling them to love both God and neighbor. Lombard notes that all Catholics grant that the Spirit is the charity of the Father and the Son, but not that it is the same by which people love God and neighbor.40 Gerson identifies a second position that attempts to understand the spiritual union or transformation between God and man through the use of concrete analogies. Gerson describes this position as those who say the soul is united to God and transformed into his likeness in the same manner that a drop of water is released into a bottle of strong wine. The drop of water loses its own properties and is absorbed completely into the wine, or its own being is completely changed.41 To this end, Gerson cites Augustine’s Confessions, in his use of a similar analogy where Augustine describes Christ in the following manner: “I am the food of the fully grown; grow and you will feed on me. And you will not change me into you like the food your flesh eats, but you will be changed into me.”42 Gerson rejects this position because it obliterates the existence of the person supposedly united to God. A third position originates from a statement gleaned from Bernard’s On the Rule and Dispensation. Bernard writes: “The soul is more where it loves than where it lives.” According to Gerson, some interpret this statement “to mean that through love the soul forsakes itself and its body and passes completely over into its God.”43 Gerson rejects this position as well for the same reasons he rejects the second position, as in his mind, the person loses his individual existence. Gerson also objects to the appeal to transubstantiation to explain the transformation of the one united to God for the same reasons.44 However, what is interesting is that this is one of the streams of thought that Luther acquires in his 1517 lectures on Romans.45 In his explanation of Rom 8.24, “Now hope that is seen is not hope,” Luther (erroneously assigning the statement to Augustine rather than Bernard) explains: “Thus it happens that the thing hoped for and the person hoping become one through the tenseness of the hoping, as blessed Peter Lombard, The Sentences, 4 vol., trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007–10), 1.17.4; cf. Gerson, Mystica theologia, 87 n. 15. 40 Lombard, Sentences, 1.17.6. 41 Gerson, Mystica theologia, 53. 42 Augustine, Confessions, trans. Henry Chadwick (Oxford: OUP, 1991), 7.10; cf. Gerson, Mystica theologia, 87 n. 19. 43 Gerson, Mystica theologia, 53. 44 Gerson, Mystica theologia, 55. 45 Gerson, Mystica theologia, 87 n. 20. 39

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Jean Gerson

115

Augustine says: ‘The soul is more where it loves than where it lives.’” According to Luther, “Love transforms the lover into the beloved. Thus hope changes the one who hopes into what is hoped for, but what is hoped for does not appear.”46 A fourth explanation to which Gerson draws attention is the analogy of hot iron or glowing coal. The coal or iron retains its own properties and characteristics, but at the same time it also takes on the characteristics of fire and heat while losing its own qualities of coldness, rigidity, and color. Another analogy to which Gerson appeals is that of illuminated air when it comes into contact with the light of the sun—the two appear to become one. Gerson expresses no reservations or disapprobation for these analogies. A fifth position comes from those who employ the relationship between matter and form to explain the nature of the believer’s union with God. In other words, “from the union of what is to be perfected with its perfection, in order to render the union of the soul with God intelligible.”47 Gerson acknowledges the undisputed fact, according to him, that before a thing receives its form, the substance or matter of a thing lacks beauty, power, or activity. But once form is given to matter, it immediately takes on the perfection in accordance with the form to which it has been united. Hence, the soul, before it is united to God remains in a state of spiritual death, and lacks the beauty, power, and activity to perform life-giving acts. The soul is incapable of reaching eternal life. But when the soul is united to God, the true fount of life, it receives divine life. The person receives the influx of divine life, which excludes all imperfection.48 After identifying these five different positions or analogies, Gerson then gives a sixth, which is something of a summary of the best portions of the previous five positions to give his own position: Having thus dealt with these analogies, we may say in consequence that love, like heat, by nature gather together or unites things of the same genus and, in like manner, separates and removes what is heterogeneous. It is clear that spiritual things have a certain homogeneity, i.e., a certain similarity. They mutually serve one another and have nothing in common with corporeal or terrestrial things. Thus, through vivifying love everything that is found to be spiritual or divine in man is separated in a certain way from all that is terrestrial or corporeal. As a result, a division of spirit and life occurs, that is, a separation of what is spiritual from what is animal and sensible; what is precious is separated from what is of lesser worth. And since God is spirit and likeness is the cause of union, 46 Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia, in Luther’s Works, vol. 25 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), loc cit., 364. 47 Gerson, Mystica theologia, 55. 48 Gerson, Mystica theologia, 55–57.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

116

Before the Reformation

it is clear that the rational spirit, so purified and cleansed, is united with the divine Spirit because it has become like Him.49

While Gerson does not explicitly state it, the emphasis upon vivifying love (amorem vivifcum) as the means by which a person becomes more like God in his union is consonant with the common medieval view of justification, which can be described as faith working through love because love is the form of faith. Only infused and active love purifies and conforms sinful man to God’s image—this does not happen through faith or hope.50 In other words, like other theologians before him, justification hinges upon the believer’s sanctification.

5.6 Johann von Staupitz Johann von Staupitz (ca. 1460–1524) is perhaps best known because of his association with Martin Luther. Staupitz was Luther’s prior in the Augustinian monastery at Wittenberg as well as the dean of faculty at the local university. For obvious reasons, Luther receives the lion’s share of the attention on the doctrines of union with Christ and justification, but it is important to note that Staupitz gives expression to his own understanding of the two doctrines. In his 1517 sermon, Eternal Predestination and Its Execution in Time, one can find a helpful overview of how Staupitz relates these two doctrines. But what is also of interest is that this sermon represents Staupitz’s mature thought on the subject, whereas Luther, by contrast, was just beginning to make his break from the medieval understandings of justification and union with Christ. This means that this brief glance at Staupitz provides a window into the theology of one who was beginning to break away from the received theology of the day as well as one who was undoubtedly influential upon Luther’s own theology and articulation of these two doctrines.51

5.6.1 Election Given that Staupitz was an Augustinian monk, it should be no surprise that he has a robust doctrine of election. Staupitz believes that election is the first Gerson, Mystica theologia, 57. Gerson, Mystica theologia, 88 n. 26; cf. Aquinas, Summa, Ia q. 93 art. 9; IaIIae q. 27 art. 3. 51 David C. Steinmetz, Reformers in the Wings (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971), 27. 49 50

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Johann von Staupitz

117

grace that God gives to the elect, which precedes both nature and works.52 Given the priority that Staupitz gives to the doctrine of election in his soteriology, in contrast to earlier medieval views, this leads him to redefine his doctrine of justification.53 God’s election of the person makes him acceptable to God, not the person’s justification. Because God has determined to ordain the elect to salvation, this means they will assuredly receive all of the concomitant blessings of redemption.54 Staupitz writes: “Provided the exterior call is efficacious, then you could certainly say that all who are called will doubtless be justified. For just as God is committed to call all who are predestined, so He is committed to justify all who are called.”55

5.6.2 Justification Staupitz proceeds to explain the nature of justification in a way different from medieval formulations. For Aquinas and other medieval theologians, a person begins the process of justification with the infusion of a created habit through baptism. And man’s justification and acceptance before God hinges upon the completion of this process.56 In fact, for Aquinas, the infusion of the habit is the reason why God loves a person.57 However, by contrast, Staupitz makes no reference to a created habit of grace in his sermon. Rather, for Staupitz, grace is election, not a created habit. Staupitz explains that a person is justified in the moment of his regeneration and subsequently the believer’s heart is set afire so that God becomes pleasing to him. In his regeneration, the sinner is born into the righteousness of Christ, not his own. Staupitz then writes: “This fire is the grace which makes acceptable (gratia gratum faciens). It does not, as many people say, make man acceptable to God, since election itself has already done this; rather, it makes God alone pleasing and acceptable to man through the love 52 Johann von Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination and Its Execution in Time,” in Heiko A. Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought (Cambridge: James Clark, 1967): 179; idem, Libellus de Executione eterne predestinationis. Fratris Ioannis de Staupitz. Christis et Augustinianae obseruantie serui (Nuremburg: 1517), 4.21. For a survey of Staupitz’s theology in general, see David C. Steinmetz, Misericordia Dei: The Theology of Johannes von Staupitz in its Late Medieval Setting (Leiden: Brill, 1968). 53 Steinmetz, Reformers, 23. 54 Steinmetz, Reformers, 24. 55 Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination,” 180; Eterne Predestinationis, 6.29. 56 McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 59–60, 116–19. 57 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, trans. Vernon J. Bourke (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), 3.150.2; cf. Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination,” 200 n. 22.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

118

Before the Reformation

which restores the obedience stolen by concupiscence.”58 Staupitz does not deny the importance and necessity of good works in salvation, but he does preclude them from man’s justification. In fact, Staupitz writes: “After the justification of the sinner his progress to glory follows without fail.”59 Staupitz believes that the good works of the justified person are not in any way meritorious because ultimately God himself accomplishes the believer’s good works. Staupitz writes that of the first grace of justification (de gratia prima iustificationis) is given by God as much as the second grace of good works, or sanctification.60 Staupitz explains how all of these elements cohere together in the following summary: Since justification is due to grace and not to nature, since acceptation of works performed in grace is grace, and since it is again grace that the merits of Christ are made ours, it is appropriate to attribute the whole Christian life to grace. And thus the claim for man, namely, that he is master over his works from beginning to end, is destroyed. So, therefore, the origin of the works of Christian life is predestination, its means is justification, and its aim is glorification or thanksgiving—all these are the achievements not of nature but of grace.61

At this point a decided shift away from medieval views of soteriology can be detected, but what exactly does Staupitz mean by justification? Moreover, if soteriology finds its origin in predestination, then what place is there for union with Christ?

5.6.3 Union with Christ It is not until Staupitz explains the different elements of redemption, predestination, justification, sanctification, and glorification, that he turns to answer the question as to how the believer receives the merits of Christ. To answer this question, Staupitz turns to the doctrine of union with Christ. Staupitz appeals to Eph 5.25 to explain the scriptural ground for the doctrine of union: “Between Christ and the Christian there is a true, nay the truest, marriage of which our earthly marriage is a sacrament, and but a shadow in comparison Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination,” 182–83; Eterne Predestinationis, 6.36. Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination,” 183; Eterne Predestinationis, 7.37. 60 Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination,” 183; Eterne Predestinationis, 7.39. 61 Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination,” 186; Eterne Predestinationis, 8.52. 58

59

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Johann von Staupitz



119

with the sacred marriage of Christ with the Church.”62 Staupitz discusses the particulars of redemption individually, or even as a concatenated whole, but he also understands that they are all part of the believer’s union with Christ. The believer is united to Christ in election, but it is only in justification that Christ gives himself and his merits to the believer.63 Staupitz explains that though there is great similarity between the marriage between a man and woman and Christ and the church, there are some distinct differences. In human marriage the two parties consent to one another to give themselves to each other, but they do not wield any power over each other—they are partners—the claim they have upon one another is limited and not all encompassing. By contrast, Staupitz describes the marital union between Christ and the church as follows: ‘I accept you as Mine, I accept you as My concern, I accept you into Myself.’ And conversely the Church, or the soul, says to Christ, ‘I accept You as mine, You are my concern, I accept you into myself.’ In other words Christ says, ‘The Christian is My possession, the Christian is my concern, the Christian is I’; so the spouse responds, ‘Christ is my possession, Christ is my concern, Christ is I.’64

Staupitz then explains that the first vow is the same as human vows, but that the other two vows transcend human vows. In the first vow the Christian receives what any spouse should receive according to the laws of marriage. But in the second vow, explains Staupitz, “The Christian receives all the benefits, none excluded, that come to him from Christ himself; and by virtue of the third vow he is Christ as much as he is himself.”65 How does Staupitz elaborate his theology of union with respect to the manner in which Christ and the believer become one? Staupitz explains the doctrine along the lines of the three marriage vows: (1) I accept you as mine; (2) I accept you as my concern; and (3) I accept you into myself. In the first vow, Staupitz points to the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah where they employ marriage imagery to explain the relationship between God and his people. But Staupitz quotes the psalms of David in particular: “He has set His tabernacle in the sun and He Himself comes as a bridegroom to His marriage bed” (Psa 19.4–6).66 In the second vow, Staupitz cites several texts to Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination,” 186–87; Eterne Predestinationis, 9.53. Steinmetz, Misericordia Dei, 90–91. 64 Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination,” 187; Eterne Predestinationis, 9.56. 65 Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination,” 187; Eterne Predestinationis, 9.57. 66 Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination,” 187; Eterne Predestinationis, 9.58. 62 63

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

120

Before the Reformation

show of Christ’s concern for his bride, the church, including Cant 2.16, 6.2, and 7.10. However, he also cites Isa 9.6, “Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given,” to point to the incarnation as a chief element of the believer’s union with Christ. In the third vow, Staupitz explains that the Scriptures everywhere testify to the fact that Christ is in the believer and the believer is in Christ. Staupitz appeals to John 17.23 to support this claim. By way of summary, Staupitz then writes: “From all this it follows that all things which Christ, the Incarnate Word, possesses, He makes ours by the assumption of human nature. He has given us all things for our salvation.”67 In what way does Christ give us all things as it pertains to justification? Staupitz holds that the elements of redemption, such as justification and sanctification, are connected to union with Christ, and in particular justification is part of the marital vows that Christ gives to his bride—namely, to give all that is his to his bride. This point especially comes to bear when he explains how Christ removes our sins: “He makes our sins His own. Just as the Christian is just through the righteousness of Christ, so Christ is unrighteous and sinful through the guilt of the Christian.” What belongs to Christ is given to the believer, and what belongs to the believer is given to Christ. Staupitz clarifies, however, and states: “Therefore I am righteous because of Your righteousness and a sinner because of my guilt. You are a sinner because of my guilt and righteous because of Your own righteousness.”68 This statement is quite different from what one finds in medieval expressions where guilt and righteousness are two consecutive stages divided by baptism and absolution. Rather, they are two aspects of the believer’s union with Christ, but justification is no longer a process but definitively grounded upon Christ’s merits. In a word, for Staupitz, justification no longer hinges upon sanctification. At the same time, Staupitz does not elaborate a full-blown doctrine of double imputation but he certainly anticipates it as this statement is a close antecedent parallel to Luther’s simul iustus et peccator.69 The big difference is, however, that Staupitz antedates Luther. That is, Staupitz is a likely source not only for Luther’s doctrine of justification and imputed righteousness, but also one of the sources for his doctrine of union with Christ.70 The seeds, therefore, of Protestant constructions of the doctrines Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination,” 188; Eterne Predestinationis, 9.61. Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination,” 190; Eterne Predestinationis, 10.63, 69. 69 Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination,” 202 n. 48. 70 Staupitz, “Eternal Predestination,” 202 n. 49; cf. Martin Luther, “Two Kinds of Righteousness,” in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, ed. Timothy F. Lull (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 155–64; Heiko A. Oberman, “Iustitia Dei: Luther and the Scholastic Doctrines of Justification,” HTR 59 (1966): 1–26. 67

68

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Conclusion

121

of union with Christ and justification do not lie exclusively with Luther, but also in the theology of Staupitz.

5.7 Conclusion The preceding survey demonstrates that Augustine, Bernard, Aquinas, Gerson, and Staupitz have a doctrine of union with Christ. Gerson also outlines a number of different expressions of the doctrine, giving his disapprobation to several formulations and embracing others. What is important to note is that all of the aforementioned theologians believe that the elements of union with Christ consist in the different aspects of redemption: regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. For the most part, Augustine and his medieval successors hold an un-prioritized view of justification and sanctification—the believer’s justification depends upon his sanctification. The one dissenting party is Staupitz, who believes that justification does not make a person acceptable to God, rather his election does. Moreover, it is the merit of Christ that is the foundation of the believer’s justification. Staupitz does not conceive of the different elements of redemption as something different from union with Christ but rather constituent elements of that union. The differences that surface between Staupitz and the medieval tradition are only the tip of the iceberg because with the formal reform movement instigated by Luther, these differences between medieval and Protestant doctrines of justification only become more pronounced. Hence, the difference between Roman Catholic and Protestant views does not center upon the affirmation of the doctrine of union with Christ but on how that doctrine is understood. In other words, a key element of categorizing different soteriologies is determining the relationship between justification and sanctification within a theologian’s doctrine of union with Christ.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

6. Martin Luther

6.1 Introduction Repeat something often enough and whether true or not, people will begin to believe it. This oft said cliché is certainly true regarding the relationship between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions on the doctrines of justification and union with Christ. There is a growing chorus of those who claim that there is a unique Reformed approach to the doctrine of justification by faith in comparison to the Lutheran tradition. Richard Gaffin has been one of the chief proponents of this thesis. He argues that he has found a tendency in the Reformation tradition to conceive of justification as a stand-alone imputative act without any reference to the doctrine of union with Christ. Gaffin argues that a union-less doctrine of justification is characteristic of the Lutheran tradition where union with Christ follows as a consequence of justification in the ordo salutis. By contrast, the Reformed tradition, particularly as it comes in the Westminster Standards, places justification among the realities that manifest union with Christ.1 This chapter argues that the Gaffin thesis does not correctly describe early modern Lutheran views on the relationship between the doctrines of justification and union with Christ. In fact, the evidence shows that there are significant similarities between Luther and Calvin on the relationship between justification, sanctification, and union with Christ to the point that a line of division cannot be easily drawn between Luther and Calvin on these doctrines. To prove this thesis there are a number of necessary steps to be taken. First, we will explore the specific claims of Gaffin and others in order to understand the nature of their argument. Second, we will then set forth the parameters of proving the thesis by delimiting the scope of the study to Martin Luther’s 1535 Galatians commentary. Delimiting the scope of the study to this one work makes the task of proving the thesis a manageable one. But what some might not know is that Luther’s Galatians commentary has a normative confessional status within Lutheranism. Therefore, to establish Luther’s view on justification and union also sets forth the normative view of confessional 1 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation (Milton Keynes: 2006), 50.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



The claimed Lutheran-Reformed divide

123

Lutheranism. Third, we will explore Luther’s doctrines of union with Christ and justification and sanctification. And fourth, the chapter will make some concluding observations about the harmony and compatibility between the early modern Lutheran and Reformed traditions on the relationship between justification and union with Christ.

6.2 The claimed Lutheran-Reformed divide 6.2.1 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. In order to understand Gaffin’s claims regarding the Lutheran-Reformed divide, it is important first to understand what he argues regarding the Reformed tradition on justification and union with Christ. Gaffin claims that for Calvin, a “first generation” Reformed theologian and “fountainhead figure” for the tradition, there is no priority between justification or sanctification because both are simultaneously received through union with Christ.2 Gaffin expounds the superiority of Calvin’s view with respect to the sixteenth-century Roman Catholic view when he writes concerning the common charge of antinomianism: Calvin destroys Rome’s charge by showing that faith, in its Protestant understanding, entails a disposition to holiness without particular reference to justification, a concern for godliness that is not be understood only as a consequence of justification. Calvin proceeds as he does, and is free to do so, because for him the relative ‘ordo’ or priority of justification and sanctification is indifferent theologically. Rather, what has controlling soteriological importance is the priority to both (spiritual, ‘existential,’ faith-) union with Christ.3

Gaffin’s argument boils down to this: union with Christ is the source from which flow two distinct but un-prioritized benefits: justification and sanctification. In comparison with later Reformed expressions with the ordo salutis, Gaffin argues: “This, in a nutshell, is Calvin’s ordo salutis: union with Christ by (Spirit-worked) faith.”4 Gaffin’s overall intent is not only to show the dominant position of union with Christ in Calvin’s theology, but also to contrast it with Lutheran expres2 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Justification and Union with Christ,” in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis, ed. David W. Hall / Peter A. Lillback (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2008), 248. 3 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards,” WTJ 65/2 (2003): 176–77. 4 Gaffin, “Biblical Theology,” 172.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

124

Martin Luther

sions. Gaffin contends that in contrast to Calvin’s view, and more broadly the Reformed view of justification and union with Christ, Lutherans believe that justification causes union with Christ.5 Gaffin makes this point more explicitly elsewhere when he writes: Here is a consideration that has sometimes been eclipsed in the Reformation tradition, where a tendency is observable to conceive of justification as a stand-alone imputative act, without particular reference to union with Christ. Unless I need to be corrected, this is more the case in the Lutheran tradition, where, in the ordo salutis, union is regularly sequenced following justification, as a fruit of consequence of justification. The Reformed tradition has recognized better and more clearly that, as answer 69 of the Westminster Larger Catechism puts it, justification is among the realities that ‘manifest’ that union.6

Gaffin’s conclusions have been modified, as he has nuanced his view to reflect the idea that justification takes logical priority over progressive sanctification but not definitive sanctification.7 However, as argued in the introduction of this study, these are contemporary distinctions that are absent in sixteenth-century theologians such as Luther and are best left aside in the analysis of early modern texts. Nevertheless, others who have made similar claims have not introduced Gaffin’s latest nuances.

6.2.2 Lane Tipton and Geerhardus Vos Making similar claims is a former student and now colleague of Gaffin’s, Lane G. Tipton. Tipton argues that the Reformed view conceives of union with Christ and imputation as distinct but nonetheless simultaneous realities, whereas Lutherans hold that they are distinct and separable. Calvin, argues Tipton, offers “a classic formulation”.8 Like Gaffin, Tipton cites J. Theodore Mueller (fl. 1950s) and Francis Pieper (1852–1931) as examples with which to contrast the Reformed view and argues that the Lutheran view contends that justificaGaffin, “Biblical Theology,” 173. Gaffin appeals to two Lutheran works to support his contention: J. T. Mueller, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia, 1934), 320, 381; F. A. O. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 4 vol. (St. Louis: Concordia, 1951–53), 2.410, 434 n. 65, 3.8 n. 9, 398; and Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 3rd rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Augsburg: 1961), 481–82. 6 Gaffin, By Faith, 50. One should note that Gaffin reproduces the exact same footnote as found in “Biblical Theology,” 173 n. 19 to support his claim here in the work cited in this footnote. 7 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “A Response to John Fesko’s Review,” Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 106–07. 8 Lane G. Tipton, “Union with Christ and Justification,” in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us In Justification, ed. K. Scott Oliphint (Fearn: Mentor, 2007), 39. 5

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The claimed Lutheran-Reformed divide



125

tion causes union with Christ and sanctification.9 However, in addition to the same Lutheran references to which Gaffin appeals, Tipton also draws upon the analysis of Geerhardus Vos. Tipton quotes a passage from Vos, who analyzes the differences between Reformed and Lutheran soteriologies.10 Vos explains that, by faith, Christians become members of the covenant of grace and receive all of the benefits that are in Christ; in other words, believers are in union with him. Vos claims that with the Lutheran view, “The Holy Spirit first generates faith in the sinner who temporarily still remains outside of union with Christ; then justification follows faith and only then, in turn, does the mystical union with the Mediator take place.” By contrast, Vos argues the Reformed view is the opposite: “One is first united to Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, by a mystical union, which finds its conscious recognition by faith. By this union with Christ all that is in Christ is simultaneously given.”11 Vos draws these conclusions from the work of Lutheran theologian Matthias Schneckenburger (1804–48) to substantiate his claim. Schneckenburger was a Lutheran theologian who taught Reformed Symbolics at the University of Bern in the nineteenth century.12 Schneckenburger writes that for Lutherans: Faith is certainly the subjective means of union with Christ, but is not itself already the realization of this union. That it is a work of the Holy Spirit does not yet make its subjective laying hold of Christ that possessing of Christ by which mystical union takes place . . . This real union, however, occurs by the divine act of justification . . . by which Christ himself, the personal, divine-human Redeemer, is implanted in me as a real lifeprinciple. This union with Christ, which takes place by justification and which includes regeneration unto adoption as a child of God, is something much more sublime than that other, purely subjective moral union of faith. . . It must also be kept in view that the work of the Holy Spirit by which justifying faith is worked in the contrite heart, is not at the same time a work of Christ himself, that, on the contrary, Christ is poised purely as an object before this faith produced by the Holy Spirit.13

Tipton, “Union with Christ,” 42–43. Tipton, “Union with Christ and Justification,” 44. 11 Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P & R, 1980), 256. 12 C. B. Hundeshagen, “Schneckenburger, Matthias,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), 254–55. 13 Matthias Schneckenburger, Vergleichende Darstellung des Luterhischen und Reformirten Lehrbegriffs, vol. 1 (Stuttgart: 1855), 203–04. 9

10

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

126

Martin Luther

But Schneckenburger’s analysis of the differences between the two traditions has not gone unchallenged. In fact, G. C. Berkouwer has argued: “A brief excursion into a few Lutheran confessions will reveal that Schneckenburger’s thesis holds no water, that in the crucial points there is a profound correspondence between the Reformed confessions as we have already seen them and the Lutheran ones.”14 Others such as B. B. Warfield (1851–1921) and Herman Bavinck (1854– 1921) have come to similar conclusions.15 Herman Bavinck, for example, states: “There is no material difference [zakelijk . . . geen verschil] between Lutheran and Reformed theology with respect to the doctrine of justification.”16 The key problem with Vos’s claim is that he relies upon a secondary source to substantiate his claim regarding the differences between the Reformed and Lutheran traditions.

6.2.3 Delimiting the investigation There are several problems with the claims of Vos, Gaffin, and Tipton as it pertains to their arguments regarding the dissonance between the Reformed and Lutheran traditions on justification and union with Christ. We can begin with the idea that Calvin was a first generation Reformer and fountainhead figure for the Reformed tradition; this claim does not accord with the historical record. Calvin was a second-generation Reformer who began his work well after Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Martin Bucer (1491–1551), Johannes Oecolampadius (1482–1531), or Guillaume Farel (1489–1565), to name but a few.17 On the other hand, Luther truly has fountainhead status for the Lutheran tradition. Unlike Calvin, Luther’s writings are a part of the Lutheran confessional corpus. Confessions such as the Formula Concord (1577) were written to establish who in the Lutheran tradition was true to Luther’s theology, the Osiandrians, the Phillipists, or the Gnesio-Lutherans. By contrast, the Reformed tradition has not been historically defined by appeal to any one individual theologian but to confessional documents such as the Helvetic Confessions, the ConsenG. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, Studies in Dogmatics (1954; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 48. 15 B. B. Warfield, “Calvinism,” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, 10 vol., ed. E. D. Warfield / William Park Armstrong / C. W. Hodge (1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 5.353–60. 16 Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vol. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003–08), 4.200; idem, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 4 vol. (Kampen: Kok, 1911), 4.208. 17 Richard A. Muller, “Was Calvin a Calvinist? Or, Did Calvin (or Anyone Else in the Early Modern Era) Plant the ‘TULIP,’” in Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: Studies on the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker, forthcoming), chp. 2. 14

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The claimed Lutheran-Reformed divide



127

sus Tigurinus, the Three Forms of Unity, and the Westminster Standards.18 As Carl Trueman argues: “Scholarship cannot treat Reformed theology as a discrete entity that flows from the writings of one individual, John Calvin. It represents a movement which is pluriform in origin and eclectic with regard to its sources.”19 Recognizing the differences between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions on this point is key for the present debate. To establish Calvin’s doctrine on any one particular point likely only establishes the view of one man, not an entire tradition. The opposite holds true for the Lutheran tradition. To establish Luther’s view on a doctrine much more likely does establish the view of a confessional tradition. Recognizing the different places of Luther and Calvin within their respective traditions produces three important corollaries for this chapter. First, given that Luther is the fountainhead for the Lutheran tradition, we can delimit the focus of the investigation to Luther’s 1535 Galatians commentary. At the end of the Formula’s article on justification the following appears: “For any further, necessary explanation of this lofty and sublime article on justification before God, upon which the salvation of our souls depends, we wish to recommend to everyone the wonderful, magnificent exposition by Dr. Luther of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, and for the sake of brevity we refer to it as this point.”20 Given this endorsement, exploring and determining Luther’s view on the relationship between justification and union with Christ in his Galatians commentary will demonstrate what confessional Lutheranism saw and believed to be orthodox. Uncovering Luther’s view does not mean that every rank and file Lutheran adhered to his exposition. Subscription to the Formula Concord is not in view.21 Rather, ascertaining what was accepted as confessional Lutheran orthodoxy is the immediate goal. Luther’s Galatians commentary therefore defines and explains the doctrines of union with Christ and justification for the Formula Concord.22

Carl R. Trueman, “Calvin and Calvinism,” in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, ed., Donald K. McKim (Cambridge: CUP, 2004), 225. 19 Trueman, “Calvin and Calvinism,” 239. 20 Formula Concord Solid Declaration, art. 3, in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb / Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 573. 21 For the reception of the Formula Concord by Lutheran Orthodoxy, see Robert D. Preus, “The Influence of the Formula of Concord on the Later Lutheran Orthodoxy,” in Discord, Dialogue, and Concord: Studies in the Lutheran Reformation’s Formula of Concord, ed. Lewis W. Spitz / Wenzel Lohff (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977): 86–101. 22 Olli-Pekka Vainio, Justification and Participation in Christ: The Development of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification from Luther to the Formula Concord (1580) (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 20. 18

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

128

Martin Luther

Second, given that Calvin was a second generation Reformer and that the Reformed tradition is eclectic regarding its sources, there is the distinct possibility that Luther influenced Calvin particularly on the relationship between justification and union with Christ. Far from there being a great divide between Luther and Calvin and their respective traditions, it is quite possible that Calvin gleaned key insights from Luther’s exposition. In other words, one should avoid a Whig interpretation of the past by imposing contemporary denominational lines of division in the analysis of the sixteenth century. Calvin was a green theologian when his 1536 Institutes of the Christian Religion was first published in contrast to the mature Luther of the 1535 Galatians commentary. In fact, Frank James claims that Calvin appropriated Luther’s doctrine of union with Christ.23 If this line of influence can be substantiated, then it creates significant problems for the dissonance thesis of Vos, Gaffin, and Tipton, as Calvin’s doctrine of justification and union would have a Lutheran contaminant at its root. In the exposition that follows, possible lines of influence will be exposed. Third, recognizing Luther’s fountainhead status shows that it is Luther who defines the tradition, not nineteenth- or twentieth-century Lutherans such as Schneckenburger, Mueller, or Pieper. To draw upon these theologians and then make sweeping conclusions about the Lutheran tradition apart from reference to the confessional record is methodologically wanting. True, Gaffin appeals to Heinrich Schmid’s compendium of Lutheran dogmatics assembled from quotations by sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Lutheran scholastics, but even then, appeal to such statements apart from the broader context from which they were taken can be misleading. Recent research has shown, for example, how a parallel volume, edited by Heinrich Heppe and culled from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed scholastics, has skewed the understanding of Reformed orthodoxy for the better part of a generation.24 Hence, direct appeal to Luther’s 1535 Galatians commentary is the preferable methodological approach because it explores a key primary source of the Lutheran tradition that is at the same time Luther’s own view but also one commended by early modern confessional Lutheranism.

Frank A. James, III, De Justificatione: The Evolution of Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Doctrine of Justification (Ph.D Dissertation; Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000), 27. 24 See Ryan Glomsrud, “Karl Barth as Historical Theologian: The Recovery of Reformed Theology in Barth’s Early Dogmatics,” in Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques, ed. David Gibson / Daniel Strange (Nottingham: IVP, 2008), 86–87. 23

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ



129

6.3 Union with Christ 6.3.1 In Christ Jesus At first glance union with Christ might not be a subject that some would associate with Luther, but it is one that Luther employs throughout his Galatians commentary.25 There are some statements in his commentary that illustrate the importance of the doctrine for Luther. In his explanation of Gal 3.28, “For you are all one in Christ Jesus,” Luther writes: “Paul always makes it a practice to add the words ‘in Christ Jesus’; if Christ is lost sight of, everything is over.” Luther elaborates upon this point by explaining the nature of faith: This is the true faith of Christ and in Christ, through which we become members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones (Eph. 5:30). Therefore in Him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). . . . Christ and faith must be completely joined. We must simply take our place in heaven; and Christ must be, live, and work in us. But He lives and works in us, not speculatively but really, with presence and with power.26

Luther’s conception of union with Christ is inseparably connected to his doctrine of faith.

6.3.2 Christ the form of faith Luther believes that faith was more than a fides historica (historical faith), a mere intellectual assent to the data of Christ’s existence and work.27 Rather, “Faith is nothing else but the truth of the heart, that is, the right knowledge of the heart about God.”28 This right knowledge of the heart is received, not through the law or the raw power of reason, but is “the gift and accomplishment of the Holy Spirit, who comes with the preached Word.”29 But this is not the only difference between Luther and the Roman Catholic doctrine of faith. According to historic expressions, such as those by Lombard or Aquinas, a necessary characteristic of faith is fides charitatae formata (“faith informed by love”). For Mark A. Siefrid, “Paul, Luther, and Justification in Gal 5:15–21,” WTJ 65 (2003): 215. Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1535, LW, vol. 26–27, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963), 26.57 (Werke, 40.1: 546). 27 LW 27.28 (Werke 40.2: 34–35); cf. DGLTT, 115. 28 LW 26.238 (Werke 40.1: 376). 29 LW 26.375 (Werke 40.1: 572). 25 26

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

130

Martin Luther

medieval theologians, faith rests upon a habitus (habit or disposition) of love that was supernaturally created in the soul by God’s grace.30 Lombard argues: “The faith by which one believes, if it is joined to charity, is a virtue, because, as Ambrose says, ‘charity is the mother of all virtues’; it informs all of them and without it there is no true virtue. And so faith working through love is the virtue by which unseen things are believed.”31 Aquinas similarly states: “Now faith worketh through charity. The love of charity therefore is the form of faith.”32 What lies at the heart of the Roman medieval conception of faith, then, is love whereas for Luther and the Protestant Reformers it is fiducia (trust). Luther contends that fides charitate formata confounds faith and works in the doctrine of justification and therefore rejects the formulation. In his typically brusque and direct manner Luther believed “faith ‘formed by love’ is an empty dream”. Instead, he argues, “Works or love are not the ornament or perfection of faith; but faith itself is a gift of God, a work of God in our hearts which justifies us because it takes hold of Christ as the Savior.”33 This is a key difference between Luther and Roman views: for Rome faith is formed by love but for Luther faith is formed by Christ. This difference opens a window into Luther’s doctrine of union with Christ. When Luther states that faith justifies because it takes hold of Christ, he does not merely mean that the sinner intellectually takes hold of Christ. Luther means by this phrase that the person enters into mystical union with Christ through faith. The faith-union link is evident in the following statement: Where they speak of love, we speak of faith. And while they say that faith is the mere outline but love is its living colors and completion, we say in opposition that faith takes hold of Christ and that He is the form that adorns and informs faith as color does the wall. Therefore Christian faith is not an idle quality or an empty husk in the heart, which may exist in a state of mortal sin until love comes along to make it alive. But if it is true faith, it is a sure trust and firm acceptance in the heart. It takes hold of Christ in such a

DGLTT, 116. Peter Lombard, Sentences, 4 vol., trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007 - ), 3.23.3: “Fides autem qua creditur, si cum caritate sit, virtus est, quia ‘caritas, ut ait Amrosius, mater est omnium virtutum,’ que omens informat, sina qua nulla vera virtus est. Fides ergo operans per dilecitonem virtus est qua non vis creduntur” (idem, Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae, 2 vol. [Grottaferrata: Collegii S. Bonavenurae Ad Claras Aquas, 1981], 2.142). 32 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, vol. 31, Faith, trans. T. C. O’Brien (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1974), IIa IIae q. 4 art. 3: “Fides autem per dilectionem operatur. Ergo dilectio caritatis est fidei forma” (pp. 124–25). 33 LW 26.88 (Werke 40.1:164). 30 31

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification and sanctification



131

way that Christ is the object of faith, or rather not the object but, so to speak, the One who is present in the faith itself.34

Luther is clear that Christ is not merely the object of faith but that he is present in faith. He also uses other expressions to convey the same idea: “Christ who is grasped by faith and who lives in the heart is the true Christian righteousness.”35 At this point in the investigation it is evident that Luther does not fit the Vos, Gaffin, Tipton paradigm of union with Christ following justification as Luther places union with Christ at the moment of faith. In fact, though Luther does not have a highly developed ordo salutis in the technical sense of the term, he does prioritize faith before justification. Luther explains that two things make Christian righteousness perfect: “The first is faith in the heart, which is a divinely granted gift and which formally believes in Christ; the second is that God reckons this imperfect faith as perfect righteousness for the sake of Christ, His Son.”36

6.4 Justification and sanctification 6.4.1 Justification The question now undoubtedly arises, How does Luther relate union with Christ to justification and sanctification? We have begun to see how justification is related to union with Christ, in that Luther identifies imputed righteousness as the second of two things that makes Christian righteousness perfect. Even though Luther places the believer in union with Christ through faith, it would be a hasty conclusion to say that he therefore gives union theological priority over justification. One of the recurring emphases in Luther’s commentary is the role of the imputed righteousness of Christ. For Luther, the question of priority in redemption is not one of temporal sequence where applied soteriology is a series of events, faith followed by justification, which in turn is followed by sanctification. Nor is priority a question of sequence where faith (and union with Christ) must logically precede justification because one cannot be justified unless he first believes, however true such an observation may be. Rather, for Luther priority hinges upon the question as to why ultimately does God accept LW 26.129 (Werke 40.1:228–29). LW 26.130: “Ergo fide apprehensus et in corde habitans Christus, est iustitia Christiana” (Werke 40.1:229); see also Siefrid, “Paul, Luther, and Justification,” 223. 36 LW 26.231 (Werke 40.1:366). 34 35

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

132

Martin Luther

the saved sinner in his presence. Does God accept the sinner because of Christ’s work for us or in us? For Luther, this is an easy question to answer. Luther believes that three things are joined together in redemption: faith, Christ, and acceptance or imputation: Faith takes hold of Christ and has Him present, enclosing Him as the ring encloses the gem. And whoever is found having this faith in the Christ who is grasped in the heart, him God accounts as righteous. This is the means and merit by which we obtain the forgiveness of sins and righteousness. ‘Because you believe in Me,’ God says, ‘and your faith takes hold of Christ, whom I have freely given to you as your Justifier and Savior, therefore be righteous.’ Thus God accepts you or accounts you righteous only on account of Christ, in whom you believe.

Luther goes on to explain that among these three things, faith, Christ, and imputation, “imputation is extremely necessary, first, because we are not yet righteous, but sin is still clinging to our flesh during this life”. Luther knew that God sanctifies his people, but that they still engage in sin and, like Peter or David, they are still sinful. “Nevertheless, we always have recourse to this doctrine,” states Luther, “that our sins are covered and that God does not want to hold us accountable for them”.37 For Luther the forensic aspect of redemption has priority because it is the immovable foundation that secures the sinner’s place coram Deo. Hence, Luther not only argues for the priority of imputation, and therefore justification, but he also stipulates that the righteousness is an iustitia aliena (“alien righteousness”), it is extra nos (“outside of us”).38 He does this so as to place the focus exclusively upon the work of Christ to the exclusion of the believer’s good works in justification.39 These conclusions raise an interesting question of whether Luther was influential upon Calvin and his doctrines of union and justification. Gaffin argues in such a way that Calvin appears to develop his doctrinal insights all LW 26.132–33 (Werke 40.1: 233). Cf. Siefrid, “Paul, Luther, and Justification,” 219, 229; idem, “Luther, Melanchthon, and Paul on the Question of Imputation: Recommendations on a Current Debate,” in Justification: What’s At Stake in the Current Debates, ed. Mark A. Husbands / Daniel J. Treier (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 137–76; R. Scott Clark, “Iustitia Imputata Christi: Alien or Proper to Luther’s Doctrine of Justification?” CTQ 70 (2006): 273, 282; Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2 vol. (Cambridge: CUP, 1994), 2.10–20; Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (1966; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 227–28; Heiko A. Oberman, “ ‘Iustitia Christi’ and ‘Iustitia Dei’: Luther and the Scholastic Doctrines of Justification,” HTR 59 (1966): 19; Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 260–61. 39 LW 26.234 (Werke 40.1:370). 37 38

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification and sanctification



133

by himself. But there are two considerations that are worthy of mention. First, there is the relationship of justification to the sanctification that Luther posits. In his comments on Gal 5.14, Luther explains that Paul brings forth the Ten Commandments in his desire to show what it means to be a servant through love. Luther then appeals to 1 Cor 3.11: “‘No other foundation can anyone lay’ than Jesus Christ or the righteousness of Christ. On this foundation he now builds good works, and truly good ones, all of which he includes in the brief commandment: ‘You shall love your neighbor.’”40 Here Luther sees the righteousness of Christ, which is received through imputation, as the foundation for good works. This is very similar to Calvin’s statement concerning the significance of justification: “For unless you first of all grasp what your relationship to God is, and the nature of his judgment concerning you, you have neither a foundation on which to establish your salvation nor one on which to build piety toward God.”41 Calvin elsewhere writes, “They cannot deny that justification by faith is the beginning, foundation, cause, proof, and substance of works righteousness.”42 Why does Calvin posit that justification is the foundation for works righteousness? He does so for the same reason as Luther: “For unless the justification of faith remains whole and unbroken, the uncleanness of works will be uncovered.”43 A second parallel exists between Luther and Calvin particularly on the relationship between union and imputation. Luther writes: So far as justification is concerned, Christ and I must be so closely attached that He lives in me and I in Him. What a marvelous way of speaking! Because He lives in me, whatever grace, righteousness, life, peace, and salvation there is in me is all Christ’s: nevertheless, it is mine as well, by the cementing and attachment that are through faith, by which we become as one body in the Spirit.44

LW 27.51 (Werke 40.2:64). John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, LCC, vol. 20–21, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.11.1: “Nisi enim primum omnium, quo sis apud Deum loco, et quale de te sit illius iudicium, tenes: ut nullum habes stabiliendae salutis funamentum, ita nec erigendae in Deum pietatis” (OS 4.182). 42 Calvin, Institutes, 3.17.9: “Fidei iustificationem principium, fundamentum, causam, argumentum, substantiam operum iustitiae esse non possunt inficiari ” (OS 4.262). 43 Calvin, Institutes, 3.17.9: “Nisi enim perpetuo maneat solida fidei iustificatio, illorum immundities detegetur” (OS 4.262). 44 LW 26.167–68 (Werke 40.1:284). 40 41

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

134

Martin Luther

This statement is very similar to one that Calvin makes to the same effect: Therefore, that joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts—in short, that mystical union—are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts which he has been endowed. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body—in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.45

The nomenclature varies between the two quotations, but substantively it is difficult to find significant differences between the two. Both Luther and Calvin argue that justification and union with Christ go hand in hand. But what makes these parallels all the more interesting is that Luther’s antedates Calvin’s by almost twenty-five years. The Calvin passage was an addition to the 1559 Institutes written in the wake of the controversy with Andreas Osiander, who argued that believers share in the essential righteousness of Christ—an idea that both Calvin and Luther rejected.46 Nevertheless, what these parallels show is that Calvin the second-generation Reformer is not the first to articulate the relationship between a forensic justification and union with Christ. Whether there are lines of influence between Luther and Calvin at these points is beyond the scope of this chapter. But one thing is clear, Luther broke this ground before Calvin had even published the first edition of the Institutes.47

6.4.2 Sanctification Luther has a clear doctrine of justification but also discusses the importance of sanctification. Luther explains, “It is difficult and dangerous to teach that we are justified by faith without works and yet to require works at the same time.” He notes the dangers of not striking the right balance in teaching about justification and good works: “If works alone are taught, as happened under the papacy, faith Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.10 (OS 4.191). Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.8–12 (OS 4.189–97); Timothy J. Wengert, “Review of Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther,” Theology Today 56/3 (1999): 432–34. 47 On Luther as the origin of the Lutheran and Reformed doctrine of justification, see: Clark, “Iustitia Imputata Christ,” 274; W. Stanford Reid, “Justification by Faith According to John Calvin,” WTJ 42 (1980): 290–307; David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (Oxford: OUP, 1995), 117–18; Joseph Wawrykow, “John Calvin and Condign Merit,” ARG 83 (1992): 74–75; François Wendel, Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 255–63. 45 46

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification and sanctification



135

is lost. If faith alone is taught, unspiritual men will immediately suppose that works are not necessary.” So how does Luther propose that ministers proceed? “Both topics, faith and works, must be carefully taught and emphasized, but in such a way that they both remain within their limits.”48 How does Luther discuss sanctification? Luther is unambiguous throughout his Galatians commentary that works have no place in a person’s justification. Luther rejects the medieval fides charitate formata and argues that Christ is the form of faith—the believer is united to Christ by faith. But faith is not idle. In contrast to the medieval fides formata view that cites Galatians 5.6 in support of the doctrine of justification, Luther argues that in this text the apostle Paul addresses the subject of the Christian life, or more narrowly sanctification. Inwardly faith looks upon God and outwardly it is manifest in love and works towards one’s neighbor: “Thus a man is a Christian in a total sense: inwardly through faith in the sight of God, who does not need our works; outwardly in the sight of men, who do not derive any benefit from faith but do derive benefit from works or from our love.”49 There are two key images that Luther uses to illustrate the importance and necessity of sanctification beyond his appeal to Gal 5.6. First, he applies the doctrine of the incarnation to the faith-works relationship. He argues that a person is justified by faith alone, but that such a faith does not remain alone, it is not idle. Rather, faith always justifies alone but does become incarnate as man—it is manifest in love.50 Related to the idea of the incarnation of faith, Luther argues that faith is the divinity of works.51 A second illustration that Luther employs is that of a tree and its fruit. He explains that faith is at the root of the tree and it produces fruit on account of faith.52 Luther insists upon the necessity of good works, but the question remains as to whether he links sanctification to union with Christ. The short answer is, yes, Luther links sanctification to union. How does he connect them? For Luther the believer is united to Christ by faith. Broadly, for Luther the connection lies between faith and works. Specifically, Luther explains the consequences of laying hold of Christ by faith: Because you have taken hold of Christ by faith, through whom you are righteous, you should now go and love God and your neighbor. Call upon God, give thanks to Him, LW 27.62–63 (Werke 40.2:78). LW 27.30 (Werke 40.2:36). 50 LW 26.272 (Werke 40.1:425–27). 51 LW 26.266 (Werke 40.1:416–17). 52 LW 26.210 (Werke 40.1:338–40). 48 49

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

136

Martin Luther

preach Him, praise Him, confess Him. Do good to your neighbor, and serve him; do your duty. These are truly good works, which flow from this faith and joy conceived in the heart because we have the forgiveness of sins freely through Christ.53

Noteworthy in Luther’s statement is that the good works flow from faith, and it is by faith that believer’s lay hold of Christ. Christ is the source of the sanctity. In another passage he draws out the relationship between union with Christ and sanctification more explicitly: “By faith we are in Him and He is in us (John 6.56). This Bridegroom, Christ, must be alone with His bride in His private chamber, and all the family and household must be shunted away. But later on, when the Bridegroom opens the door and comes out, then let the servants return to take care of them and serve them food and drink. Then let works and love begin.”54 Luther believes sanctification is not a matter of the imitation of Christ but rather new birth and new creation: “I put on Christ Himself, that is, His innocence, righteousness, wisdom, power, salvation, life, and Spirit.”55 For Luther justification and sanctification are equally connected to union with Christ. But Luther consistently distinguishes between justification and sanctification so the two are not confused. He does not confuse the forensic and the transformative but nevertheless recognizes that both come wrapped in union with Christ—like the ring that envelops the gem.56

6.5 Conclusion This chapter began by mapping the claims of Vos, Gaffin, and Tipton concerning the perceived divide between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions regarding the relationship between justification and union with Christ. The evidence from Luther’s Galatians commentary, one that has confessional status within historic Lutheranism, presents an alternative to the Vos, Gaffin, and Tipton discontinuity thesis. To claim that significant difference exists on the doctrines of justification and union with Christ simply does not accord with the historical record. Testimony from the period further confirms the continuity thesis. An example comes from the work of Lutheran theologian Nicolaus Hunnius (1585–1643), who wrote Diaskepsis Theologica: A Theological Examination of the Fundamental LW 26.133 (Werke 40.1:234). LW 26.137–38 (Werke 40.1:241). 55 LW 26.352 (Werke 40.1:540). 56 LW 26.131–32 (Werke 40.1:232); also Clark, “Iustitia Imputata Christi,” 295. 53 54

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Conclusion



137

Difference between Evangelical Lutheran Doctrine and Calvinist or Reformed Teaching.57 This is a work devoted to explaining the differences between the two communions and states that there is agreement on the doctrine of justification but that Reformed views of predestination, the Lord’s Supper, and christology (related to the communicatio idiomatum) compromised the whole of Reformed theology.58 Hunnius even recounts the Reformed claims of fundamental agreement between the two camps and the Reformed approval of the Augsburg Confession. Hunnius cites statements from the Synod of Dort (1618–19), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Calvin, David Pareus (1548–1622), Amandus Polanus, Georgias Sohnius (1531–89), Johannes Piscator (1546–1625), Guillaume Bucanus, William Perkins, and Lucas Trelcatius to show the agreement on justification between Lutherans and Reformed.59 Reformed theologians of the period even argued that they were the true heirs of Luther’s legacy rather than the Lutherans of the period.60 This historical evidence further chips away at the claim that the Reformed tradition developed a unique approach to the doctrines of union with Christ and justification. Given what Luther writes in his Galatians commentary, it is difficult to say that his formulations are much different than other Reformed theologians in general, or Calvin in specific. True, Luther lacks the terminological precision that develops later in Lutheran and Reformed dogmatics of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-centuries. And unlike other first- and second-generation Reformers who wrote theological systems like Melanchthon’s Loci Communes or Calvin’s Institutes, Luther was an occasional theologian who wrote treatises based upon the exigencies of the day. Perhaps this explains why some in the Reformed community have not explored Luther’s theology—it is not as easily accessed in comparison with others such as Melanchthon. Nicolaus Hunnius, Diaskepsis Theologica: A Theological Examination of the Fundamental Difference between Evangelical Lutheran Doctrine and Calvinist or Reformed Teaching, trans. Richard J. Dinda and Elmer Hohle (1626; Malone: Repristination Press, 1999); idem, Diaskepsis theologica de fundamentali dissensu doctrinae Evangelicae-Lutheranae, et Calvinianae, seu Reformatae (Wittenburg: 1626). 58 There is a great deal of evidence that shows debate on these doctrines between the Lutheran and Reformed camps vis-à-vis the Formula Concord (see, e.g., W. Robert Godfrey, “The Dutch Reformed Response,” and Jill Raitt, “The French Reformed Theological Response,” in Discord, Dialogue, and Concord: Studies in the Lutheran Reformation’s Formula of Concord, ed., Lewis W. Spitz / Wenzel Lohff [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977], 166–77, 178–90). Both Godfrey and Raitt mention nothing of union with Christ or justification being a point of contention between the two communions. 59 Hunnius, Diaskepsis, §§ 49–50 (pp. 22–26, 29–35). 60 Bodo Nischan, “Reformation or Deformation? Lutheran and Reformed Views of Martin Luther in Brandenburg’s ‘Second Reformation,’” in Pietas et Societas: New Trends in Reformation Social History. Essays in Memory of Harold J. Grimm, ed. Kyle C. Sessions / Phillip N. Bebb (Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1985), 203–15. 57

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

138

Martin Luther

Regardless of the reasons as to why Luther has been unexplored, one thing this chapter demonstrates is that union with Christ is not unique to Calvin or the Reformed tradition but is found quite prominently in Luther and even in Lutheranism with the assumption of Luther’s Galatians commentary into the Lutheran confessional corpus. Making a few references to contemporary Lutherans and to a few isolated quotations from Schmid’s compendium is insufficient to establish the views of an entire tradition. Perhaps thinly supported claims facilitate the categorization of views as being Lutheran or Reformed, but such labels are ultimately imprecise and lack much-needed nuance. It is one thing to say that some contemporary Lutherans have formulated the relationship between justification and union with Christ in a particular manner, but such claims do not establish a Lutheran confessional norm. To establish what a tradition has historically espoused, appeal must be made to its confessional documents, and in this case to the Formula Concord and its commendation of Luther’s Galatians commentary. For Luther and the Lutheran confessional corpus, the believer is united to Christ by faith, for Christ is present in faith, but union with Christ does not swallow the distinctions between justification and sanctification. The thesis that Lutheranism holds that union with Christ is one step in the order of salvation that follows faith and justification does not stand in the face of the gathered evidence from Luther’s 1535 Galatians commentary.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

7. Philip Melanchthon

7.1 Introduction Over the years there have been a number of theological figures that have received both praise and criticism by admirers and detractors alike. In the Reformed tradition, Theodore Beza (1519–1605) was hailed in his own day as a great theological mind, but in recent literature is derided as one of the chief culprits in derailing Calvin’s biblically minded Reformation.1 On the Lutheran side of the Reformation Melanchthon holds a similar place. Melanchthon worked sideby-side with Luther in bringing about great Reform and authoring significant works such as the Augsburg Confession (1530) and its Apology (1537). However, in the wake of Luther’s death many began to question the degree to which Melanchthon adhered to Luther’s teachings. Factions developed, those who were loyal to Melanchthon, Phillipists, and those who claimed to be Luther’s true heirs, Gnesio-Lutherans. It would take a confessional document, the Formula Concord (1577) to bring about an established norm for how the Lutheran tradition would be defined.2

7.1.1 Melanchthon as distorter Among the issues that have historically received attention, especially in the recent past, is the supposed divergence between Luther and Melanchthon on the doctrine of justification. Melanchthon, we are told, was the one who took Luther’s doctrine of justification, which was centered more in the participatory categories of union with Christ, and gave it a forensic spin making justification an entirely legal transaction between God and the redeemed sinner. An See relevant literature cited in Richard A. Muller, “The Use and Abuse of a Document: Beza’s Tabula praedestinationis, the Bolsec Controversy, and the Origins of Reformed Orthodoxy,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed., Carl R. Trueman / R. S. Clark (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999), 33–61. 2 On the issues of debate see Robert Kolb, Bound Choice, Election, and Wittenberg Theological Method: From Martin Luther to the Formula Concord (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005); Bengt Hägglund, History of Theology, 4th rev. ed. (1968; St. Louis: Concordia, 2007), 271–84. 1

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

140

Philip Melanchthon

additional layer of historiography has also been added by those who claim that Melanchthon posited the doctrine of justification as a stand-alone imputative act, one that was devoid of reference or connection to the doctrine of union with Christ.3 According to some, a number of Reformed theologians picked up this Lutheran, or more properly Melanchthonian, doctrinal formulation and have promoted it as an orthodox Reformed formulation. The problem, it is argued, is that this Melanchthonian formulation is a deviation from Calvin’s understanding of justification, one that is part of the larger and more foundational doctrine of union with Christ. This chapter will challenge the aforementioned arguments by showing that the differences one finds between Melanchthon’s, Luther’s, and other Reformed formulations of the doctrines of union with Christ and justification are accidental and not substantive.4 When one reads Melanchthon’s explanations on justification, the first-generation reformer places greater emphasis upon the forensic nature of justification, not to the exclusion of any connection whatsoever to union with Christ or sanctification, but because this was the precise point of disagreement between Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians. This chapter will demonstrate this thesis by first surveying the claims made about Melanchthon’s doctrine of justification. Second, we will explore the Melanchthon’s doctrine of justification and, third, the connections between justification, sanctification, and union with Christ in Melanchthon’s theology. Along the way we will explore parallels and differences between Melanchthon and other theologians of the period to demonstrate the consonance of Melanchthon’s thought with his contemporaries. The chapter will then conclude with some general observations about Melanchthon’s place in relationship to the Reformed tradition.

7.1.2 Claims about Melanchthon Over the years a number of claims have swirled around Melanchthon and his doctrine of justification. We can begin with the basic claim that Melanchthon reduced Calvin’s and Luther’s doctrines of justification by union with Christ to 3 See comments to this effect about Lutheranism in general in Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006), 50. 4 On the differences between Luther and Melanchthon’s theology, see Bengt Hägglund, “Melanchthon versus Luther: the Contemporary Struggle,” CTQ 44.2–3 (1980): 123–33. One should note that Hägglund discusses free will, the Lord’s Supper, and church policy; he does not detect differences between the two Reformers on justification or union with Christ.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Introduction



141

an exclusively forensic act—a forensic fiction. This position has been advocated by Stephen Strehle.5 Alongside of Strehle are the claims of Mark Seifrid who argues that Melanchthon increasingly moved away from Luther’s position on justification and embraced a “strictly forensic conception of justification.”6 Seifrid qualifies this claim by stating, “Luther’s conception of justification remains essentially forensic, yet he does not think of it as a bare declaration nor as a mere transaction that has been performed on our behalf to be appropriated later.”7 Another claim comes from Olli-Pekka Vainio, who argues that Melanchthon was keenly interested in formulating his Lutheran theology in such a way as to foster connections with Reformed theologians. Vainio contends that the biggest difference between Luther and Melanchthon is that Luther depicts renewal as participation (or union with) in Christ, whereas Melanchthon depicts renewal as the causal renewal of the soul by the Spirit.8 Alister McGrath is another scholar who has weighed-in with similar observations about Melanchthon’s doctrine of justification. McGrath argues that in his writings subsequent to 1530, Melanchthon increasingly emphasized the idea of an iustitia aliena—the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer. Justification, then, is promoted as being declared righteous. According to McGrath, Melanchthon sharply distinguishes between justification as an external act and regeneration, or the internal process of renewal. Luther, maintains McGrath, regularly employs categories of personal relationship to describe the believer’s union with Christ, such as human marriage. Melanchthon, on the other hand, borrows ideas from the realm of Roman law.9 In addition to the aforementioned opinions, we may add those of Mark Garcia. In Garcia’s study of Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ, he sets out to compare Calvin’s views on union and justification with Lutheran forms of the doctrines, most notably Melanchthon’s understanding.10 According to Garcia, Melanchthon does not seat justification and sanctification within the broader category of union with Christ. Instead, for Melanchthon, justification is genR. Scott Clark, “Iustitia Imputata Christi: Alien or Proper to Luther’s Doctrine of Justification?” CTQ 70 (2006): 280; cf. Stephen Strehle, The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel: Encounter between the Middle Ages and the Reformation (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 80. 6 Mark A. Seifrid, “Paul, Luther, and Justification in Gal 2.15–21,” WTJ 65 (2003): 229. 7 Seifrid, “Paul, Luther, and Justification,” 229. 8 Olli-Pekka Vainio, Justification and Participation in Christ: The Development of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification from Luther to the Formula Concord (1580) (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 64–65. 9 Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, Third edition (1986; Cambridge: CUP, 2005), 238. 10 Mark A. Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008), 7. 5

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

142

Philip Melanchthon

erative of sanctification.11 In other words, Garcia maintains that Melanchthon holds an exclusively forensic doctrine of justification, one that is not connected to union with Christ in any way.12 In fact, Garcia argues that Calvin agreed with Osiander regarding the importance of connecting justification and union and that this agreement marked an explicit departure and disagreement with the Lutheran (primarily Melanchthonian) understanding of justification.13 This means, according to Garcia, that with Calvin as the principal theologian and systematizer of the Reformed tradition, from 1559 onwards, the year of the publication of the definitive edition of the Institutes, there are markedly different Lutheran and Reformed doctrines of justification.

7.1.3 Summary From the aforementioned positions, one can summarize the consensus of this group of scholars that Melanchthon held to an exclusively forensic doctrine of justification, one that is devoid of connection to the doctrine of union with Christ. For Melanchthon, justification is reduced to a stand alone imputative act, and this forensic declaration generates the sanctification of the believer. What follows below challenges this commonly held opinion.

7.2 Justification 7.2.1 Propter Christum To uncover Melanchthon’s views on justification one can turn to his famous Loci Communes. One of the most popular editions of Melanchthon’s Loci Communes was the 1543 edition; this was the edition upon which Martin Chemnitz (1522–86), for example, based his own Loci Theologici.14 In his locus on the gospel, Melanchthon begins by briefly rehearsing the relationship between law and gospel. The law requires perfect obedience, has no power to forgive sins, and will only pronounce a person righteous if he has perfectly satisfied its requirements. The gospel, on the other hand, even when it announces the Garcia, Life in Christ, 104. Garcia, Life in Christ, 213. 13 Garcia, Life in Christ, 212–13, 250–51, 267 n. 24. 14 See Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, trans. J. A. O. Preus, 2 vol. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989). 11 12

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Justification

143

necessity of repentance and good works, contains the promise of the beneficii Christi (“benefits of Christ”). Melanchthon explains that the gospel delivers what it promises all propter Christum (“for the sake of Christ”). This phrase is an important one, as it repeatedly recurs in Melanchthon’s treatment of justification. What do the benefits of Christ include? According to Melanchthon, the primary promise of the gospel is the remission of sins, or what he calls reconciliationis seu iustificationis (“reconciliation or justification”).15 Since justification is the primary promise of the gospel, Melanchthon therefore argues that this doctrine is the sum of the gospel.16

7.2.2 Justification defined Melanchthon goes on to define justification in the following manner: “‘Justification’ means the remission of sins, reconciliation, or the acceptance of a person unto eternal life.” Melanchthon also specifies that to justify is a forensic term—that is, a declaration that a person is righteous.17 True, Melanchthon does illustrate the meaning of the term from Roman history by mentioning that the Roman people justified Scipio (235–183 bc), the Roman general who defeated Hannibal (248–183 bc) in the Second Punic war (218–202 bc).18 However, this is not to say, pace McGrath, that Melanchthon derives the forensic nature of justification from Roman law.19 Rather, Melanchthon explains that the apostle Paul draws the term justify from its Old Testament usage, where the word is used to denote the remission of sins, reconciliation, or acceptance. Melanchthon believes that “all educated people understand that this is the thrust of the Hebrew expression.”20 A person cannot be justified by his own good works but only by faith. And faith, according to Melanchthon, is not merely a historical knowledge (historiae notitiam) but rather a trust (fiducia) in the mercy promised for the sake of (propter) the Son of God.21 For Melanchthon, to believe means both to assent

15 Philip Melanchthon, Loci Communes 1543, trans. J. A. O. Preus (St. Louis: Concordia, 1992), § 7 (CR 21.732–33). 16 Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1543), § 8 (CR 21.739). 17 Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1543), § 8 (CR 21.742). 18 See H. H. Scullard, Scipio Africanus: Soldier and Politician (London: Thames & Hudson, 1970). 19 McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 238. 20 Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1543), § 8 (CR 21.742). 21 Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1543), § 8 (CR 21.743).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

144

Philip Melanchthon

to what is promised and to trust in that promise.22 Melanchthon summarizes his understanding of justification in the following statement: Thus when we say that we are justified by faith, we are saying nothing else than that for the sake of [propter] the Son of God we receive remission of sins and are accounted as righteous. And because it is necessary that this benefit be taken hold of, this is said to be done ‘by faith,’ that is, by trust in the mercy promised us for the sake of [propter] Christ. Thus we must also understand the correlative expression, ‘We are righteous by faith,’ that is, through the mercy of God for the sake of [propter] His Son we are righteous or accepted.23

Melanchthon beats a steady rhythm as he explains justification is by faith and not by works.

7.2.3 Sola fide Melanchthon recognizes, “Some people object that to this trust must be joined love.” This is the common medieval view, that faith is formed by love (fides formata charitate), and therefore a person’s good works must feature in some manner in his justification.24 Melanchthon does not object to the truth that trust (fiducia) must be joined by love. But when the specific question of how a person is justified is in view, then a person’s good works, or in this case, faith formed by love, must fall out of view. Rather, “We point to the Son of God sitting at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us; and we say that because of him [propter hunc] reconciliation is given to us, and we take away the merit of reconciliation from our own good works, whatever they may be.”25 In other words, a person is either justified propter his own good works or propter the works of Christ. Melanchthon explains the significance of the adjective free in relationship to the promise of the gospel: “Therefore it is freely by faith, that the promise might be sure” (Rom 4.16). Melanchthon argues that the word signifies that the believer’s faith is not excluded but that his worthiness (i.e., his own good Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1543), § 8 (CR 21.744). Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1543), § 8 (CR 21.750). 24 See, e.g., Peter Lombard, Sentences, 4 vol., trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007–10), 3.23.3; idem, Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae, 2 vol. (Grottaferrata: Collegii S. Bonavenurae Ad Claras Aquas, 1981), 2.142; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, vol. 31, Faith, trans. T. C. O’Brien (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1974), IIa IIae q. 4 art. 3. 25 Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1543), § 8 (CR 21.750). 22 23

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Sanctification and union with Christ



145

works) are excluded. Instead, the cause of blessing is transferred from ourselves to Christ: “It does not exclude our obedience, but it only transfers the cause of our blessing away from the worthiness of our own obedience and attributes it to Christ, in order that the blessing might be certain.”26

7.3 Sanctification and union with Christ 7.3.1 Justification as a stand-alone act? To this point many of the criticisms leveled against Melanchthon might appear to be valid. Melanchthon does not mention union with Christ or the duplex gratia, for example, as does Calvin.27 And from the survey of his 1543 Loci Communes, Melanchthon does appear to explain justification in isolation from union with Christ. But on the other hand, it seems that such criticisms rely on a facile comparison of Melanchthon to Calvin and other Reformed theologians. Mark Garcia, for example, argues that Melanchthon’s understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification is quite different from Calvin’s understanding. According to Garcia, Calvin roots both justification and sanctification in union with Christ. Whereas for Melanchthon, sanctification follows justification as a consequential necessity. In other words, “Good works are the effects of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, or justification.” Garcia argues that for Melanchthon, union with Christ does not underlie sanctification; rather, justification is at the root of sanctification.28 A closer reading of Melanchthon, however, reveals a different picture than the one that Garcia presents.

7.3.2 Melanchthon and Calvin To be sure, there are certainly terminological differences between Melanchthon and Calvin. Calvin develops and employs the language of union with Christ and coordinates it with his doctrines of justification and sanctification. A proper historical parallel to Melanchthon’s 1543 Loci Communes, for example, is Calvin’s 1541 French edition of his Institutes. In his locus on justification, when Calvin explains the necessity and importance of good works, Calvin explains that all of Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1543), § 7 (CR 21.734). John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1541 French Edition, trans. Elsie Anne Mckee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), § 6 (p. 318). 28 Garcia, Life in Christ, 104. 26

27

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

146

Philip Melanchthon

the benefits of redemption, but more specifically justification and sanctification, are bound together in our “participation in Christ” in which our righteousness (read justification) and sanctification consists.29 Or in the opening paragraph of his chapter on justification, Calvin writes: Now the summary was that by faith we receive and possess Jesus Christ as He is presented to us by God’s goodness and that in participating in Him we have a double grace. The first grace is that when we are reconciled to God by His innocence, instead of having a Judge in heaven to condemn us we have a very merciful Father there. The second grace is that we are sanctified by His Spirit to meditate on and practice holiness and incense of life.30

Melanchthon, on the other hand, does not use this precise language. In fact, in key places where one might assume that Melanchthon would make reference to union with Christ, he demurs.

7.3.3 Propter Christum as union with Christ In Melanchthon’s 1540 Romans commentary, for example, he does not mention union with Christ when commenting on Rom 8.1, a place where one might expect to see a reference to the doctrine given that Paul uses the “in him” or “in Christ” formula: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Calvin, for example, states that the godly have an invincible defense against their trembling consciences because they know that if they “abide in Christ” they are beyond the danger of condemnation.31 Melanchthon, on the other hand, repeatedly uses the phrase propter Christum. Melanchthon writes: “The justified please God on account of Christ, although sin still clings to them, namely concupiscence and evil affections. . . . the regenerate are righteous, not on account of their fulfillment of the Law [non propter impletionem legis] or their own worthiness, but by faith, on account of Christ [sed propter Christum fide sint iusti], that is, accepted, although sin still clings them, that Calvin, Institutes (1541), § 6 (p. 356). The 1539 Latin edition, which underlies the 1541 French translation states: “Neque tamen per opera iustificari, quoniam in Christi participatione, qua iustificamur, non minus sanctificatio continetur quam iustitia” (idem, Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin 1539: Text and Concordance, 4 vol., ed. Richard F. Wevers [Grand Rapids: Meeter Center for Calvin Studies, 1988], 1.184). 30 Calvin, Institutes (1541), § 6 (p. 318). 31 John Calvin, Romans and Thessalonians, CNTC, ed. David W. Torrance / T. F. Torrance, trans. Ross Mackenzie (1960; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), loc. cit., 156; idem, Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica, vol. 13 (Geneva: Droz, 1999), 152. 29

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Sanctification and union with Christ



147

is, concupiscence.”32 The key question naturally arises, What specifically does Melanchthon mean by the phrase propter Christum? Does Melanchthon intend by the phrase to reduce Christ’s work to a stand-alone imputative act, one that is the source of and generates sanctification? Or is this phrase a broader rubric, one that encompasses both forensic and participatory categories? When Melanchthon uses the phrase propter Christum in relation to justification, he makes the point that justification, and redemption more broadly, rests exclusively upon Christ rather than the believer. This conclusion is evident in Melanchthon’s explanation of justification, which was surveyed above. A closer examination of Melanchthon’s treatment of the gospel and justification, loci six and seven in his common places, reveals that the German reformer does coordinate justification with the other benefits of Christ. For example, Melanchthon explains that we are justified propter Christum and therefore not only are we declared righteous, but God also gives to believers the Holy Spirit and eternal life—these blessings are also propter Christum.33 According to Melanchthon, the gift of the Spirit necessarily accompanies the imputation of righteousness. And once again, both righteousness and the gift of the Spirit are propter Christum.34 What function does the Spirit serve in relation to the believer’s redemption?

7.3.4 The gift of the Spirit Melanchthon is clear that the gift of the Spirit is the reception of the Spirit of Christ: “In Isaiah 7 Christ is called Emmanuel, that is, God with us, because He is with us with all His riches. He keeps watch over us and drives away the devil. Furthermore, He pours His Holy Spirit into the hearts of those who pray for Him. Thus in John 14, ‘I will not leave you comfortless.’”35 Hence it is the Spirit of Christ who not only indwells believers but also equips and enables them to do good works. In his locus on good works in the section titled, “How Can Good Works Be Performed?” Melanchthon explains: “In order that love may arise, faith must precede, that is, trust in God’s mercy of which we have been speaking. And we must also understand that when our terrified minds are guided by faith, then at the same time the Holy Spirit is given who arouses in our hearts

Philip Melanchthon, Commentary on Romans, trans. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concorida Publishing House, 1992), loc. cit. 163 (CR 15.658). 33 Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1543), § 7 (CR 21.731). 34 Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1543), § 8 (CR. 21.751). 35 Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1543), § 9 (CR 21.766–67). 32

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

148

Philip Melanchthon

new desires which are in harmony with the law of God.”36 In other words, pace Garcia, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, is the source of the believer’s good works, not the forensic declaration of justification. In the final edition of his Loci Communes (1555), Melanchthon is more explicit on the interconnections between the work of Christ, the Spirit, and good works. For example, Melanchthon writes: “The power to revitalize, pacify, and comfort the heart is not the power of faith, but of Christ himself, who through faith works, comforts, and gives his Holy Spirit in the heart.”37 Melanchthon insists that Christ gives the Holy Spirit along with the forgiveness of sins, or justification.38 Melanchthon not only supports his arguments from Scripture but also adds a number of patristic citations, including Athanasius (c. 293–373) and Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390).39 Melanchthon draws upon these two patristic authors to buttress the point that Christ and the Spirit work in concert in the redemption of man: “When the Son of God, by means of the gospel, works this comfort in our hearts, points us to the gracious will of the Father, and gives us his Holy Spirit, then we are reborn, and have in us the divine light and the beginning of eternal life.” Once again, Melanchthon unites Christ and the Spirit in the work of redemption but grounds this joint effort, not upon man and his worthiness, but upon Christ: “Through this faith our hearts conclude that our own sins are forgiven and that we are pleasing to God for the sake of Christ, who gives us his merit and clothes us with his righteousness.”40 In a word, when Melanchthon writes of justification and sanctification, he does not use the language of union with Christ or any of the common variants (“in him,” “in Christ,” participatione, insitio Christi, or unio cum Christo), but instead uses the language of propter Christum to drive readers of his works to find the beneficii Christi, righteousness and good works, not in themselves but in Christ.

Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1543), § 9 (CR 21.765). Philip Melanchthon, Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine: Loci Communes 1555, trans. Clyde L. Manschreck (1965; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), § 11, p. 159. 38 Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1555), § 12, p. 160. 39 For Melanchthon’s use of patristic sources see E. P. Meijering, Melanchthon and Patristic Thought: The Doctrines of Christ and Grace, the Trinity and the Creation (Leiden: Brill, 1983); Peter Fraenkel, Testimonia Patrum: The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon (Geneva: Droz, 1961). 40 Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1555), 165, emphasis. 36 37

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Melanchthon and Osiander



149

7.4 Melanchthon and Osiander But even then, this does not mean that Melanchthon’s works are devoid of any formal mention or reference whatsoever to the doctrine of union with Christ. In Melanchthon’s 1543 Loci Communes reference to the doctrine of union with Christ appears in his treatment of the Lord’s Supper. Melanchthon explains that in the Lord’s Supper, “Christ bears witness by this great guarantee that you are received and that you have become a member of His body.”41 Those who are redeemed receive the benefits of Christ and are united to him—they are members of his body. The place, though, where Melanchthon becomes quite explicit and addresses head-on the question of union with Christ as it relates to justification is one of his letters written on the occasion of the controversy over the teachings of Andreas Osiander (1498–1552). Osiander argues that in a person’s justification the believer actually partakes of the essential righteousness of Christ.42 A number of Reformers responded in opposition to Osiander.

7.4.1 Union and the twofold blessing In Melanchthon’s first reply to Osiander’s views, he states a number of things quite specifically. For example, he uses parallel language of the duplex gratia in his explanation of Rom 5.15, where Paul speaks of two things (zwei Ding), grace, the forgiveness of sins and the gift, the indwelling presence of God, which renews the sinner. Both of these things are obtained through the merit of Christ.43 Melanchthon contends that all of the churches confess that redeemed sinners must be transformed (i.e., sanctification), and the triune God comforts and indwells the redeemed wherever the gospel is received by faith (und also in uns sind und wohnen, so das Evangelium mit Glauben angenommen wird).44 Melanchthon is explicit in his affirmation of union with Christ. He stipulates that in order to understand the glory of Christ one must know his merit and his work (seinen Verdienst und seine Wirkung); the blessing of salvation comes through his merit and self-communication (merito et communicatione sui). In Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1543), § 13 (CR 21.866). Cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion [1559], LCC, vol. 20–21, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.11.5–6, 10; Strehle, Catholic Roots, 74–79; David C. Steinmetz, Reformers in the Wings (1971; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 91–99. 43 Philip Melanchthon, “Iudicium de Osiandro 1552, no. 5017” (CR 7.893–894.); cf. Lowell C. Green, How Melanchthon Helped Luther Discover the Gospel (Fallbrook: Verdict Publications, 1980), 230. 44 Melanchthon, “Iudicium de Osiandro,” CR 7.894–95; cf. Green, Melanchthon, 231. 41

42

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

150

Philip Melanchthon

support of his claim, Melanchthon cites 1 John 1.7, Heb 10.10, and Isa 53.5.45 Melanchthon argues that the indwelling presence of God is not the cause of a person’s justification but rather the merit of Christ is the cause.46 Melanchthon again addresses these matters in another refutation of Osiander, dated from 1555, “We clearly affirm the presence or indwelling of God in the reborn.” Here is a clear statement of the believer’s union with God. Melanchthon, however, does go on to stipulate concerning the nature of this union. Melanchthon explains: We do not say that God is present in them like the power of the sun at work upon the veins of the earth, but that the Father and the Son are actually present, breathing the Holy Spirit into the heart of the believer. This presence or indwelling is what is called spiritual renewal. This personal union, however, is not the same as the union of the divine and human natures in Christ but is an indwelling like someone living in a separable domicile in this life.47

Melanchthon elaborates that this indwelling (habitationem) does not endure lest faith first shines and justifies a person before God, and that the person is accepted unto eternal life on account of the obedience of Christ (propter mediatoris obedientiam).48

7.4.2 The ground of justification Melanchthon is careful to stipulate the ground of a person’s justification, namely that a person is not justified because of the renewal that occurs within him; this would be a capitulation both to Osiander as well as to the Roman Catholic understanding of justification by fides formata charitate. Melanchthon therefore argues that though great Old and New Testament saints such as Moses, Elijah, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Peter, and Paul were all indwelt by Christ, but they never claimed to be righteous propter inhabitationem but propter mediatoris obedientiam et intercessionem per misericordiam (“but on account of the obedience of the Mediator and his gracious intercession”). Melanchthon maintains that the reason why the obedience of the mediator must be the ground of a person’s Melanchthon, “Iudicium de Osiandro,” CR 7.896–97; cf. Green, Melanchthon, 231. Melanchthon, “Iudicium de Osiandro,” CR 7.897; cf. Green, Melanchthon, 231. 47 Philip Melanchthon, “Confutation of Osiander (Sept 1555),” in Documents from the History of Lutheranism 1517–1750, ed. Eric Lund (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 208 (CR. 8.582). 48 Melanchthon, “Confutation of Osiander,” 208 (CR 8.582–83). 45

46

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Implications of Melanchthon’s views



151

redemption is because the obedience of believers is always tainted by sin. Moreover, appealing to Eph 1.4 and 3.1ff, Melanchthon argues that believers were “chosen in love” in Christ and that they have access in confidence through faith in Christ.49 What is important to note is that some might think that Melanchthon’s statements in the midst of the Osiander controversy represent a change in the views presented in his 1543 Loci Communes. However, in the preparation of the final 1555 edition of his Loci Commnues, Melanchthon only changed one non-essential word in his locus on justification.50 Melanchthon therefore likely believed that his refutations of Osiander were merely elaborations of his views, not a substantive change.

7.5 Implications of Melanchthon’s views 7.5.1 Summary In summary, in light of the surveyed evidence, it does not seem warranted to draw the conclusion that Melanchthon holds a forensic doctrine of justification without connection in any way to union with Christ. Melanchthon, like other Reformed and Lutheran theologians, holds to a forensic doctrine of justification. Melanchthon should not be singled out on this issue. On the other hand, Melanchthon’s view of justification cannot be characterized as a stand alone imputative act that is generative of sanctification. Melanchthon clearly affirms the inseparability but distinct character of the benefits of Christ, justification and sanctification. Moreover, Melanchthon does coordinate these benefits to union with Christ in his own unique way. Granted, he does not use some of the common nomenclature, but he does link both benefits to the work of the Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, and in the face of the Osiander controversy when he could have distanced himself from the doctrine altogether, he nevertheless maintains the doctrine of union with Christ. In effect, Melanchthon is in substantive agreement with both Luther and Calvin on the relationship between justification, sanctification, and union with Christ.51

Melanchthon, “Confutation of Osiander,” 208–09 (CR 8.583). Green, Melanchthon, 232. 51 Regarding the similarities to Luther, see Carl R. Treuman, Luther’s Legacy: Salvation and English Reformers 1525–56 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 72. 49 50

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

152

Philip Melanchthon

7.5.2 Melanchthon’s terminology The question does arise, Why does Melanchthon consistently appeal to the phrase propter Christum when explaining the benefits of Christ? Why does he avoid the nomenclature of union with Christ? While there can be no definitive answers to these questions, there are some likely possibilities. First, theologians can be a quirky lot, and what one finds satisfying another will reject. To put a theological spin on an old cliché, one man’s ordinary term is another man’s treasure. In this case, Melanchthon employs the phrase propter Christum as an all-encompassing way of pointing people to the source of all of their redemptive blessings. Philip is rigorously consistent, as this is the same language he employs in the Augsburg Confession (1530): Likewise, they teach that human beings cannot be justified before God by their own powers, merits, or works. But they are justified as a gift on account of Christ through faith [propter Christum per fidem] when they believe that they are received into grace and that their sins are forgiven on account of Christ [propter Christum], who by his death made satisfaction for our sins. God reckons this faith as righteousness (Rom. 3[.21–26] and 4[.5]).52

Hence, while Melanchthon’s own personal explanations of justification and union with Christ might not have been employed by many, his authorship of the Augsburg Confession and its Apology and their broad acceptance show that his formulations are neither out of the norm nor suspect.

7.5.3 Reception of Melanchthon’s formulations In fact, Calvin and a number of Reformed theologians indicate their agreement with and approval of the Augsburg Confession. In his refutation of the Canons of Dort (1618–19) Lutheran theologian, Nicolaus Hunnius, explains how Reformed assemblies expressed their agreement with the Augsburg Confession.53 Perhaps one of the documents that Hunnius has in mind is the Harmony 52 Augsburg Confession, § 4, in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb / Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 39–40; idem, in The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, 3 vol., ed. Philip Schaff (1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 3.10. 53 Nicolaus Hunnius, Diaskepsis Theologica: A Theological Examination of the Fundamental Difference between Evangelical Lutheran Doctrine and Calvinist or Reformed Teaching (1626; Malone: Repristination

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Implications of Melanchthon’s views

153

of Confessions assembled under Beza’s oversight in 1581. In this harmony the articles from a number of editions of the Augsburg Confession are included alongside of other Reformed confessions.54 Concerning the 1540 edition of the Confession, one that does not differ from the 1530 edition on the articles concerning justification, Calvin writes: “In regard to the Confession of Augsburg my answer is, that (as it was published at Ratisbon) it does not contain a word contrary to our doctrine. If there is any ambiguity in its meaning, there cannot be a more competent interpreter than its author, to whom, as his due, all pious and learned men will readily pay this honor.”55 Likewise, Luther expresses his satisfaction with the confession in a letter dated on May 15, 1530: “I have read over M. Philip’s Apology. It pleases me very well, and I know of nothing therein to be improved or changed; nor would it become me, for I cannot move so softly and lightly. Christ our Lord grant that it may bring much and great fruit, as we hope and pray.”56 In Melanchthon’s Apology for the Augsburg Confession, he repeatedly employs the same terminology found in his Loci Communes and Romans commentary: “They condemn us for teaching that people receive the forgiveness of sins not on account of their own merits but freely on account of Christ [non propter sua merita, sed gratis propter Christum], by faith in him.”57 In addition to the same recurring nomenclature of propter Christum, Melanchthon, as in his Loci Communes and commentary, also attributes the power of good works, not to justification, but to the Holy Spirit: “It is impossible to keep the law without Christ and, second, it is impossible to keep the law without the Holy Spirit.”58 Melanchthon’s work on the Apology was adopted by the Lutheran churches as part of its confessional corpus.

Press, 2001), § 5 (p. 4); idem, Diaskepsis theologica de fundamentali dissensu doctrinae EvangelicaeLutheranae, & Calvinianae, seu Reformatae (Wittenberg: 1626), § 5 (p. 3). 54 Peter Hall, ed., The Harmony of Protestant Confessions: Exhibiting the Faith of the Churches of Christ, Reformed After the Pure and Holy Doctrine of the Gospel (London: John F. Shaw, 1842), 169–86; idem, An Harmony of the Confessions of the Faith of the Christian and Reformed Churches (Cambridge: Thomas Thomas, 1586), 262–74. 55 John Calvin, “Last Admonition to Joachim Westphal,” in John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, 7 vol., ed. Henry Beveridge (1849; Edinburgh: Banner, 2009), 2.355 (CO 9.148 [CR 38]). 56 As cited in Clyde Leonard Manschreck, Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer (1958; Westport: Greenwood Press, 1975), 181; cf. Hägglund, “Melanchthon vs. Luther,” 128. 57 Melanchthon, “Apology of the Augsburg Confession,” § 4, in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb / Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 120; idem, “Apologia Confessionis,” in Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 158. 58 Melanchthon, “Apology,” 126–27 (p. 140); idem, “Apologia,” 185.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

154

Philip Melanchthon

7.5.4 The reception of Melanchthon’s thought A second consideration is the widespread influence of Melanchthon beyond the Lutheran camp and into the Reformed wing of the Reformation. Melanchthon’s Loci Communes, for example, was the century’s most frequently printed introduction to theology with 115 editions appearing by 1560 alone.59 In the early days of the English Reformation, Thomas Cranmer introduced the Ten Articles, the first confessional document proposed for adoption in the wake of the break with Rome; the Ten Articles are the first and only document to define the doctrine of justification in the English church in the 1530s.60 Article five on justification draws upon phrases and Scripture passages straight out of Melanchthon’s Loci Communes: Sinners attain this justification by contrition and faith joined with charity . . . not as though our contrition, or faith, or any works proceeding thereof, can worthily merit or deserve to attain the said justification; for the only mercy and grace of the Father, promised freely unto us for his Son’s sake, Jesus Christ, and the merits of his blood and passion, be the only sufficient and worthy causes thereof.

In addition to this statement, the fifth article also echoes Melanchthon in the manner in which it explains the necessity of good works: “For although acceptation to everlasting life be conjoined with justification, yet our good works be necessarily required to the attaining of everlasting life; and we being justified, be necessarily bound, and it is our necessary duty to do good works.”61 Melanchthon’s locus on justification appears at the root of the English Reformation as an important source document. Melanchthon’s influence is not restricted to English shores but extended across the European continent. And in this vein what some analysts do not consider is the chronology of the Reformation. What accounts for Melanchthon’s, as well as Luther’s, influence is that other reformers, such as Calvin, 59 Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale UP, 2002), 74. 60 John Schofield, Philip Melanchthon and the English Reformation (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 68. 61 Ten Articles, § 5, in Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss, ed., Creeds and Confessions in the Christian Tradition, 3 vol. (New Haven: Yale UP, 2003), 2.306, emphasis. In the 1535 edition of Melanchthon’s Loci Communes he states, for example, “Et tamen bona opera it necessaria sunt ad vitam aeternam, quia sequi reconciliationem necessario debent. Ideo Paul ait 1 Cor. 9.16” (CR 21.429). This is the same text cited by the Ten Articles. Melanchthon also cites Rom 8.12–14 and Matt 19.17 as do the Ten Articles (cf. CR 21.429; Ten Articles, § 5, in Creeds and Confessions, 2.306; Richard Rex, Henry VIII and the English Reformation [New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993], 146–47).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Implications of Melanchthon’s views



155

are second-generation theologians. The English reformers were reading the works of Luther and Melanchthon before Calvin had even published the first edition of his Institutes in 1536. Moreover, when those such as Garcia contend that there are unique Reformed doctrines of justification and union with Christ, one has to ask about Melanchthon’s influence upon Calvin and other Reformed theologians such as Andreas Hyperius (1511–64), Bullinger, or Ursinus.

7.5.5 Melanchthon’s influence Richard Muller has identified the significance of the 1539 edition of Calvin’s Institutes and his 1540 commentary on Romans for understanding the Genevan’s theology. Muller explains that Calvin was influenced by Melanchthon both in the exegesis of his commentary as well as the structure of his revised Institutes.62 Not only was Calvin influenced by Melanchthon in these ways, but he also had words of praise for the Lutheran theologian; Calvin wrote the preface to the 1546 French edition of Melanchthon’s Loci Communes.63 And Calvin learned the tertius usus leges, the great hallmark of Reformed theology, from Melanchthon.64 In his analysis of Calvin’s and Melanchthon’s commentaries on Romans, Muller concludes: “We have the impression that the Praeceptor Germaniae also served in some capacity as a Praeceptor Calvini.”65 Hyperius is a mediating figure between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, but was nevertheless admired by Calvin as an erudite theologian. Hyperius was greatly influenced by Melanchthon. Hyperius contributed to the development of both Lutheran and Reformed theology.66 Bullinger, another first-generation Reformed theologian, was brought into the Reformation through the writings of Luther and Melanchthon.67 And Ursinus studied with Melanchthon at Wittenberg Richard Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: OUP, 2000), 126–30. 63 John Calvin, “Préface de la Somme de Melanchthon 1546,” (CO 9.847–50 [CR 37]); cf. Muller, Unaccommodated Calvin, 126. 64 Timothy J. Wengert, Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 177–210. 65 Richard A. Muller, “‘Scimus Enim Quod Lex Spiritualis Est’: Melanchthon and Calvin on the Interpretation of Romans 7.14–23,” in Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) and the Commentary, ed., Timothy J. Wengert / M. Patrick Graham (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 236. 66 C. M. Dent, Protestant Reformers in Elizabethan Oxford (Oxford: OUP, 1983), 90–91; Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 41. 67 David C. Steinmetz, Reformers in the Wings (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971), 134. 62

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

156

Philip Melanchthon

from 1550–57 and eventually went on to co-author the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) with Caspar Olevianus (1536–87). The Heidelberg Catechism is one of the great catechetical pillars of the Reformed tradition; there are many parallels between Melanchthon’s positions and those of the Catechism.68 Beyond the first and second-generation reformers, Reformed theologians in the High Orthodox period such as Francis Turretin and Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706) positively appeal to Melanchthon. Turretin, for example, explains that the two witnesses of Rev 11.3 point to the fact that God typically raises up witnesses for the gospel of Christ in pairs of two. In the Old Testament God raised Moses and Aaron, Elijah and Elisha, Zerubbabel and Joshua. In the New Testament Christ sent pairs of the disciples to preach. And in the Reformation, God raised Jan Hus (ca. 1369–1415) and Jerome of Prague (1379–1416) in Bohemia, Zwingli and Oecolampadius in Switzerland, Luther and Melanchthon in Germany, and Calvin and Farel in France.69 In the prolegomena to his Theoretica-Practica Theologia van Mastricht argues that Scripture is primary in the task of theology, but that a good theologian needs to consider the ancient creeds, patristics, medieval theologians, and the sixteenth-century Reformers including, Zwingli, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus, Benedictus Aretius (1522–1574), Vermigli, Ursinus, and Zanchi.70 In other words, if Calvin led a decided break against Lutheran formulations in the wake of the Osiander controversy, no one seems to have noticed. This is not to say that Reformed theologians embraced everything Melanchthon wrote, as there is unquestionable dissent on issues such as free will and predestination, for example. But on the doctrines in question, justification and union with Christ, there does not appear to be any record to substantiate Garcia’s claims. Additionally, the list of names cited by Turretin and van Mastricht mitigates the claim that Calvin served as the principal theologian and systematizer for the Reformed tradition; Calvin is listed as one among other significant theologians.

Lyle D. Bierma, “What Hath Wittenberg to Do with Heidelberg? Philip Melanchthon and the Heidelberg Catechism,” in Melanchthon in Europe: His Work and Influence Beyond Wittenberg, ed., Karin Maag (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 103–21. 69 Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vol., trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2002–07), 8.7.10. 70 Petrus van Mastricht, Theoretico-practica theologia, qua, per singula capita theologica, pars exegetica, dogmatica, elenchtica & practica, perpetuâ successione coniugantur (Utrecht: 1699), 1.1.3 (pp. 2–3); cf. Adriaan C. Neele, Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706). Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 84. 68

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Conclusions

157

7.5.6 The polemical context A third consideration is the historical context in which Melanchthon constructed his theology. One of the points that does not seem to warrant much attention in the surveyed literature on Melanchthon’s views on justification and union with Christ is the polemical context in which the German reformer wrote his theology. Theologians from the middle ages, for example, had long affirmed the doctrine of union with Christ. Union with Christ was not in dispute, as is evidenced by Melanchthon’s untroubled affirmations of the teaching in his refutation of Osiander. The specific issue under debate is imputed versus infused righteousness and the role of faith; is a person justified by faith alone or by a fides formata charitate? It seems reasonable that Melanchthon would emphasize the specific point of contention and not dwell on the areas of agreement.

7.6 Conclusions In the survey of Melanchthon’s works, his Loci Communes, his Romans commentary, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and especially his refutation of Osiander, the best explanation that fits the evidence is that Melanchthon’s doctrines justification, sanctification, and union with Christ are substantively the same as those of Luther and Calvin as offered in the 1541 edition of the Institutes. True, Melanchthon’s nomenclature is somewhat different than Calvin and Luther, but his repeated use of the phrase propter Christum, the inseparability of the joint work of Christ and the Spirit and justification and sanctification, shows that Melanchthon affirms the same things that fall under the rubric of union with Christ. Melanchthon cannot be singled out as having an exclusively forensic view of salvation. Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon are of one mind regarding the forensic nature of justification. Given this harmony, claims that Calvin moved away from a Lutheran view of justification and union with Christ in the wake of the Osiander controversy do not ring true in the absence of explicit statements by Calvin. Therefore, the attempt to argue that Calvin offers a unique Reformed understanding of justification and union with Christ, one that was carried on into the subsequent tradition, does not stand the test of close scrutiny. Melanchthon is not a Reformed theologian, but in spite of significant differences of opinion on some doctrines, there are some issues, such as justification, where Lutherans and the Reformed agree. Given this agreement, one cannot tease out Melanchthon’s influence upon the Reformed tradition and label it specious.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

8. Juán de Valdés

8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 Biography Juán de Valdés (1498–1541) is not a household name like Luther or Calvin when it comes to Reformation studies.1 In some respects he was a marginal player in the broader drama of the sixteenth-century Reformation. But this does not mean that students of Reformation history should ignore his contribution to the development of the Reformed doctrines of union with Christ and justification. Valdés was the son of a Spanish nobleman and trained at the university of Alcalá near Madrid, Spain, where he devoted his time to the study of the Scriptures. It was there at the university that he was discipled by a Franciscan reformer, Pedro Ruiz de Alcaraz (ca. 1480 – ca. 1539) and introduced to Pauline theology.2 Both became members of the Alumbrados (“the enlightened ones”) and were tried by the Spanish Inquisition. Valdés eventually fled from Spain to Italy in 1531. Though Valdés remained in the Roman Catholic Church, it was during this time in Italy that he was the most theologically fruitful. From 1536 until his death in 1541 Valdés wrote a number of theological works. The Spiritual Alphabet, published around 1536, was the first manifesto published in Italy to articulate a Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone.3 He also wrote a number of biblical commentaries on Romans, 1 Corinthians, the first book of the Psalter, and the gospel of Matthew. But his most influential work was One Hundred Ten Divine Considerations, which was completed by 1540.4

1 For an accessible biography of Valdés, see B. B. Wiffen, Life and Writings of Juán de Valdés (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1865). 2 See José Nieto, “The Franciscan Alumbrados and the Prophetic-Apocalyptic Tradition,” SCJ 8/3 (1977): 3–16; idem, Juán de Valdés and the Origins of the Spanish and Italian Reformation (Geneva: Droz, 1970), 60–80. 3 Nieto, Origins, 315; Juán de Valdés, Alfabeto Christiano (London: 1861). 4 Juán de Valdés and Don Benedetto, The Benefit of Christ: Living Justified Because of Christ’s Death, ed. James M. Houston (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2003), xv-xvi.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Introduction



159

8.1.2 Work and influence Valdés’ work is based upon topics for conversation that he and a number of friends discussed while picnicking in the countryside outside of Naples. Valdés met with his friends from 1536–41. In his Considerations Valdés sets forth the doctrine of justification by faith alone and its impact upon the Christian life.5 As was commonplace in the theology of the day, Valdés coordinates justification with union with Christ, but in contrast to typical medieval formulations, Valdés accords justification priority over sanctification. There is a degree of mystery surrounding how Valdés arrived at this doctrinal conclusion. There are some who argue that the Spanish reformer arrived at his conclusions independently, in isolation from reading the works of other reformers such as Luther or Calvin.6 However, more recent research has determined that Luther first “spoke Spanish” through translation and appropriation by Valdés.7 In fact, Josiah Simler (1530–76) learned most likely from first-hand communication with Vermigli, that Valdés had exposure to the works of Luther, Bucer, Zwingli, and Erasmus (1466–1536).8 So while Valdés was likely influenced by the likes of Luther on the doctrine of justification, this does not mean that his views are identical to Luther’s or that his work remained isolated to the confines of Naples, Italy because it was considered unoriginal. After his death Valdés’ Considerations was taken to Basle where it was published in 1550. Subsequent to this publication, Considerations was translated into French and published in Lyons in 1565 and Paris in 1567, and it was also translated into Dutch and published in Amsterdam in 1565. In the following century the work was taken to Oxford and Cambridge and published in English in 1646.9 From this vantage point, it is difficult to measure the precise impact Valdés had upon the Reformed tradition. We will never know for certain how many were influenced by Valdés. However, one point of influence where there is no doubt lies with Valdés’ relationship with Vermigli. Valdés, Benefit of Christ, xiv. Nieto, Origins, 169–71, 314. 7 Frank A. James, III, “Juán de Valdés before and After Peter Martyr Vermigli: The Reception of Gemina Praedestinatio in Valdés’ Later Thought,” ARG 83 (1992): 183. James cites the work of Carlos Gilly, “Juán de Valdés: Übersetzer und Bearbeiter von Luthers Schriften in seinem Diálogo de Doctrina,” ARG 74 (1983): 257–305. 8 Josiah Simler, Oration, in Peter Martyr Vermigli, Common Places, trans. Anthony Marten (London: 1583). Note, the oration is included in Vermigli’s works and follows the appendix with Vermigli’s letters. The oration is not paginated. The source of the reference comes from eighth page. Cf. James, “Juán de Valdés,” 187 n. 44, 207. 9 Valdés, Benefit of Christ, xvi. 5 6

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

160

Juán de Valdés

Vermigli was a part of the Spaniard’s circle of friends and Valdés played a key part in winning Vermigli over to the Reformation.10 Simler recounts in Vermigli’s funeral oration that Valdés had given Vermigli “a greater light of God’s truth,” and that Vermigli joined the congregation that Valdés pastored. In fact, when Valdés was in the process of working through 1 Corinthians in private readings, which later formed the substance of his commentary, Vermigli likely attended Valdés’ readings, and likewise, Valdés likely attended the lectures of Vermigli.11 In Vermigli’s mind, Valdés was one of the greatest Pauline exegetes.12 This means that a key source for the development of the Reformed understanding of union with Christ and justification lies in Naples in the writings of a Spaniard, not just in Wittenberg or Geneva. Theological traffic certainly ran in a southern direction as the works of Luther and other reformers made their way into Spain and Italy, but the theological traffic also ran in the opposite direction as men, ideas, and books influenced or written by Valdés made their way north.13 Hence this chapter surveys Valdés’ Considerations and sets forth his understanding of the relationship between union with Christ and justification. But this chapter will also draw upon Valdés’ other works. In particular, we will see that Valdés accords justification priority over sanctification, all the while affirming the doctrine of union with Christ. This chapter also lays the historical groundwork for understanding the theology of Vermigli on union and justification, which will be covered in a subsequent chapter.

8.2 Union with Christ 8.2.1 Covenant and redemption Valdés begins his Considerations with an account of the fall of man. Valdés believes that all those in Adam have failed to obey the law of nature.14 In the fall man lost the image and likeness of God through disobedience as well as his immortality. Valdés stipulates that the image of God is in fact Christ. Valdés coordinates man’s creation with christology by identifying Christ as the image 10 Philip McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy: An Anatomy of Apostasy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), 148–49; James, “ Juán de Valdés,” 181; Massimo Firpo, “The Italian Reformation and Juán de Valdés,” SCJ 27/2 (1996): 356. 11 Simler, Oration, 8–9. James presents convincing evidence that Vermigli likely influenced Valdés’ doctrine of predestination (“Juán de Valdés,” 195–08). 12 McNair, Peter Martyr, 150. 13 Firpo, “Italian Reformation,” 363. 14 Juán de Valdés, Divine Considerations (Cambridge: 1646), VIII (p. 24).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ



161

of God rather than setting forth abstracted communicable attributes of God to define the divine image. For Valdés, Christ was “good, merciful, just, faithful, and true” and therefore ultimately defines the image of God for man.15 But since man lost this image in the fall, God has sent Christ to fulfill man’s obligation to the broken creation covenant. Christ brings redemption through the new covenant, which has four realities: We believe four things, and God does four things for us. We believe that Christ is the son of God, that he died, that he rose, and that he lives. And God makes us his sons, he justifies us, he raises us up, and he gives us eternal life. Of the two first we have enjoyment in this present life, and these make us that we love God, that we depend upon him, according to the obligation wherewith we were born, having overcome a great part of our evil inclination. Of the other two we shall have enjoyment in that other life. Now we experimenting here in this life, in these two first things, the truth that is in the covenant, which Christ made between God and us, we assure ourselves of the truth which is in the two last.16

At this point, Valdés sets forth these realities, all of which center upon Christ’s work for and applied to the believer. Valdés also acknowledges something akin to an already not-yet tension in redemption where the believer is already freed from punishment and in possession of justification, but is not yet in possession of the resurrection, eternal life, and the freedom from the inclination to sin.

8.2.2 Benefits of redemption But we should not proceed before acknowledging another key principal for Valdés. Namely, redemption is covenantal and involves different elements such as justification and glorification, but is also summarily denoted as union with Christ. Valdés writes: “I understand, that they, who being called and drawn by God unto the grace of the gospel, make the righteousness of Christ to become their own, and are incorporated in Christ do in this present life recover, in some measure, that part of the image of God, that appertains to the soul; and in the life everlasting, they recover that part also which appertains to the body.”17 Valdés sees no tension between affirming the forest, union with Christ, or the trees, Valdés, Considerations, I (p. 2). Valdés, Considerations, VIII (p. 27). 17 Valdés, Considerations, I (p. 2). 15 16

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

162

Juán de Valdés

the different elements of redemption. He can also characterize the believer’s union with Christ in terms of covenant. Categories that moderns find unease in holding together were not at all incompatible in Valdés’ understanding. In contrast to a common view of his day, that a person was brought into union with Christ through baptism, Valdés believes that a person is united to Christ by faith.18 But once again, the already not-yet tension surfaces in Valdés’ thought; though a person is united to Christ does not automatically mean that he is totally free from indwelling sin. Rather, “in the reparation of man in his regeneration and renovation” sinners must seek “to recover the image and similitude of God” that was lost in the fall.19 Here, by regeneration, Valdés means what is later called sanctification, the gradual transformation of the sinner, not the effectual call or alpha-point of a person’s new birth.20

8.2.3 Union and effectual calling So at this point, one can conclude that Valdés believes union with Christ embraces faith, justification, sanctification, and glorification. But what about regeneration (or effectual calling)? Is the believer united to Christ before he places his faith in Christ? There does seem to be evidence that confirms Valdés contends that the sinner is united to Christ at the moment of his regeneration. Valdés distinguishes between the two ways of knowing God: through creation and through Christ. Valdés holds that fallen man can attain knowledge of God through the creation. But man can never know of the full blessing of God except through Christ: Men, while they still remain men, come indeed to a kind of certain knowledge of God, by the reading of Holy Scripture, and by the contemplation of creatures, but they find not happiness in this knowledge. For in truth happiness does not consist therein. But it consists only in that knowledge of God, which they get that leave to be men, and know God, as they are incorporated in Christ, first knowing Christ.21

Valdés argues that when fallen man looks upon the world, it is like looking at the painting of an inferior artist—the knowledge is, at best, second hand. There Valdés, Considerations, XCIV (p. 353). Valdés, Benefits of Christ, CVI (p. 403). 20 Nieto, Origins, 322 n. 105; cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, LCC vol. 20–21, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeil (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.6–10. 21 Valdés, Considerations, II (p. 4). 18 19

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ



163

is a big difference, argues Valdés, for those who have the spirit of the very artist himself within them: “And that knowledge of God, which they get to know Christ, as I understand, is like to that knowledge, which I have of the King, by having seen his image, and by having had very particular information of all his usages, by the relation of persons, who are very inward with the King.”22 Valdés does not directly address the relationship between regeneration and union with Christ, but all signs point in the direction that in order for a person to exercise faith, he must first have a saving knowledge of Christ. A man cannot believe in one whom he does not know. But such matters begin to ask questions that later generations unfold through a more detailed ordo salutis. Suffice it to say that for Valdés, union with Christ is necessary to know Christ, hence the moment of a person’s regeneration is undoubtedly bound up with the exercise of faith. Valdés elaborates upon these points when he gives the four ways that a person knows God through Christ: “The first is by the revelation of Christ. The second is by the communication of the Holy Spirit. The third is by Christian regeneration, and renovation. And the fourth is by a certain inward vision.”23

8.2.4 Four ways of knowing Christ What specifically does Valdés understand by these four ways of knowing Christ? Valdés cites John 14.9 in support of his first point, “He who sees me sees the Father also.” In addition to this text, Valdés also cites Col 1.15 and Matt 11.27. In terms of the second way, Valdés cites 1 Cor 2.10 to support his claim that a person must receive the Holy Spirit in order to believe in Christ. But Valdés also stipulates that Christ gives the Spirit to sinners. The Spirit assists the believer so that he knows the justice of God through his justification. The Spirit shows the truth of God by enabling the believer to know that God fulfills in the believer what he has promised. And, the Spirit shows the believer the goodness and mercy of God through God’s longsuffering with the believer’s infirmities and sin. Valdés does not, however, divorce this knowledge of Christ through the Spirit from the objective word: “And so I come to know all these things in God, not now by relation of Scriptures only, but by that which the holy spirit works in me which is communicated to me through Christ.”24 Valdés, Considerations, II (p. 5). Valdés, Considerations, LXXXV (p. 308). 24 Valdés, Considerations, LXXXV (p. 310). 22 23

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

164

Juán de Valdés

The third way a person knows Christ is through regeneration and renewal, by which Valdés means sanctification. According to Valdés, the one who has been renewed by the Holy Spirit will seek to rid himself of the image of Adam and seek to recover the image of God in Christ, “Which is proper unto us by Christian regeneration, by which we are as it were naturally the sons of grace, adopted sons of God; we are the friends of God, pious, obedient, and faithful; and so by little and little, we come to know God in us.”25 Here one should note that Valdés incorporates the doctrine of adoption, yet another element of the believer’s union with Christ. The fourth way, according to Valdés, is by a certain inward vision. Here Valdés reflects something of the mystical tradition to which he was indebted.26 Through the believer’s intense desire to behold God’s face (cf. Exo 33.18), the person comes to know God. One should note two things here. First, recall that Valdés believes the word of God is necessary for a true knowledge of him. And second, Valdés ultimately reserves this inward vision for the consummation and the beatific vision.27

8.3 Justification 8.3.1 Justification and eternal life Valdés has a very different understanding of the doctrine of justification in comparison with medieval views, such as Aquinas. Theologians of the middle ages typically construe justification as a life-long process where a person acquires greater quantities of righteousness through the infused habit received in baptism.28 Baptism, therefore, is the sacrament of justification, but a person’s righteous status is not finalized until the consummation when he is actually declared righteous.29 Valdés, by contrast, states: “I come to gather, that there being in effect as much faith in a man, as there is knowledge of God in Christ, and that by faith a man gets justification, and by justification he gets glorification and life eternal.”30 Justification, in the moment of reception, immediately secures Valdés, Considerations, LXXXV (p. 311). James, “Juán de Valdés,” 180 n. 1. 27 Valdés, Considerations, LXXXV (p. 312). 28 Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, Third Edition (Cambridge: CUP, 2005), 59–60, 64, 116–19. 29 Valdés held the common view earlier in his life (see James, “Juán de Valdés,” 186–88). 30 Valdés, Considerations, LXIX (p. 242). 25 26

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



165

a person’s eternal life. In this respect, justification has a definitive eschatological cast to it, as it secures the end goal of redemption in the present. The forensic declaration does not await a person’s amassing of righteousness because the verdict is not based upon personal righteousness but the righteousness of Christ. So Valdés’ doctrine of justification is different from medieval views.

8.3.2 General justification Another unique element of Valdés’ doctrine of justification is his idea of a general justification for all mankind through the work of Christ. Concerning Rom 3.25 and the propitiation of Christ, Valdés explains that there is a general justification.31 Elsewhere Valdés writes that through the crucifixion of Christ, “Not only has God liberally pardoned all men, on account of such service, their first disobedience, for which they have been condemned to death, but He has, together with it, pardoned them all the other acts of disobedience (as we say, both past and future).”32 It appears as though Valdés contemplates a doctrine of universal satisfaction, but what is important to realize is that for Valdés, the only way a person can make use of this general justification is by faith in Christ. Valdés comments on Rom 11.15: “When He punished the sins of all the world in Christ, [he] accepted all men into friendship. True, indeed, it is that none enjoy this friendship save them who believe.”33 And to be clear, the power to believe is not given to all men, but only to the elect, only to those whom God has chosen to be united to Christ.34

8.3.3 The ground of justification In making the distinction between the believer’s righteousness and Christ’s, Valdés perhaps echoes something of Luther’s teaching on the “two kinds of righteousness.”35 Luther explains that the first type of righteousness is alien, and is that of another, something external to the believer. This alien righteousness Juán de Valdés, Commentary Upon St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, trans. John T. Betts (London: Trübner & Co., 1883), 44; idem, La Epistola de San Pablo a Los Romanos, I La I. Corintios (Venezia: Juan Philadelpho, 1856), 45. 32 Valdés, Romans, 75; idem, Romanos, 76; James, “Juán de Valdés,” 200. 33 Valdés, Romans, 207; idem, Romanos, 213–14; James, “Juán de Valdés,” 200. 34 Valdés, Romans, 140; idem, Romanos, 144–45; James, “Juán de Valdés,” 200. 35 Nieto, Origins, 320–21. 31

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

166

Juán de Valdés

belongs to Christ. The second type of righteousness belongs to the believer, though Luther stipulates that the believer possesses this second kind because the believer works with the alien righteousness of Christ.36 In a slight variation upon this theme, Valdés argues that a person can attempt to be justified by his own righteousness. This attempt is a fool’s errand because, according to Valdés, the law does not exist to justify man but to condemn him.37 On the other hand, if a person seeks the righteousness of Christ by faith, he is then united to him. “God no longer considers us for that which we are in ourselves,” writes Valdés, “but for that which we are in Christ; and in Christ we are righteous and holy; and on account of this righteousness and holiness of Christ, which becomes ours by faith, God gives us eternal life, without any regard whatever to our works. So that faith is the means of attaining the gift of eternal life.”38 Why does Valdés give so much weight to the work of Christ? The answer comes from the big picture of redemptive history and the representative works of Adam and Christ. Valdés sees the parallel between the first and last Adams, and therefore concludes: By that which I read in Holy Scripture, and by that which I know in myself, I understand, that for to come to believe the good of Christ’s obedience, and that in Christ’s obedience we all obeyed, and that in Christ’s raising up we all arose; it is convenient and necessary to believe the disobedience of Adam, and that Adam disobeying we all disobeyed, and that in Adam’s dying we all died.39

So Christ’s obedience is a key element, in that it is representative (or federal) for those who are united to him, and the converse is also true that Adam’s disobedience and its consequence, death, is also representative. The remedy for Adam’s disobedience is not only Christ’s obedience, but also Christ suffering the penalty on behalf of the believer: “God punished all our sins in his only begotten son Jesus Christ our Lord.”40 In Valdés’ Considerations he does not use the language of imputation, but he is certainly aware of it and employs it in his Martin Luther, “Two Kinds of Righteousness (1519),” LW 31.297–306. Valdés, Romans, 42; idem, Romanos, 42. One should note that Valdés employs the covenant in terms of the new covenant (the redemptive context for the work of Christ) the covenant of justification (which incorporates the believer into the death of Christ), the covenant of resurrection (which unites the believer to the resurrection of Christ), and the covenant of eternal life (which grants to the believer eternal life with Christ) (see Nieto, Origins, 315 n. 85; Valdés, Considerations, VIII [pp. 24–27]). 38 Juán de Valdés, Seventeen Opuscules, trans. and ed. John T. Betts (London: Trübner & Co., 1882), 150–51. 39 Valdés, Considerations, CVIII (p. 416). 40 Valdés, Considerations, CII (p. 389). 36 37

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



167

Romans commentary. For example, in his exegesis of Rom 4.4, Valdés explains that Abraham became righteous, not because of his works, “But by faith, God imputing to him his faith for righteousness.”41 To be sure, Valdés is not saying that faith, as an act of obedience, is itself imputed as righteousness.42 Valdés believes that faith is the instrumental cause of a person’s justification: “Faith is said to justify, inasmuch as by it we enjoy the free remission of sins wrought by Christ, inasmuch as by it the righteousness of Christ and the merits of Christ become all our own.”43

8.3.4 Justification as the break with the world of sin But in addition to imputation, Valdés also believes that justification brings a break with the world of sin. Valdés writes: “This is certain, that as soon as a man being inspired of God, accepts the covenant of justification by Jesus Christ our Lord, and to live unto God, to die unto Adam, and to live unto Christ, to come out of the kingdom of the world, and to enter into the kingdom of God.”44 Valdés prioritizes justification here because in his mind, a person is just before he is godly.45 But this is not to say that Valdés somehow abstracts justification from the believer’s union with Christ, as if it was somehow separable. Justification is the break with the world of sin, but it is a benefit of the believer’s union with Christ. Hence, Valdés writes concerning Rom 6.3: “St. Paul understands a man to be then dead to sin, when being engrafted into the death of Christ, he is decided, or he begins to come to a decision, in relation to the world and to himself, determining to disenamour himself of self, opposing self in everything he finds in himself that is contrary to the Law.”46

8.3.5 The priority of justification As Valdés sets forth his understanding of justification, he does not specifically identify other views with which he disagrees. This reticence is perhaps explained by Valdés’ context in Italy; he did not want to draw undue attention to his views Valdés, Romans, 51; idem, Romanos, 51. Cf. Westminster Confession of Faith (1646; Free Presbyterian Publications, 1995), 11.1. 43 Valdés, Opuscules, 160. 44 Valdés, Considerations, XXXIX (pp. 133–34). 45 Valdés, Romans, 61; idem, Romanos, 61. 46 Valdés, Romans, 79; idem, Romanos, 80–81. 41 42

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

168

Juán de Valdés

given the prominent presence of the Roman Catholic Church. One should recall, Valdés never left the Roman Catholic Church even though the Inquisition in Spain pursued him. However, he does discuss a basic error vis-à-vis justification and the place of good works. Valdés asks the question: “Willing to examine between these two gifts of God, piety, and justification, which of them may be said to be the fruit of the other, that is whether piety be the fruit of justification, a man being first just before pious, or whether justification be the fruit of piety, a man being pious before just.”47 Valdés first explains what he means by piety and justification. Piety is “true divine worship” and “approving with the mind whatever God does, holding it for just, holy and good.” Valdés cites 1 Tim 3.16 to support his definition. And by justification Valdés means the “purity of conscience which dares appear in judgment before God,” which he draws from 2 Tim 4.8.48 These definitions, or explanations, are not given with the greatest precision or clarity, but it appears that he has forensic and renovative categories in mind. The only way a person can appear before the judge is if he is declared righteous. And, true worship and giving approbation to God’s actions are both actions that the believer undertakes as a result of his renovation or renewal. Valdés explains that according to “natural light,” a likely allusion to 1 Cor 2.14, the answer to the question would be: “Justification is the fruit of piety.”49 Valdés goes on to write: One cannot have justification, and purity in his conscience, if he does not first worship God in spirit and in truth, giving unto him that which it ought to do as his creature: and that suddenly when he gives to God that which he ought to give, he is just having purity in his conscience. And so it is resolved by human wisdom, that justification is a fruit of piety, since from a man’s being pious it redounds that he is just.50

Valdés does not mention anyone by name, but this is a loose description of the common opinion of the day, such as from Aquinas.51 By contrast, Valdés argues: “Calling into counsel for the making of this trial the Holy Spirit, and the Christian spirit, he will say and affirm, that piety is the fruit of justification.” Valdés, Considerations, XCVII (p. 365). Valdés, Considerations, XCVII (p. 365). 49 Valdés, Considerations, XCVII (p. 365); cf. Valdés, A Familiar and Comprehensive Commentary or Exposition of St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Church at Corinth (Venice: Juán Philadelpho, 1852), 42–43; idem, Corintios, 44–45. 50 Valdés, Considerations, XCVII (pp. 365–66). 51 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Allen: Christian Classics, 1948), IaIIae q. 113 art. 8. 47 48

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Sanctification



169

Valdés contends that the only way a person can worship God in Spirit and in truth is only if he is “first just”. Valdés elaborates what he means: “Accepting the gospel of Christ and so making Christ’s justice his own, and understanding that instantly when a man believing is just, he begins to have piety, adoring God in the Spirit and truth. And so it is truly resolved, that piety is the fruit of justification: for a man is first just, then pious.”52 To drive his point home, Valdés explains what lies at the root of anyone who rejects the principle that piety is the fruit of justification: “Men that judge that justification is a fruit of piety, by the same case give testimony of themselves, that they judge by natural light, by prudence and human wisdom, as Plato, and Aristotle would have judged, who had no knowledge at all of Christ.”53 Valdés believes that the forensic has theological priority over the renovative, or sanctification is the fruit of justification. But at the same time, both of these benefits come to the believer through his union with Christ and consequently he holds a high view of sanctification and the importance of good works.

8.4 Sanctification 8.4.1 Sanctification and union Valdés uses a familiar image of an engrafted branch and the life giving sap that it draws from the tree to which it has been attached to illustrate the ultimate source of a believer’s good works. But Valdés first explains that even after a believer is united to Christ, the temptation is to try to seek to produce good fruit from one’s own abilities. Valdés explains: I have considered, that every one of them, who are incorporated in Christ, they are like unto a branch, which being cut from one tree is grafted into another. For as that branch would not produce the fruit which it does, if it were not grafted into that tree; though that first fruit is as it were altogether of the sap which it brought with it from the tree from whence it was cut.

Valdés drives the believer away from his own works, which are rooted in the flesh, and instead to seek the sap of the new tree onto which he has been engrafted in order to produce fruit. Valdés elaborates upon this when he writes: 52 53

Valdés, Considerations, XCVII (p. 366). Valdés, Considerations, XCVII (p. 88).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

170

Juán de Valdés

“They ought to have intent, that there should be nothing found in them, but that which is of the Spirit and of the root of Christ, in which he stands incorporated and engrafted holding for fruit of the root of Christ, humility, meekness, patience, the despising of himself, the denial of his own proper will, the obedience to God, charity.”54

8.4.2 Inseparability of justification and sanctification Valdés wants his readers to know that justification and sanctification, or a justifying faith and good works, should be distinguished but not separated. Valdés makes this point with what will eventually become a common illustration among sixteenth-century reformers: the distinct but inseparable nature of heat and light. In his explanation of the apparent contradiction between Paul and James and true faith versus a spurious dead faith, Valdés writes: It is well to know, that although true faith does not justify by works, nevertheless it is inseparable from zeal of good works, for just as true flame does not burn by light, nevertheless it is inseparable from light; so that just as that flame, which does not give light is not true flame, nor has the power to burn; so the faith that is not lighted up with good works is not true faith, nor has it the power to justify. And the reason is at hand: for by true faith the spirit of Christ dwells in our hearts, which moves us and inspires us to all those things to which it inspired Christ; to humility, to meekness, to obedience, to love.55

So then, Valdés affirms the inseparability of faith and works but is careful to maintain that only faith in Christ justifies, not good works.

8.4.3 Sanctification and reward Valdés is careful to stipulate that the believer’s good works are incapable of receiving the reward of eternal life. For Valdés the doctrine of justification does not yield to the doctrine of sanctification even when considering the believer’s reward at the consummation. Valdés believes that the believer’s good works are always imperfect and blemished and the only reason that God accepts them is because of the believer’s union with Christ, specifically, “Not for that 54 55

Valdés, Considerations, C (p. 378); Nieto, Origins, 324–25 n. 116. Valdés, Opuscules, 160–61.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Sanctification



171

which we are in ourselves, but for what we are in Christ; and in Christ we are righteous and holy, and his very dear children; and Christ makes up for the imperfection of our works by His own perfection, which is communicated to us by incorporation with Him.”56 Whatever reward the believer obtains for his good works is not received on the basis of merit, but only by the “mere grace and gift of God”. But even then Valdés stipulates that ultimately the believer’s reward is because of his adoption and inheritance, not his own efforts.57 In the end, there is no point in the believer’s life, even at the consummation, when he is not covered by the righteousness of Christ—his justification takes priority over sanctification.58 Valdés is so jealous to guard the priority of Christ’s righteousness as the ground of the believer’s redemption that he argues that the believer’s works do not in any way secure his salvation. Valdés writes: “If Christ has fulfilled all righteousness, and has fulfilled it, not for Himself, but for me, why will you persuade me that the righteousness of my works is necessary to the attainment of my salvation?” He asks another pressing question, “If God holds me to be righteous without my works, why will you persuade me that I shall not attain to the glory of the righteous without the aid of my works?”59 To be sure, Valdés is not negating the importance of good works, as is evident in his grounding of good works in the believer’s union with Christ. Rather, he asks these questions to identify the ground of redemption—it either lies in Christ for us or in us. Hence, Valdés writes: “It appears to me that we ought on no account to say that the instrumentality of our works is necessary to realize the life eternal which God has given to those who believe in Christ, because this opinion increases pride in the proud, who are self-ignorant, whilst it takes away spiritual joy and peace of conscience from the humble, who know themselves.” Ultimately Valdés believes that to assign an instrumental function of good works in redemption is to usurp “the glory which we ought to give entire to our God and to our Christ.”60 For all of these reasons Valdés can say that a justifying faith is the “foundation of all Christian piety”.61

Valdés, Opuscules, 170. Valdés, Opuscules, 169. 58 Valdés, Opuscules, 136. 59 Valdés, Opuscules, 148. 60 Valdés, Opuscules, 149–50. 61 Valdés, Opuscules, 159. 56 57

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

172

Juán de Valdés

8.5 Conclusion Though Valdés remained in the Roman Catholic Church, he crossed the theological Rubicon in many ways, especially on his understanding on the relationship between justification and sanctification.62 Valdés was likely influenced by a number of Protestant reformers, Luther, Melanchthon, and Bucer. But at the same time Valdés has his own unique contributions, as he expresses justification in terms of God’s covenants with man as well as holds to a general justification of man, something that did not catch-on in the writings of other reformers. Valdés also left his imprint upon Vermigli. Vermigli’s influence was spread far and wide, as he was professor to Ursinus, author of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and Zanchi was converted under Vermigli’s preaching.63 In other words, Valdés’ influence is vast when one traces this portion of the family tree on the doctrines of union with Christ and justification. But chief of all, Valdés impressed upon the mind of Vermigli that justification is by faith alone and rests solely on the work of Christ to the exclusion of the works of the believer. In this way, he significantly contributes to the continuing Reformation by articulating a doctrine of union with Christ that gives justification priority over sanctification.

James, “Juán de Valdés,” 180. McNair, Peter Martyr, 229; Marvin Anderson, “Peter Martyr, Reformed Theologian (1542–62): His Letters to Heinrich Bullinger and John Calvin,” SCJ 4/1 (1973): 64. 62 63

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

9. Heinrich Bullinger

9.1 Introduction 9.1.1 Calvin as paradigm In his recent study William Evans makes a number of claims concerning the relationship between the doctrine of union with Christ and the ordo salutis. In particular he argues that the formulations of Calvin are inherently superior to the soteriologies of subsequent Reformed theologians. Evans explains that Calvin gives causal priority to union with Christ, in that justification and sanctification are communicated through union; union with Christ is the instrumental basis of both justification and sanctification. Justification should not have logical priority over sanctification, but rather union with Christ should have logical priority over both justification and sanctification. Evans maintains that Calvin’s formulation has the benefits of not making justification dependent upon sanctification and conversely making sanctification a mere response to justification. Evans argues that Calvin’s soteriology was later eclipsed as subsequent Reformed theologians coordinated union with Christ with the ordo salutis. Evans explains: “On Calvin’s view, salvation is an organic unity communicated in toto through spiritual union with Christ. On the ordo salutis model, however, salvation is bestowed through a series of successive and discrete acts.”1 Justification and sanctification are organized in a logical sequence, which assures the priority of justification.2 Evans’ interest in showing Calvin’s superior doctrine of union with Christ over and against the doctrine of subsequent Reformed theologians is not merely a historical judgment. At the end of his study Evans writes that the “soteriology of Calvin offers a significant and positive alternative to the bipolar approach of ordo salutis federal theology.”3 Evans’ interests are not purely historical—they are inherently dogmatic.

1 William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation. Studies in Christian History and Thought (Carlisle / Eugene: Paternoster / Wipf & Stock, 2008), 81. 2 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 38–39. 3 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 262.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

174

Heinrich Bullinger

9.1.2 Critique of Calvin paradigm There are a number of assumptions in Evans’ basic claims that deserve attention. First, Evans assumes that the ordo salutis and union with Christ are somehow incompatible ways of understanding redemption, as he pits his understanding of Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ against subsequent formulations. Second, despite all of the recent literature refuting the Calvin vs. the Calvinists arguments of old, Evans opposes Calvin against subsequent Reformed theologians, even claiming that seventeenth-century ordo salutis theology vitiated Reformed thought.4 Third, the overall structure of Evans’ study all but ignores the contributions of other Reformed theologians who labored before and contemporaneously with Calvin. Evans’ study starts with Calvin and moves straight into Reformed Orthodoxy. This chapter therefore explores the views of Heinrich Bullinger (1504– 79) on union with Christ and justification. As a key first-generation Reformer, Bullinger is one of the more influential Reformed theologians, one who shaped the Reformed tradition in ways similar to Calvin.5 This exploration of Bullinger’s views demonstrates that union with Christ conjoined with an ordo salutis (or sequential) understanding of soteriology is not incompatible or a late development in the Reformed tradition. One should keep in mind that by the term ordo salutis, I do not mean a technical and elaborate unfolding of the elements of redemption but the logical priorities that Bullinger sets forth in his soteriology. Bullinger affirms the importance of union with Christ but also accords theological priority to the doctrine of justification by faith alone over sanctification. The chapter first briefly surveys the life and key works of Bullinger. Second, we will look at the particulars of Bullinger’s soteriology—his ordo salutis and the priority of justification. The chapter at last concludes with some observations about the doctrines of union with Christ and justification and the Reformed tradition.

9.2 Biographical and bibliographical sketch 9.2.1 Biography Heinrich Bullinger was a humanities student in Cologne where he first broke with the Roman Catholic Church. Though Ulrich Zwingli made quite a splash 4 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 265. Cf. Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: OUP, 2003), 63–104. 5 So Mark S. Burrows, “‘Christus intra nos Vivens’ The Peculiar Genius of Bulliner’s Doctrine of Sanctification,” ZKG 98/1 (1987): 49 n. 2, 68.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Biographical and bibliographical sketch

175

on the international theological scene as a Reformer, Bullinger was first drawn to the works of Luther and Melanchthon and concluded that their theology was in greater harmony with Scripture and the church fathers than the theology of the Rome. These Lutheran theologians were instrumental in his conversion in 1522. Bullinger had intended to join a Carthusian cloister, until his conversion to Protestantism. In 1523 he did, however, become a teacher of Bible and classics at a Cistercian monastery in Kappel. Bullinger was such an effective teacher that he persuaded the monks to embrace the Reformation and four years after he arrived the monastery dissolved and became a Protestant parish. Bullinger labored in Kappel for two more years as a pastor. Bullinger first met Zwingli in 1523, as he aided the more famous Reformer in his controversies with the Anabaptists in 1525 and later accompanied him to a disputation in Bern in 1528. Bullinger and Zwingli worked together on the doctrine of the covenant in their disputes with the Anabaptists.6 In 1531 Zwingli was killed at Kappel, where he accompanied Protestant forces into battle against forces loyal to the Roman Catholic Church. In the wake of Zwingli’s death, Zurich sought a replacement to continue the work of reformation and chose Bullinger to succeed their fallen leader. History would later confirm that the Reformed church in Zurich made the right choice.7

9.2.2 Bibliography As a first generation Reformer, Bullinger was very influential, more so than his predecessor, and perhaps almost as influential as second-generation reformer, Calvin. Bullinger was among the authors of the First Helvetic Confession (1536), which was written in response to Pope Paul III’s call for a church council in 1537. The confession, written in relatively short order and ratified by all of the key Swiss cantons, remained the officially accepted confession and authoritative profession of the Swiss Reformed church until the Second Helvetic Confession

6 See Charles S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition. With a Translation of De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et aeterno (1534) (Louisville: WJK, 1991). Though Bullinger should be classified as a covenant theologian, at the same time the doctrine of the covenant does not pervade his Decades nor the Second Helvetic Confession (see Edward Dowey, “Heinrich Bullinger as Theologian: Thematic, Comprehensive, and Schematic,” in Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–75, ed. Bruce Gordon / Emidio Campi [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004], 53). 7 David C. Steinmetz, Reformers in the Wings (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971), 133–42.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

176

Heinrich Bullinger

(SHC) replaced it in 1566, which was authored entirely by Bullinger.8 At the insistence of Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor at Geneva, the Swiss Reformed churches adopted Bullinger’s confession. Far beyond Switzerland, the confession was adopted by Reformed churches in Scotland and Austria, became the chief confession of the Churches of Hungary and Poland, and was widely circulated in France, England, and the Netherlands.9 In fact, the confession was translated into seventeen different languages and published in over 115 editions.10 Beyond Bullinger’s confessional writing, he is also the author of several influential theological works. The best-known work of Bullinger is his Decades, a series of fifty doctrinal sermons organized in five groups of ten that were published between 1549–51. This work spread the Reformed faith throughout Europe.11 The sermons were originally intended to assist clergy in their sermon preparation, but people soon realized their benefit for laymen. The Decades merited the title of Hausbuch, a catechetical work that laymen kept in their homes and used for personal theological instruction. The Decades covered the topics of Scripture, justification, the Apostles’ Creed, the Law, the Gospel, and the nature of worship. Bullinger’s work was so highly esteemed that Reformed synods recommended that ministers and groups of laymen in towns too small to hire a pastor read Bullinger’s sermons aloud on the Sundays when a preacher could not conduct worship. Bullinger also prepared a condensed version of his Decades, which was published as Compendium of the Christian Religion in 1556. All total, Bullinger’s Decades was published in thirty-two editions and the Compendium in thirty editions by 1670.12 The only other theological works that outsold and were published in more editions were Calvin’s Institutes and Melanchthon’s Loci Communes, which the latter appeared in 115 editions by 1560 and was the single most published Protestant work in the sixteenth century.13 While Bullinger’s reputation as a key first-generation Reformed theologian has not registered with some historians and theologians, the record of his historical influence in the sixteenth and seventeenth century is indisputable. In fact, historian Philip 8 Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss, ed., Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 3 vol. (New Haven: Yale UP, 2003), 2.280–81; Bruce Gordon, “Introduction: Architect of Reformation,” in Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–75, ed. Bruce Gordon / Emidio Campi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 19. 9 Pelikan and Hotchkiss, Creeds, 2.458–59. 10 Dowey, “Bullinger as Theologian, 60. 11 Peter Opitz, “Bullinger’s Decades: Instruction in Faith and Conduct,” in Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–75, ed. Bruce Gordon / Emidio Campi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 101. 12 Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale UP, 2002), 58–59. 13 Benedict, Christ’s Churches, 74, 90–91.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ and the ordo salutis



177

Benedict argues that the three most influential first and second generation Reformers are Johannes a’Lasco (1499–1560), Calvin, and Bullinger.14 Benedict also concludes that of all the Reformed confessions of the sixteenth century, Bullinger’s SHC is the most authoritative statement of the essential theology of the Reformed tradition by the end of the second generation.15 Hence, as we proceed we should be aware of his influence as a first generation reformer, whose work extends well into and defines second-generation Reformed theology. To that end, we will ascertain Bullinger’s views from three of the four previously mentioned documents: the SHC, Decades, and his Compendium. Bullinger’s writing corpus is expansive, especially when his fifteen thousand-plus collection of letters is taken into account—ten times as many letters as Zwingli and more than three times as many as Calvin.16 However, Edward Dowey has concluded the Decades more comprehensively reflects the theology of Bullinger than any other writing.17 On the other hand, Cornelis Venema has suggested that the SHC represents Bullinger’s definitive expression of the Christian faith.18 Rather than chose between the two works, it seems that employing both, with assistance from the Compendium, enables one to construct a composite portrait of Bullinger’s view on the relationship between union with Christ and justification.

9.3 Union with Christ and the ordo salutis In his three key works, there is little evidence to show that Bullinger places a significant amount of emphasis upon the doctrine of union with Christ. In comparison with Zanchi, for example, Bullinger does not devote a separate chapter, locus, sermon, or treatise to the subject of union with Christ.19 Bullinger does affirm the doctrine, but one must sift through Bullinger’s works to ascertain what he has to say on the subject.20 Benedict, Christ’s Churches, 115–16. Benedict, Christ’s Churches, 118. For similar assessments of the impact and significance of the SHC see Gordon, “Architect,” 21; Steinmetz, Reformers in the Wings, 141; Cornelis Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of ‘the Other Reformed Tradition’? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 89; Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 44. 16 Benedict, Christ’s Churches, 63. 17 Dowey, “Bullinger as Theologian,” 62. 18 Venema, Bullinger and Predestination, 90. 19 Cf. Jerome Zanchi, De religione Christiana Fides – Confession of Christian Religion, 2 vol., ed. Luca Baschera / Christian Moser (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1.26–28. 20 Burrows, “Bullinger’s Doctrine,” 66. 14

15

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

178

Heinrich Bullinger

9.3.1 Predestination Bullinger believes that divine election, or predestination, is “in Christ”: “Therefore, although not on account of any merit of ours, God has elected us, not directly, but in Christ, and on account of Christ, and those who are now engrafted into Christ by faith were also elected. But those who are outside of Christ were rejected.”21 From this brief quotation a distinct pattern emerges regarding the nature of redemption. Those who are extra Christum are not saved, whereas those who are saved are in Christo. Redemption is characterized and described as being insiti Christo, engrafted into Christ. In the Decades, Bullinger explains: The end of predestination, or fore-appointment, is Christ, the Son of God the Father. For God has ordained and decreed to save all, how many soever have communion and fellowship with Christ, his only-begotten Son; and to destroy or condemn all, how many soever have no part in the communion or fellowship of Christ, his only Son. Now the faithful verily have fellowship with Christ, and the unfaithful are strangers from Christ.22

Bullinger once again casts the doctrine of election in terms of union with Christ—the decree is not a bare choice but is connected to his doctrine of Christ. The decree is Bullinger’s bridge to the rest of his soteriology, but especially to his doctrine of justification.23 This line of connection will be manifest as we explore Bullinger’s understanding of justification, for his doctrine of election ensures that redemption, and justification in particular, is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.24 Bullinger highlights the centrality of Christ in redemption in the SHC by treating the person and work of Christ

21 SHC 10.2, in Pelikan and Hotchkiss, Creeds, 2.473, translation modified: “Ergo non sine medio, licet non propter ullum meritum nostrum, sed in Christo et propter Christum, nose legit Deus, ut qui jam sunt in Christo insiti per fidem, illi ipsi etiam sint electi, reprobi vero, qui sunt extra Christum” (idem, Creeds of Christendom, ed. Philip Schaff [1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990], 3.252). All subsequent Latin quotations of the SHC are taken from Schaff ’s Creeds of Christendom. Cf. idem, Reformed Confessions Harmonized: With an Annotated Bibliography of Reformed Doctrinal Works, ed., Joel R. Beeke / Sinclair B. Ferguson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 28. 22 Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, 2 vol. (1849–52; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 4.4 (3.186). Note, citations refer to the decade and then sermon number; page numbers according to the Parker translation pagination and volume number are in parentheses. See idem, Sermonum decades quinque, de potissimis Christianae religionis capitibus, in tres tomos digestae (London: Impensis Radulphi Newberii, et Hugonis Iaksoni, 1587). 23 Muller, Christ and the Decree, 41–42. 24 Venema, Bullinger, 46–47.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ and the ordo salutis



179

immediately after his chapter on predestination.25 The question that naturally arises is how Bullinger understands the execution of the decree of election as it relates to the salvation of the sinner.

9.3.2 Faith In the structure of the SHC, Bullinger moves from predestination to Christ, the Law, the Gospel, repentance and conversion, justification, and faith and good works.26 Though Bullinger divides his explanation of redemption in this manner, it does not mean that each chapter is theologically isolated from the other. That Bullinger treats conversion prior to faith does not mean, therefore, that he believes that conversion is logically prior to faith. In other words, Bullinger’s ordo docendi should not be confused with his understanding of the ordo salutis. For example, Bullinger defines repentance as: “The recovery of a right mind in sinful man awakened by the word of the gospel and the Holy Spirit, and received by true faith, by which the sinner immediately acknowledges his innate corruption and all his sins accused by the word of God.”27 Bullinger treats repentance first, likely because it is the first thing observable in common experience. Nevertheless he states that the ability to repent is received through faith. Faith, according to Bullinger, is “a pure gift of God” effected by the Holy Spirit.28 Another illustration of the ordo docendi comes from Bullinger’s Compendium: he treats justification (which appears in book five, the grace of God), the Apostles’ Creed (book six), prayer (book seven), sacraments (book eight), and good works (book nine). The chapter on good works has three chapters in between, but this does not indicate that Bullinger believes that good works are so separated in a person’s redemption. When is the believer united to Christ? At a number of points in his Decades and Compendium, Bullinger explains that the believer is united to Christ in faith. For example, he writes: “When we name faith, we do not name simply the quality of believing which is in our minds, but we have an eye to Christ himself, our Lord and Savior, together with his righteousness and heavenly gifts; upon whom alone, as upon a base and sure foundation, our faith does rest and firmly stand.”29 Here Bullinger perhaps echoes Luther, who argued Pelikan and Hotchkiss, Creeds, 2.473–75. Pelikan and Hotchkiss, Creeds, 2.483–91. 27 SHC 14.2 (Schaff, Creeds, 3.262). 28 SHC 16.1. 29 Bullinger, Decades, 3.9 (2.333). 25 26

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

180

Heinrich Bullinger

against Roman Catholicism that Christ is the form of faith, not charity or love.30 Elsewhere in his sermon on the Gospel Bullinger more clearly declares: “The promise is received by faith, and not by works: therefore the gospel, and Christ in the gospel, are received by faith.”31 A similar statement appears in the SHC: “For as we receive food by eating, so we participate in Christ by believing.”32 The believer receives, or is united to, Christ by faith. Faith unites the believer to Christ, but this union is not brought about apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. Interpreters of Scripture have long identified John 15 as a key passage that expounds the doctrine of union with Christ. Bullinger is no exception, but in his explanation of the passage he emphasizes the work of the Spirit: And God does by his Spirit and by faith in Christ Jesus renew all men so that they, being once regenerate, do no longer their own, that is, the works of the flesh, but the works of the Spirit, of grace, and of God himself. For the works of them that are regenerate do grow up by the good Spirit of God that is within them; which Spirit, even as the sap gives strength to trees to bring forth fruit, does in like manner cause sundry virtues to bud and brand out of us men, as the Lord himself does in the gospel testify, and say: ‘I am the vine, you are the branches. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abide in the vine; so cannot you also, unless you abide in me.’33

So, then, the sinner is brought into union with Christ by the work of the Spirit, and this is accomplished through regeneration and faith, both of which are a gift of God.34

Cf. Peter Lombard, Sentences, 4 vol., trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007 - ), 3.23.3: “Fides autem qua creditur, si cum caritate sit, virtus est, quia ‘caritas, ut ait Amrosius, mater est omnium virtutum,’ que omens informat, sina qua nulla vera virtus est. Fides ergo operans per dilecitonem virtus est qua non vis creduntur” (idem, Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae, 2 vol. [Grottaferrata: Collegii S. Bonavenurae Ad Claras Aquas, 1981], 2.142); Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, vol. 31, Faith, trans. T. C. O’Brien (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1974), IIa IIae q. 4 art. 3: “Fides autem per dilectionem operatur. Ergo dilectio caritatis est fidei forma” (pp. 124–25); Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1535, LW, 26.88 (Werke, 40.1:164). 31 Bullinger, Decades, 4.1 (3.36), emphasis: “Caeterum promissio fide non operibus recipitur, ideoque evangelium et in evangelio Christus fide recipitur.” 32 SHC 15.4 (Schaff, Creeds, 3.267). 33 Bullinger, Decades, 3.9 (2.322). 34 Cf. SHC 9.6, 8. 30

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification and sanctification



181

9.4 Justification and sanctification 9.4.1 Justification defined Given all that Bullinger says regarding faith and union with Christ, one might suspect that his doctrine of union is undifferentiated. By undifferentiated I mean a holistic doctrine that does not make distinctions between justification and sanctification or that he does not prioritize justification over sanctification. A detailed study of Bullinger’s doctrine, however, reveals important distinctions and evidence that he gives justification priority. Bullinger’s definition of justification contains the common elements found in most sixteenth-century Reformed theology. Bullinger believes that justification involves the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer. For example, he states: “We are made partakers of his grace by true faith, and being grafted in Christ, are truly counted of God, righteous and clean for Christ his name and sake.” Bullinger elaborates: “You must know that the perfect righteousness of Christ is properly imputed unto you by God, wherefore if you have faith in Christ, you are righteous and perfect in him.”35 Bullinger holds that the believer is perfect because of the imputed righteousness of Christ, which as we will see below, is contrasted with the imperfect nature of sanctification. Bullinger also connects the doctrine of adoption to his doctrine of justification: “This term of justification is taken in this present treatise for the absolution and remission of sins, for blessedness, and adoption into the number of the sons of God.”36 Historically, adoption is considered a forensic act, so Bullinger’s inclusion of adoption under justification merely reflects the coordination of these two forensic benefits. Thus far we have the following elements: the believer is united to Christ by faith through the work of the Spirit and is also justified by faith, through which he receives the forgiveness of sins, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and the title of son of God. How does Bullinger relate these elements one to another?

Heinrich Bullinger, Common Places of Christian Religion (London: 1572), 5.6 (p. 111); idem, Compendium Christianae Religionis (Tiguri, 1556), 66–67. Cf. SHC 15.1–6. 36 Bullinger, Decades, 1.6 (1.104): “Principio demonstrabo iustificationis vocabulum in praesenti causa usurpari pro absolutione sive remissione peccatorum, pro beatificatione et adoptione in numerum filiorum Dei.” 35

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

182

Heinrich Bullinger

9.4.2 Imputed vs. inherent righteousness Bullinger carefully distinguishes between the forensic and transformative aspects of the believer’s union with Christ. Concerning the forensic, he explains: “There is that singular grace, whereby he does, for his only-begotten Christ his sake, adopt us to be his sons: he does not, I mean, adopt all, but the believers only, whose sins he reckons not, but does impute to them the righteousness of his only Son our Savior.” Bullinger adds that the imputed righteousness of Christ “is that grace which does alone justify us in very deed.” In other words, Bullinger grounds justification upon the alien righteousness of Christ. He contrasts imputed righteousness with the righteousness of sanctification: “There is a grace, which, being poured into our minds, does bring forth good works in them that are justified. This grace does not justify, but does engender the fruits of righteousness in them that are justified.” Bullinger subordinates the grace of sanctification to that of justification when he concludes concerning these two benefits of union with Christ: “We confess and grant, that good works belong to grace, but after a certain manner, order, and fashion [sua ratione, suo modo et ordine].”37 We will see below in what way works (or sanctification) follow the grace of justification. Though Bullinger prioritizes justification over sanctification, he does not rend them asunder. Both justification and sanctification are aspects of union with Christ. He also shows that they are united but distinct: “But grace or faith and works, justification also and sanctification, are so joined together, that they cannot be severed one from another. . . . I verily neither dare nor do in any ease gainsay, that faith and works do cleave together.”38 So for Bullinger, justification and sanctification are inseparably joined together, but neither are they confused. To illustrate the unity but nevertheless different functions of justification and sanctification, Bullinger offers the analogy of the heat and light of the sun, an analogy also used by Calvin, though other Reformers employ this illustration. Bullinger writes: Although the light of the sun is not separate from the heat thereof, yet is not the light the same that the heat is. Neither is it a good consequence to say, The sun gives light to the world; therefore the heat of the sun gives light to the world, because in the sun the heat and light cannot be separated. Yes rather, the sun in respect of his light does lighten 37

59.

Bullinger, Decades, 3.9 (2.330). Cf. Muller, Christ and the Decree, 41; Burrows, “Bullinger’s Doctrine,”

38 Bullinger, Decades, 3.9 (2.330): “Verum gratia vel fides et opera, item iustificatio et sanctificatio inseparabiliter coniuncta sunt . . . Ac nullo quidem modo inficias eo fidem et opera inter se cohaerere.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification and sanctification



183

the world, not in respect of the heat that it has. And yet the sun does both warm and lighten the earth at once. In like manner we are freely justified by the merciful grace of God, for Christ his sake, our Lord and Savior, not in respect and consideration of the works of grace, that he found in us; although these works are engendered and brought forth by that free grace.39

So justification and sanctification come to the believer through his union with Christ, but they are nevertheless distinct.

9.4.3 Priority of justification But what reasons does Bullinger give for this prioritization of justification over sanctification? Bullinger does not teach a temporal or chronological order but a logical or theological order. Two chief reasons support this claim. First, Bullinger explains that our works have a sprinkling of vice and the sparkle of error in them, which is due to the abiding presence of original sin.40 This abiding presence of sin that taints our good works, therefore, requires that believers rely “upon Christ his perfection alone, and so far forth it does justify us.”41 The imputed righteousness of Christ covers the imperfect and incomplete nature of sanctification. Hence, Bullinger writes of the priority of the forensic: “Justification did always go before the works of righteousness: for the just man does work righteousness; so that righteousness is the fruit that the just do bring forth. Man, verily, is justified freely by grace, and not by works, which follow after justification.”42 In the SHC Bullinger explains the priority of justification in the following manner: We do not share in the benefit of justification partly because of the grace of God or Christ, and partly because of ourselves, our love, works, or merit, but we attribute it wholly to Bullinger, Decades, 3.9 (2.330). Cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, LCC, vol. 20–21, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.11.6; Jerome Zanchi, An Excellent and Learned Treatise of the Spiritual Marriage between Christ and the Church (Cambridge: 1592). 134; idem, Commentarius in Epistolam Sancti Pauli Ad Ephesos, 2 vol., ed. A. H. Hartog, Bibliotheca Reformata, vol. 5 (Amsterdam: 1888), 2.378. 40 Bullinger, Decades, 3.9 (2.330). 41 Bullinger, Decades, 3.9 (2.330): “Fides enim quanquam sit imbecillis et imperfecta in nobis, nititur tamen perfectione Christi, huiusque solius, et eatenus iustificat.” 42 Bullinger, Decades, 3.9 (2.326): “Unde manifestum est quod iustificatio praecessit opera iustitiae. Iustus onim operatur iustitiam, ut iustitia iusti sit fructus. Gratis quidem homo iustificatur, non per opera, quae iustificationem sequuntur.” 39

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

184

Heinrich Bullinger

the grace of God in Christ through faith. For our love and our works could not please God if performed by unrighteous men. Therefore, it is necessary for us to be righteous before we may love and do good works. We are made truly righteous, as we have said, by faith in Christ purely by the grace of God, who does not impute to us our sins, but the righteousness of Christ, or rather, he imputes faith in Christ to us for righteousness.43

In a word, justification has priority over sanctification because it is the lens through which the believer and his works are always viewed. A second reason Bullinger gives for the priority of justification is the parallel that exists between Adam and Christ. Bullinger explains that Paul places the two Adams in parallel to highlight that Adam brings forth nothing but sin, wrath, and death. Paul highlights the effect of Adam’s work so that no one would seek righteousness and life by works. By contrast, Paul explains that by Christ believers have righteousness, grace, life, and the forgiveness of sins.44 Bullinger lays a forensic foundation both for damnation and salvation as they are tied to the respective federal heads of Adam and Christ. Bullinger highlights the priority of justification in redemption by showing that the forensic verdict secures a person’s salvation; this is not to say that Bullinger believes that justification completes a person’s salvation. There is a distinction between securing and completing one’s salvation. For Bullinger, salvation is grounded upon Christ’s work for us, not Christ’s work in us. This conclusion is evident when Bullinger explains Eph 2.8–10, and particularly the statement, “You are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast himself.” This text is typically cited vis-à-vis a holistic view of redemption, one that includes sanctification. But Bullinger enlists this Ephesians text in the service of justification.45 Bullinger comments: “For these testimonies are more clear than the noon-day, and do most evidently testify, that we are justified by faith, and not by any works.”46 Bullinger goes as far as to say that we are saved apart from works: “For we are freely saved through faith, without respect of any works of ours, either first or last.”47 Bullinger also SCH 15.5 (Schaff, Creeds, 3.267). Bullinger, Decades, 1.6 (1.113). 45 Peter Martyr Vermigli has a similar gloss of Eph 2.8–10: “A man is justified by faith and that not of yourself, lest anyone should boast” (Peter Martyr Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, The Peter Martyr Library, vol. 8, trans. and ed by Frank A. James III [Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 2003], 125; idem, Loci Communes [London: 1583], 3.4.24 [p. 591]). 46 Bullinger, Decades, 1.6 (1.118): “Sunt enim luce meridiana clariora, et clarissime testantur fide nos non ullis operibus iustificari.” 47 Bullinger, Decades, 4.1 (3.36): “Nam gratis sine omni respectu operum nostrorum, sive praecedentium, sive sequentium, per fidem salvamur.” 43 44

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification and sanctification



185

protects the priority of justification by explaining that even at the final judgment before the works of believers are evaluated, God will declare to believers: “Come, you blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you since the beginning of the world” (Matt 25.34).48

9.4.4 Necessity of sanctification But giving justification priority over sanctification does not mean Bullinger leans in an antinomian direction. Bullinger warns his readers concerning the significance of Heb 12, 1 Thess 4, and Eph 4.5: “Here also contains sanctification and purification of soul and body from all pollution or filth of the flesh, the devil, and the world. Without his sanctification, no man shall see God.”49 Bullinger holds that both justification and sanctification are benefits of union with Christ but nevertheless distinguishes between the two, like in his illustration of heat and light. Bullinger’s explanation of Eph 2.8–10 shows that he believes that good works have their place and dignity in the church, though he is careful to protect the sola of sola gratia in redemption. Bullinger does not want people to think that their good works in any way contribute to their salvation—rather, they are the fruit of their salvation. Indeed, echoing Paul, Bullinger explains that believers are created unto good works.50 In some of his most explicit imagery, Bullinger emphasizes that antinomianism is unacceptable because of the believer’s union with Christ: “For Christ died for us, and was in his body offered up to be a sacrifice, or oblation, to cleanse and purge our sins, that we might thenceforth be united and coupled to him; and that we, being conceived and made with child with the Holy Spirit, may travail, bring forth, and be delivered of an excellent issue and holy fruit of good works.”51 Bullinger extrapolates the union analogy of Christ’s marriage to the church, and argues that the fruit of good works is a result of Christ’s copulative union with his bride. Good works, therefore, are certain, but the believer’s redemption does not hinge upon them—his redemption hinges upon the works of Christ. Another way to state this point is to employ a common sixteenthcentury distinction, though Bullinger does not use it. Namely, good works are not an antecedent cause or condition of salvation but rather a consequent condition of salvation. Justification, on the other hand, is an antecedent cause Bullinger, Decades, 3.9 (2.346). Bullinger, Common Places, 9.4 (Compendium, 135). 50 Bullinger, Decades, 1.6 (1.118–19). 51 Bullinger, Decades, 3.9 (2.309). 48 49

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

186

Heinrich Bullinger

or condition of salvation because it rests upon the works of Christ, not those of the believer. Beyond these two chief reasons behind the priority of justification, the perfect nature of justification versus the imperfect nature of sanctification, and the parallel between the two Adams and the imputation of their respective work, Bullinger goes on to summarize the nature of the gospel: This is the sum and breviary of the whole gospel, that we are justified, that is to say, absolved from sins, from the definitive sentence of death and damnation, and sanctified and adopted into the number of the sons of God, by faith, that is, by an assured confidence in the name of Christ, which is given by the Father to be our only Savior. And here are works by name excluded, to the end there should be given to us no occasion to entangle the faith with works, or to attribute to work the glory and title due to faith alone, or rather to Christ, upon whom our faith is grounded and upheld.52

So for this reason, Bullinger concludes that the doctrine of justification should be at the bottom of every believer’s heart.53

9.5 Conclusion This chapter began with Evans’ claims that later Reformed theologians vitiated Calvin’s formulation of union with Christ by introducing the concept of the ordo salutis. According to Evans, by making redemption a sequence of acts justification is separated from sanctification or is merely an effect of justification. Evans believes Calvin’s formulation is superior because the benefits of justification and sanctification flow from the believer’s union with Christ and not one to another. One problem with Evans’ claims, however, is that he begins with Calvin and assumes that there are no other Reformed theologians contributing to the development of Reformed thought. This chapter has demonstrated that Evans’ construction of the relationship between Calvin and the subsequent Reformed tradition requires greater nuance and exploration of the work of other Reformed theologians such as Bullinger. Bullinger clearly affirms the doctrine of union with Christ, which features prominently in his doctrine of election, since those elected are in Christ. But he also does so in conjunction with his basic ordo salutis, which accords justification priority over sanctification. Bull52 53

Bullinger, Decades, 4.1 (3.43). Bullinger, Decades, 3.9 (2.327).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Conclusion



187

inger prioritizes justification by giving it chief place—that which secures our salvation and is the lens through which the believer is always viewed—but he does not emphasize it to the exclusion of sanctification. Rather, “good works belong to grace, but after a certain manner, order, and fashion.”54 The concerns for a proper understanding of the ordo salutis lie at the foundational level of the Reformed tradition and cannot be placed at the feet of theologians who came after Calvin. Hence, if Evans’ reading of Calvin is correct, then at a minimum there are at least two distinct but nevertheless genuinely Reformed understandings of the relationship between union with Christ and justification, those of Bullinger and Calvin.55

Bullinger, Decades, 3.9 (2.330). There is doubt concerning Evans’ general conclusions regarding Calvin’s view of union with Christ and an undifferentiated relationship between justification and sanctification. See, e.g., Cornelis Venema, “Union with Christ, the ‘Twofold Grace of God,’ and the ‘Order of Salvation’ in Calvin’s Theology,” in Calvin for Today, ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2009): 91–114. 54 55

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

10. Peter Martyr Vermigli

10.1 Introduction 10.1.1 Unprioritized duplex gratia? Over the years a number of historians have noted the importance of the doctrine of union with Christ for the theology of Calvin.1 But with any field of research, there are bound to be differing interpretations of any one given subject; this pattern certainly holds true for assessing the significance of the doctrine of union for Calvin. In the last several years there have been exchanges between Mark Garcia and two Calvin scholars on the doctrine of union with Christ and particularly the relationship between justification and sanctification. In Garcia’s published doctoral thesis, for example, he sees his own work as a corrective to that of Cornelis Venema. Garcia argues that in Calvin’s soteriology the doctrine of union is singularly determinative, and given the simultaneity of justification and sanctification (the duplex gratia), one cannot assign any sort of priority to the doctrine of justification.2 Venema, on the other hand, argues union with Christ is an important theme in Calvin’s theology but he still assigns a certain theological priority to justification.3 In addition to this, most recently J. Todd Billings has entered the kerfuffle by arguing along similar lines that there are See e.g., Brian G. Armstrong, “Duplex Cognitio Dei, Or? The Problem and Relation of Structure, Form, and Purpose in Calvin’s Theology,” in Probing the Reformed Tradition: Historical Studies in Honor of Edward A. Dowey, Jr., ed. Elise Anne McKee / Brian G. Armstrong (Lousiville: WJK, 1989): 135–53; D. Willis-Watkins, “The Unio Mystica and the Assurance of Faith According to Calvin,” in Calvin Erbe und Auftrag: FS für Wilhelm Heinrich Neuser zum 65 Geburstag, ed. Willem van’t Spijker (Kampen: Kok, 1991): 77–84; Charles Partee, “Calvin’s Central Dogma Again,” SCJ 18/2 (1987): 191–99; Carl Mosser, “The Greatest Possible Blessing: Calvin and Deification,” SJT 55/1 (2002): 36–57; Mark A. Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology. Studies in Christian History and Thought (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008); J. Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers In Union with Christ (Oxford: OUP, 2007); Randal Zachman, “Communio cum Christo” in The Calvin Handbook, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 365–71; Thomas L. Wenger, “The New Perspective on Calvin: Responding to Recent Calvin Interpretations,” JETS 50/2 (2007): 311–28; Mark A. Garcia, “Imputation as Attribution: Union with Christ, Reification and Justification as Declarative Word,” IJST 11/4 (2009): 415–27. 2 Garcia, Life in Christ, 18, 34 n. 76. 3 Cornelis P. Venema, Accepted and Renewed in Christ: The ‘Twofold Grace of God’ and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2007), 136 n. 9. 1

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Introduction

189

theological problems with Garcia’s thesis because for Calvin, “There is still a sense in which sanctification as a life of gratitude is profoundly dependent upon the forensic declaration of justification in a way that shows a non-temporal ordering between the two.”4 Is there a way forward in the debate?

10.1.2 Counter thesis There is a way forward, but not through Geneva but rather through Strasbourg. How does Strasbourg fit into the puzzle of the significance of Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ and the relationship between justification and sanctification? Strasbourg was the place where Peter Martyr Vermigli labored for a time and the location from which he sent two important letters on the doctrine of union with Christ, one to Theodore Beza and the other to Calvin. Scholarly consensus places Vermigli’s letter to Beza in March of 1555 during his second tour in Strasbourg.5 This places Vermigli’s letter around the same timeframe as his other letter to Calvin, which is dated 8 March 1555. What makes these letters extremely helpful is that Vermigli gives a bird’s eye view of his understanding of union with Christ. In the subsequent response Calvin mirrors Vermigli’s statements and concludes his letter with the following: “Were I teaching any other person, I should follow up this subject more diffusely; in addressing you, I have glanced at it briefly, with the simple view of showing you that we entirely agree in sentiment.”6 Hence, Vermigli’s letters to Beza and Calvin function as a window to the views of Calvin, especially given Calvin’s response to Vermigli. This fact has not been lost on a number of scholars. This set of letters has generated a small body of literature dating back to 1857 when Vermigli’s letter to Calvin was first translated into English by George Gorham (1787–1857) and later investigated by Wilhelm Kolfhaus in his 1938 4 J. Todd Billings, “John Calvin’s Soteriology: On the Multifaceted ‘Sum’ of the Gospel,” IJST 11/4 (2009): 446. 5 Rankin, “Calvin’s Correspondence,” 239 n. 33; also McLelland, Visible Words, 143 n. 11; also Peter Martyr Vermigli, Life, Letters, and Sermons, The Peter Martyr Library, vol. 5, trans. and ed., John Patrick Donnelly (Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson UP , 1999), 134 n. 137. A critical edition of Vermigli’s letter to Beza can be found in Peter Martyr Vermigli, “Vermigli to Beza, March 1555,” in Correspondance de Theodore de Beze, vol. 1 (1539–55), ed. Fernand Aubert / Henri Meylan (Geneva: Droz, 1960), 153–55. 6 John Calvin, “Calvin to Martyr,” in Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears During the Time of the Reformation in England and the Times Immediately Succeeding: 1533–88, ed. and trans. George C. Gorham (London: Bell and Daldy, 1857), 352; idem, “Calvinus Vermilio,” CO 43.724: “Apud alium quempiam, qui mihi docendus esset, fusius prosequerer quae breviter apud te hoc tantum consilio perstringo, ut nos idem prosus sentire videas.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

190

Peter Martyr Vermigli

work, Union with Christ in John Calvin.7 Following this earlier exploration, analysis has been offered by Dennis Tamburello, Duncan Rankin, and Mark Garcia.8 Of interest to this chapter are the opposing readings of Rankin and Garcia. This chapter argues that Rankin’s reading is correct and that Vermigli gives a key place to the doctrine of union with Christ but at the same time maintains the priority of the doctrine of justification over the doctrine of sanctification. By proving this thesis, this will help set the broader context for Calvin’s own theology of union with Christ as well as show that Garcia misreads Vermigli’s understanding of union and the relationship between justification and sanctification. We will therefore proceed by first setting forth Rankin’s and Garcia’s claims regarding Vermigli’s views on union and justification and sanctification. Then we will survey Vermigli’s letters to Beza and Calvin to ascertain his view of union with Christ in its broad contours. Next we will examine the specifics of Vermigli’s doctrine of union by looking at predestination, regeneration, and the relationship between justification and sanctification. The chapter will then conclude with some brief observations regarding the doctrine of union with Christ in Vermigli as it relates to Calvin particularly related to the issue of whether Vermigli only functions as a mirror into Calvin’s views. True, Vermigli provides some illumination into Calvin’s views, but what this chapter shows is that Vermigli makes significant contributions on these doctrines in his own right as a second-generation reformer.

10.2 Rankin and Garcia on Vermigli’s doctrine of union 10.2.1 Rankin Garcia explores Vermigli’s letter to Calvin by interacting with the claims of other scholars, but particularly the work of Rankin, which he characterizes as “the 7 Wilhelm Kolfhaus, Christusgemeinschaft bei Johannes Calvin (Neukirchen: Buchhandlung d. Erziehungsvereins, 1938), 25–34. 8 Dennis E. Tamburello, Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard (Louisville: WJK, 1994), 86–90; W. Duncan Rankin, “Calvin’s Correspondence on Our Threefold Union with Christ,” in The Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O. Palmer Robertson, ed. Robert L. Penny (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2008): 232–50; Garcia, Life in Christ, 273–87. Brian Gerrish briefly explores these letters to show the harmony that exists between Vermigli and Calvin vis-à-vis the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (Brian A. Gerrish, “The Flesh of the Son of Man: John W. Nevin on the Church and the Eucharist,” in Tradition in the Modern World: Reformed Theology in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Brian A. Gerrish [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978]: 63).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Rankin and Garcia on Vermigli’s doctrine of union

191

most extensive and helpful analysis to date”.9 In brief, after interacting with the primary and secondary literature, Rankin concludes that Vermigli has a threefold doctrine of union with Christ, which includes incarnational, mystical, and spiritual unions as different aspects of the one union with Christ that believers share. Rankin writes: “The hypostatic union and resultant incarnational communion involve the man Jesus, who in his humanity is a man just like other men, sin excepted. Mystic communion is a definitive sacred engrafting into the life of Jesus Christ by the action of the Holy Spirit upon faith. Spiritual communion is the progressive enjoyment of the Spirit and blessings of Christ’s life that flow from mystic union.”10 Rankin correlates the mystical and spiritual unions in Vermigli as well as in Calvin to justification and sanctification respectively.11 The following illustrates Rankin’s reading of Vermigli: Vermigli according to Rankin Incarnational union Mystical union Faith (Justification) Spiritual union Sanctification But Rankin’s conclusion does not accord with Garcia’s thesis concerning Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ and the un-prioritized relationship between justification and sanctification.

10.2.2 Garcia Garcia instead offers his own distinct understanding of Vermigli’s stated views. Garcia agrees with Rankin that Vermigli holds a threefold union with Christ. However, Garcia does not link the definitive mystical union with justification and the progressive spiritual union with sanctification. Rather, he argues that the mystical union is “the definitive engrafting into Christ by faith through the work of the Holy Spirit.” According to Garcia, the definitive act in Vermigli’s theology is faith. Then, from faith flows the spiritual union, which has a twofold 9 Garcia interacts with Rankin’s doctoral dissertation, W. Duncan Rankin, Carnal Union with Christ in the Theology of T. F. Torrance (Ph.D Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1997). 10 Rankin, “Calvin’s Correspondence,” 250. 11 Rankin, “Calvin’s Correspondence,” 246.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

192

Peter Martyr Vermigli

blessing of justification and sanctification.12 The following illustrates Garcia’s understanding of Vermigli’s views: Vermigli according to Garcia Incarnational union Mystical union Faith Spiritual union Justification Sanctification The structure that he imputes to Vermigli is basically the same structure that Garcia discerns from Calvin’s own theology of union with Christ: “In other words, Vermigli’s discussion is not markedly different from what I have described as Calvin’s more clearly articulated view: justification and sanctification are distinct but inseparable graces that come to us simultaneously in our union with Christ by faith.”13 When Garcia states that justification and sanctification are simultaneous, he not only means temporally, but also logically—justification has no priority over sanctification because union with Christ has greater priority over both aspects of the duplex gratia. Garcia’s conclusions are certainly possible—Vermigli’s doctrine of union with Christ could mirror Calvin’s view. But the question that certainly arises is, Has Garcia correctly set forth Calvin’s view? This question can be alternatively stated, Does Vermigli have an undifferentiated view of the relationship between union and justification and sanctification? Does Vermigli give priority to the doctrine of justification or union with Christ? These questions are best answered by moving forward and examining Vermigli’s letters to Beza and Calvin in detail.

10.3 Vermigli on union with Christ 10.3.1 Incarnational union Joseph McLelland claims, “There is no doubt that this doctrine of union with Christ is the dynamic of Peter Martyr’s theology.”14 In the broad picture, VerGarcia, Life in Christ, 282. Garcia, Life in Christ, 282–83. 14 Joseph C. McLelland, The Visible Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli A. D. 1500–62 (1957; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n. d.), 142. 12 13

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Vermigli on union with Christ



193

migli’s letters largely follow the same organizational pattern: he spells out his threefold doctrine of union with Christ. In the former, Vermigli responds to a letter that he received from Beza inquiring on the subject, though Beza’s letter is no longer extant.15 In the latter, Martyr writes to Calvin to inquire into Calvin’s views on the subject. In both letters Vermigli begins with the first aspect of the threefold union: the universal union that Christ shares with all persons by virtue of his incarnation as a man. Vermigli bases his belief in his understanding of Heb 2.14, in that Christ took part in human nature by becoming a man. Vermigli, though, acknowledges that this first aspect of the threefold union is perhaps a bit unsettling for Christians because through the incarnation, there is a sense in which Christ is united to Turks and Jews; this is not a racial but theological distinction. In other words, through the incarnation Christ is united to believer and unbeliever alike.16 Vermigli denominates this aspect, the natural union, though for the sake of this chapter, the term incarnational union will be employed.

10.3.2 Spiritual union Vermigli proceeds to discuss the second aspect of the threefold union, what he calls the union of similarity, or in his letter to Calvin he says it is wrought by the Spirit of Christ, hence spiritual union. Vermigli describes spiritual union in his letter to Beza in the following manner: “Therefore another analogy should come into play, one by which the nature of each Christian as regards his soul, body, and blood is joined to Christ. This takes place when by the help and nurturing of Christ’s benefits we are restored in all respects and are made holy and just, and are adorned with divine properties and claim for ourselves the gift of immortality and of eternal glory from the gifts of God”17 In his letter to Calvin, Vermigli describes the first and second unions as follows: “We have then here, thus far, two communions with Christ. One is natural, which we derive through our origin from our parents: the other is effected by the Spirit of Christ, Vermigli, Life, Letters, and Sermons, 134 n. 138. Peter Martyr Vermigli, “Vermigli to Beza,” in Common Places, trans. Anthony Marten (London: 1583), 105–06; idem, Loci Communes (London: 1583), 1108. Note, a modern translation of this letter also appears in idem, Life, Letters, and Sermons, 134–37. This modern translation will be cited throughout. See also idem, “Martyr to Calvin,” in Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears During the Time of the Reformation in England and the Times Immediately Succeeding: 1533–88, ed. and trans. George C. Gorham (London: Bell and Daldy, 1857), 342. This letter is found in Vermigli’s Loci Communes, 1094–96. 17 Vermigli, “Vermigli to Beza,” 135 (idem, “Vermigli a Bèze, 154; idem, Loci Communes, 1108). 15 16

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

194

Peter Martyr Vermigli

by which we are from our very regeneration renewed into the fashion of His glory.”18 The following illustrates Vermigli’s statements thus far: Vermigli Incarnational union Spiritual union

10.3.3 Mystical union Vermigli explains to Beza that between incarnational and the spiritual, there is a third union: “We grant and believe, there has to be a middle, which is secret, between the beginning and the end of this kind of communion.”19 Vermigli also calls this middle aspect a mystical union (communionem mysticam).20 The following illustrates Vermigli’s overall structure of his doctrine of union with Christ: Vermigli Incarnational union Mystical union Spiritual union There is some disagreement in the secondary literature as to how the latter two aspects of union, the mystical and spiritual, relate to the rest of Vermigli’s soteriology. Nevertheless, pace Garcia, it seems that Rankin is correct when he argues that Vermigli’s mystical (middle) union is a definitive event and therefore corresponds to justification and that the spiritual union corresponds to the doctrine of sanctification.21 This conclusion seems warranted based on the following three points. First, in Vermigli’s letter to Beza he talks about the incarnational and spiritual unions as the “beginning and the end” (inter initium finemque). This unionconstruct spans from the incarnation to the consummation. Vermigli has the Vermigli, “Vermigli to Calvin,” 343; idem, Loci Communes, 1095. Vermigli, Loci Communes, 1109; idem, “Vermigli a Bèze,” 154. 20 Vermigli, Loci Communes, 1109; idem, “Vermigli a Bèze,” 154. 21 Rankin, “Calvin’s Correspondence,” 245; cf. McLelland, Visible Words, 144; Garcia, Life in Christ, 282. 18 19

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Vermigli on union with Christ



195

consummation in view because he calls the spiritual union that of similarity (similitudo). In other words, Vermigli casts his eye to the believer’s resurrection and glorification, hence the believer’s conformity to the likeness and image of Christ: This happens not because we discard our own flesh, blood, and soul as regards their nature, but because of that nature which thanks to its origin is identical in kind with the nature that Christ assumed in being born of the Virgin. Because of these heavenly gifts which we have acquired by believing, we begin while living here to have that nature developed and we will have it more restored day by day and finally perfected when we reach the blessed resurrection.22

Vermigli casts his sight upon the believer’s glorification, which is set in motion by the incarnation, applied by the Spirit, and secured through the sanctification of the person until her glorification. Vermigli’s spiritual union, then, has a decidedly eschatological cast to it. In fact, the editor of the critical edition of Beza’s correspondence describes the second union as an eternal union that occurs through the resurrection.23 Second, this incarnation-consummation union structure is confirmed from the parallel passage in Vermigli’s letter to Calvin where he writes of the goal of the spiritual union: In due season, faith is breathed into the elect, whereby they may believe in Christ; and thus they have not only remission of sins and reconciliation with God (wherein consists the true and solid method of justification), but, further, receive the renovating influence of the Spirit whereby our bodies also, our flesh, and blood, and nature, are made capable of immortality, and become every day more and more conformable to Christ (Christiformia), so to speak.24

In the above quotation Vermigli explains that first faith is breathed into the elect, which involves the believer’s justification. He then says that the believer receives the renovating influence of the Spirit, who brings about Christiformia. There is a pattern here of faith (justification) and then renovation (sanctification) unto Christiformia (glorification). Vermigli, Loci Communes, 1108–09; idem, “Vermigli a Bèze,” 154. Vermigli, “Vermigli to Beza, March 1555,” 153: “Vermigli répond ensuite à la question de Bèze sur la communion du chrétien avec le Christ, don’t il distingue trois sortes différentes: naturelle, par la naissance, éternelle, par la résurrection, mystique, par la foi et les sacrements.” 24 Vermigli, “Vermigli to Calvin,” 342–43; idem, Loci Communes, 1095. 22 23

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

196

Peter Martyr Vermigli

This justification – sanctification sequence is confirmed by how Vermigli goes on to describe the mystical (middle) union. Vermigli explains to Calvin that the mystical union is the source and fountain of the second union: But I think between these [incarnational and spiritual] there is an intermediate one [mystical], which is the fount and origin of all the celestial and spiritual likeness which we obtain, together with Christ. It is that whereby, as soon as we believe, we obtain Christ Himself, our true head, and are made His members. Whence from the Head itself (as St. Paul says [Eph 4.16]) His Spirit flows, and is derived through the joints and ligaments into us, as his true and legitimate members. This communion with our Head is prior, in nature at least, if not in time, to that later communion with is introduced through renovation.25

Of particular interest is that Vermigli states that this mystical (middle) union is the “fount and origin of all the celestial and spiritual likeness,” Vermigli also states that the mystical communion is prior “in nature . . . if not in time, to that later communion” which “is introduced through renovation”. Vermigli stipulates, “Thus we first put Him on; and so are called by the Apostle flesh of His flesh, bone of His bones. And from this communion [mystical] which I have now explained that latter one [spiritual] is perfected so long as we live on earth.”26 The following illustrates what Vermigli argues thus far: Vermigli Incarnational union Mystical union Faith (Justification) Spiritual union Renovation (Sanctification) unto Christiformia (Glorification)

10.3.4 Vermigli and Zanchi Third, there is confirmation of this overall structure concerning Vermigli’s threefold union from one of his colleagues. Girolamo Zanchi was converted

Vermigli, “Vermigli to Calvin,” 343; idem, Loci Communes, 1095. Vermigli, “Vermigli to Calvin,” 343; idem, Loci Communes, 1095. See the similar statement to Beza in, “Vermigli to Beza,” 136. 25 26

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Vermigli on union with Christ

197

under Vermigli’s preaching, but was also his student and disciple.27 In Zanchi’s own work one does not find an exact replica of Vermigli’s views, but he does have a threefold union that he defines as incarnational, mystical, and assumptive (or eschatological).28 Zanchi sees the first union as the incarnation of Christ, as does Vermigli. However, unlike Vermigli, Zanchi discuss his threefold union in chronological order: incarnational, mystical, and eschatological. The following illustration shows the similarities and differences between Vermigli and Zanchi:29 Vermigli Incarnational union

Zanchi Incarnational union

Middle: Mystical union Faith (Justification)

Mystical union Justification Sanctification

Second: Spiritual union Renovative (Sanctification) unto Christiformia

Eschatological union Glorification

There are certainly differences in the relative structures of Vermigli and Zanchi, but that both speak of an eschatological union provides corroborative evidence that Vermigli has similar concerns. The specifics of Vermigli’s doctrine of union with Christ will become clearer as the study proceeds to discuss the various interrelated parts, particularly predestination, regeneration, and justification and sanctification. A survey of Vermigli’s statements on these doctrines is key to corroborating the correctness of Rankin’s conclusion and properly understanding Vermigli’s doctrine of union. Further investigation into the primary sources is something that is lacking in Garcia’s analysis—he only looks at the letters and then resorts to secondary literature to assess Vermigli’s views.30

27 Philip McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy: An Anatomy of Apostasy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 229; John Patrick Donnelly, “Italian Influences on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism,” SCJ 7/1 (1976): 88. 28 Girolamo Zanchi, De religione Christiana Fides – Confession of Christian Religion, 2 vol., ed. Luca Baschera / Christian Moser (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 12.5 (1.234–35). 29 Zanchi, De religione, 17–21 (1.318–71). 30 Garcia, Life in Christ, 79–80, 185–90, 280–83.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

198

Peter Martyr Vermigli

10.4 Union with Christ dissected 10.4.1 Predestination It is proper to begin with Vermigli’s doctrine of predestination vis-à-vis his doctrine of union with Christ. One of the things brought to light in Vermigli scholarship is the christological cast to his doctrine of predestination. Richard Muller notes, for example: “Election is in Christ and the gracious benefits given by God to the elect are given through Christ.”31 Muller’s characterization of Vermigli’s understanding of election is accurate given how the Italian reformer defines predestination as: “The most wise purpose of God by which he has from eternity constantly decreed to call all those whom he has loved in Christ to the adoption of his children, to justification by faith, and at last to glory through good works, that they may be made like the image of the Son of God, and that in them may be declared the glory and mercy of the creator.”32 The christological cast to his definition is evident when Vermigli comprehends the outworking of the decree “in Christ” and then goes on to list adoption, justification, sanctification (good works), and glorification. Given the overall structure of Vermigli’s doctrine of union with Christ, a new layer may be added in the light of his definition of predestination: Vermigli Predestinarian union Incarnational union Mystical union Faith (Justification) Spiritual union Renovation (Sanctification) unto Christiformia (Glorification) We may now turn to see what Vermigli has to say regarding regeneration or effectual calling.

Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology From Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 67. 32 Peter Martyr Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, The Peter Martyr Library, vol. 8, trans. and ed by Frank A. James III (Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 2003), 19. (Loci Communes, 3.1.11 [p. 494]). 31

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Union with Christ dissected

199

10.4.2 Regeneration There is a necessary distinction to make between the early- and late-Vermigli vis-à-vis the placement of regeneration. In Vermigli’s locus on the doctrine of justification, taken from his commentary on 1 Corinthians, he explains that justification has three aspects. First, justification brings the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness so that the believer can be fully restored before God. Second, the believer is both renewed and regenerated in body and soul so she is equipped for living an upright and holy life. And third, the habit of good works and righteousness adheres to the believer’s soul so that she can be called righteous in her human conduct.33 Secondary scholarship has identified this threefold understanding of justification as mirroring the views of Martin Bucer, a fellow colleague of Vermigli who worked with him during his time at Oxford University.34 In this respect, given that justification occurs in union with Christ, one can say that Vermigli saw regeneration as a part of his doctrine of union. As Vermigli’s theology developed and matured, there was a change in the placement of his doctrine of regeneration. In a mature expression on the doctrine of justification taken from his Romans commentary, Vermigli no longer treats regeneration under justification—all renovative themes are removed and only forensic elements remain.35 For example, Vermigli contrasts between the works done before and after regeneration: “There is no fruit of sanctification except what follows regeneration.” There is a direct link between regeneration and sanctification. But the same cannot be said regarding justification. Vermigli argues that justification and forgiveness of sins can in no way be attributed to anything in the believer.36 This means that regeneration now logically precedes justification in Vermigli’s thought. But this does not mean that Vermigli believed that regeneration was no longer a part of union with Christ. 33 Peter Martyr Vermigli, Justification and Faith, in The Peter Martyr Reader, ed. John Patrick Donnelly / Frank A. James III / Joseph C. McLelland (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 1999), 135–36; idem, In Selectissimam D. Pauli Apostoli Priorem Ad Corinthios Epistolam Commentarii (Zurich: 1579), 15–16. 34 See Frank A. James III, De Justificatione: The Evolution of Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Doctrine of Jusification (Ph.D Dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000), 194; Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2 vol. (1986; Cambridge: CUP, 1995), 2.34–35, 203; W. P. Stephens, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer (Cambridge: CUP, 1970), 48–70, esp. 49–50; Martin Bucer, Common Places of Martin Bucer, trans. and ed. D. F. Wright (1555; Appleford: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1972), 160–69. 35 Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 87–88; Loci Communes, 3.4.1 (pp. 575–76). 36 Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 115; Loci Communes, 3.4.18 (p. 586).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

200

Peter Martyr Vermigli

In his Romans commentary, for example, Vermigli explains the significance of Rom 6.5: In plants when the graft is set into the stock, it no longer draws sap from itself but from the stock into which it is grafted: so we being in regeneration grafted into Christ ought to live by his Spirit, and with him both to die and also to rise again: even as Christ was not held by the sorrows of death, so also the tyranny of sin no longer holds us in its bands. Righteousness and pureness of life shall daily be renewed in us.37

In another place in Vermigli’s Roman’s commentary, he explains the relationship between baptism (Rom 6.4) and regeneration, as he draws upon Christ’s words to Nicodemas regarding being born again (John 3) and Paul’s words to Titus, namely that baptism is the washing of regeneration (Titus 3.5). Vermigli explains that in regeneration there is a mutation or change in a person. But Vermigli stipulates that in regeneration, of which baptism is the sign, a person is “wholly united to Christ”.38 Hence, regeneration is a part of union with Christ but no longer an aspect of justification. The following illustrates where regeneration falls within Vermigli’s doctrine of union: Vermigli Predestinarian union Incarnational union Mystical union Regeneration Faith (Justification) Spiritual union Renovation (Sanctification) unto Christiformia (Glorification)

10.4.3 Justification and sanctification In Vermigli’s Romans locus on justification he is very careful to preserve the forensic nature of justification and fence it from the believer’s good works. Ver37 Peter Martyr Vermigli, The Most Learned and Fruitful Commentaries of Dr. Peter Martyr Vermigli on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (London: 1558), 144; idem, In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli Ad Rom. Commentarii (Basel: 1560), 453. 38 Vermigli, Romans, 145 ;idem, Ad. Rom., 457: “toti in Christum transeant”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ dissected



201

migli states: “Justification is not by works; justification is obtained by faith; justification is given through faith alone.”39 Vermigli’s insistence upon sola fide does not mean he mitigates the importance of sanctification. To this point Vermigli dissects what sola fide actually means: “We do not say that faith through which we are justified is in our minds without good works, though we do say that the same ‘only’ is that which takes hold of justification and the remission of sins. The eye cannot be without a head, brains, heart, liver, and other parts of the body, and yet the eye alone apprehends color and light.”40 Vermigli is careful to distinguish the instrumental role of faith in justification but also stipulate that because of a person’s union with Christ, she is bound to bear the fruit of good works: “But now, delivered by the grace of God, we are joined with Christ by the Spirit, to Christ himself being raised from the dead. By this union we may bring forth fruit to God, and no more death and damnation.”41 But given Vermigli’s emphasis upon union with Christ at this point does not mean that he saw justification and sanctification in an indifferent relationship as Garcia argues. In numerous places throughout his locus on justification Vermigli clearly gives priority to the doctrine of justification. Concerning justification Vermigli writes: “This doctrine is the head, fountain, and mainstay of all religion.”42 In what way does Vermigli prioritize justification? Vermigli explains that good works “follow justification as fruits, which spring up and sprout from a true faith.” But Vermigli’s point is not merely one of observation, namely that a person first believes (and hence is justified) and then produces good works. Rather, quoting Origen (ca. 185–254), Vermigli states: “Therefore, the root of righteousness does not come from works, but works grow out of the root of righteousness.”43 In a similar statement, Vermigli himself writes: “Because we do not reject good works, we say that they ought to be held in a place of honor, since a very close connection obtains with the immediate consequences of justification.”44 Vermigli writes concerning the woman who washed Jesus’ feet Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 96: ““Iustificatio non est ex operibus, Iustificatio per fidem habetur, Iustificatio datur sola fide?” (Loci Communes, 3.4.8 [p. 578]). 40 Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 218; idem, Loci Communes, 3.4.83 (p. 633). 41 Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 102: “Sed iam nunc liberati Dei gratia, Christo per spiritum copulamur, Christo inquam, excitato à mortuis, ex qua coniunctione iam Deo fructificabimus, non amplius morti et damnationi” (Loci Commnes, 3.4.12 [p. 571]). 42 Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 96: “Cùm hoc dogma caput sit, fons et columen totius pietatis” (Loci Communes, 3.4.8 [p. 578]). 43 Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 151: “Ex operibus radix iustitiae, sed ex radice iustitiae crescit fructus operum” (Loci Communes, 3.4.41 [p. 603]). 44 Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 144: “Et quoniam opera bona non reiicimus, sed ea suo loco colenda dicimus, ut quae arctissima necessitudine adeptam iam iustificationem consequuntur” (Loci Communes, 3.4.36 [p. 599]). 39

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

202

Peter Martyr Vermigli

with her tears and hair (Luke 7.44–50): “That this woman received a very great gift, that is, justification, is revealed by the effects, namely, that she washed his feet with her hair.”45 By denominating good works as the effect of justification, Vermigli prioritizes justification over sanctification, even though both come in union with Christ. The question arises, Why does Vermigli accord priority to justification? The simple answer is, the believer’s good works are never sufficient to withstand the scrutiny of divine judgment. Vermigli draws this point out in his analysis of the Tridentine pronouncements on justification. Vermigli explains that Trent recites the causes of justification: the final cause is the glory of God and our salvation, the efficient cause is the mercy of God, the meritorious cause (as Trent calls it) is Christ’s shed blood on the cross, and the formal cause is the justice of God.46 He goes on to write that Trent constructs justification in such a way that it rests upon the good works of the believer in cooperation with the work of the Holy Spirit. Vermigli rejects this construct because: “We say that justification cannot consist in that righteousness and renewal by which we are created anew by God. For it is imperfect because of our corruption, so that we are not able to stand before the judgment of Christ.”47 To say one is in any sense justified by works is to confuse law and gospel because believers are justified by the promises of God, not by their adherence to the law.48 Vermigli writes: “We are said to be justified by [faith] because through it we take hold of the promises of God and the righteousness and merits of Christ, and apply them to ourselves.”49 Hence, concerning justification Vermigli writes that Christ enters the hearts of those whom he saves (John 14.16ff) and Paul teaches the Ephesians that Christ dwells in the heart through faith (Eph 3.17): “So Christ’s saying does not teach that justification comes from love, for justification comes first, not in time, but in order.”50 To highlight the priority of justification, Vermigli gives a gloss of Eph 2.8–10 where he equates justification with salvation: “A man is justified by faith and that not of yourself, lest anyone Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 142 (Loci Communes, 3.4.35 [p. 598]). For the Tridentine statements on justification, see The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, session 6, in Creeds of Christendom, 3 vol., ed. Phillip Schaff (1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 2.89–118. 47 Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 159: “Idcirco autem dicimus, in ea iustitia et instauratione qua reformamur à Deo, non posse esse iustificationem, quòd ea nostro vitio imperfecta sit, ne possimus cum ea ad tribunal Christi consistere” (Loci Communes, 3.4.46 [p. 606]). 48 Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 115, idem, Loci Communes, 3.4.18 (p. 586); cf. Anderson, “Martyr on Romans,” 406. 49 Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 96: “Sed illa iustificari dicimur, qua promissiones Dei & Christi iustitiam meritaque per ipsam apprehendimus, & nobis applicamus” (Loci Communes, 3.4.8 [p. 578]). 50 Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 188 (Loci Communes, 3.4.64 [p. 619]). 45 46

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ dissected



203

should boast.”51 Paul originally states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (NRSV). Vermigli replaces saved with justified, which shows that in his mind, to be justified is to be saved. Vermigli employs an earlier portion of Eph 2 again confirming the priority of justification when he writes: Where do salvation and justification come from? ‘But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ’ (Eph 2.1–3). What means did he use to give us salvation? ‘For by grace’ (he says) ‘you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast’ (Eph 2.8–9). Could works be excluded more clearly? Where then shall we place them? Certainly they follow justification, for the apostle adds, ‘For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them’ (Eph 2.10).52

This brief survey shows, pace Garcia, that Vermigli does give justification priority (both logical and soteriological)—indeed, it is first in order, the head, fountain, and mainstay of all religion. In fact, to this end, Vermigli writes in his Romans commentary: But Paul affirms that we are justified by the death of Christ; which is understood first as in the presence of God by imputation. Second also, because a new righteousness is daily augmented in us, which in living holily we receive by the restoration of our strength which we have now received from the Holy Spirit. But we must cleave only to the first justification. For in it is the foundation of our salvation. For the other righteousness, which is imperfect, is not able to stand before the judgment seat of God.53

Given the surveyed evidence, it seems that Rankin’s conclusions better accord with the primary source evidence. With good reason Marvin Anderson comments that for Vermigli justification was the gateway to a new life in Christ.54

Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 125: “Hominem iustificari ex fide: idque inquit, non ex vobis, ne quis glorietur” (Loci Communes, 3.4.24 [p. 591]). 52 Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 109 (Loci Communes, 3.4.16 [p. 581]). 53 Vermigli, Romans, 108; idem, Ad. Rom., 331. 54 Anderson, “Martyr on Romans,” 413. 51

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

204

Peter Martyr Vermigli

10.5 Conclusion This chapter began with a brief exploration of Vermigli’s letter to Calvin and noted his concurrence with Vermigli’s views on union with Christ. While one cannot possibly know to what extent Calvin was familiar with Vermigli’s writings, this much is certain—Calvin saw nothing at odds with his own views on union with Christ compared to those of Vermigli. But this epistolary exchange between Calvin and Vermigli also shows three important points worthy of attention in future efforts to reconstruct Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ and the relationship to justification and sanctification. First, Calvin’s views cannot be explored in isolation, restricted to the walls of his commentaries or the Institutes, contra Charles Partee. Not only must Calvin’s writings be explored, including his sermons, tracts, and letters, but Calvin must be set in his historical context. In this case, more work on the views of Calvin’s colleagues, like Vermigli, needs to be done. By sampling a broader cross-section of theologians, one might be better equipped to compare and contrast Calvin’s views and understand how unique his conclusions might or might not be. Second, if Garcia’s conclusions about Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ are correct, what does it mean when Garcia cordons off the Reformed view as being synonymous with Calvin’s view? Garcia claims, “Calvin did function as the principle theologian and systematizer of the tradition in its infancy, often providing the necessary sophistication in theological form and structure.”55 Because of how Garcia sees Calvin’s function within the Reformed tradition, he ends up positing a Calvin vs. the Calvinists theory when he claims that later Reformed theologians, such as Charles Hodge (1797–1878), were more Lutheran than Reformed (i.e., Calvin) on the relationship between justification and sanctification.56 This is a significant implication for the present chapter because not only did Calvin agree with Vermigli’s stated views but he also invited him to be the pastor of the Italian congregation at Geneva.57 So does this mean that Calvin misunderstood Vermigli’s views and was making a mistake with the invitation? Or if Garcia’s exposition of Calvin’s views is correct, that Calvin himself did not draw the lines of heterodoxy as narrowly as Garcia does? Or it is also possible that Garcia has misstated Calvin’s views and Calvin was in complete agreement with Vermigli and accorded justification priority over sanctification. Regardless, Garcia, Life in Christ, 259–60. Billings, “John Calvin’s Soteriology,” 446. 57 See John Calvin, “ Calvin to Martyr (18 Jan 1555)” in Tracts and Treatises, 6.121–26 (CO 15.386–89); cf. Rankin, “Calvin’s Correspondence,” 249 n. 82. 55 56

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Conclusion

205

these different scenarios present significant challenges to Garcia’s overall claims regarding Calvin’s role in the shaping of the Reformed tradition. Third, along the similar lines as the previous point, given that Vermigli wrote to Calvin and Beza in 1555, some four years before the publication of Calvin’s definitive 1559 Institutes, there is the interesting possibility that Vermigli could have influenced Calvin’s views. In Anderson’s analysis of Vermigli’s letters, he points out that there are forty-three letters between Vermigli and Bullinger (from 5 Oct 1542 to Aug 1562), nine letters to or from Beza (from 18 Nov 1554 to 25 Nov 1561), and forty-five letters to or from Calvin (from 3 Nov 1553 to 16 Mar 1562). Anderson also notes that Vermigli was well known to the leaders of Zurich and Geneva. Given this information, as well as other points he raises, Anderson therefore concludes: “One must concur with Peter Martyr, that he and John Calvin were as closely joined in mind and judgment as were any other pair of theologians in sixteenth-century Europe. If in the past historians have been tempted to call Martyr a Calvinist, it would seem as proper to call Calvin a devotee of Peter Martyr.”58 Anderson notes how Ursinus describes Vermigli as one who was a clearer theologian than Oecolampadius or Zwingli; Ursinus then cites an example from Vermigli’s Roman’s commentary—the same commentary from which his locus on justification was drawn. Anderson then writes, “This praise of Martyr’s judgment by his opponents and supporters alike requires sober reflection. To them Peter Martyr’s writings were essential documents of the mid-sixteenth century.”59 Certainly Vermigli’s correspondence to Calvin lends credence to such a suggestion. However, also consider that Bullinger sought Vermigli’s approval for his Second Helvetic Confession, a confessional document later employed by the Swiss Reformed churches as their doctrinal standard.60 Also, Ursinus was Vermigli’s student, one whom Vermigli recommended to serve on the theological faculty of Heidelberg; Ursinus was the chief author of the Heidelberg Catechism.61 In a word, Vermigli was quite influential in his own day, arguably as influential as Calvin. These three points show that Calvin’s view of union is not the only influential stream feeding into the Reformed tradition. Vermigli had a great deal of authority as well, but his influence seemingly goes unnoticed by many such as Garcia.

58 Marvin W. Anderson, “Peter Martyr, Reformed Theologian (1542–62): His letters to Heinrich Bullinger and John Calvin,” SCJ 4/1 (1973): 42, 63. 59 Anderson, “Peter Martyr,” 64. 60 John Patrick Donnelly, Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s Doctrine of Man and Grace (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 185. 61 Donnelly, Calvinism and Scholasticism, 186–87.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

206

Peter Martyr Vermigli

In the end, the primary source evidence places significant question over Garcia’s interpretation of Vermigli’s doctrine of union with Christ. Duncan Rankin has offered a more compelling interpretation. Moreover, if Vermigli provides any sidelight illumination, it also seems that Venema and Billings present a more compelling interpretation of Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ and the relationship between justification and sanctification. While there may be debate over Calvin’s views, one thing is certain, Vermigli certainly holds justification and sanctification as being part of union with Christ but nevertheless gives priority to justification.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

11. Girolamo Zanchi

11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 In Calvin’s shadow John Calvin has been accorded a high place in the history of Reformation studies, and with 2009 marking the five-hundredth anniversary of his birth, there has been no shortage of works on the Genevan giant. In past generations Calvin, for better or for worse, was touted as the theologian of divine election and the “awful decree,” as he termed it.1 One of the themes in Calvin’s theology that has drowned out the predestinarian chorus of old in recent literature is that of union with Christ. However, even though Calvin was a second-generation reformer, and one of many during his own day, he still draws a host of scholars that continue to pour over his writings. One theologian that has not drawn much attention is Girolamo Zanchi (1516–90). What is there to commend a study on Zanchi’s doctrine of union with Christ? For all of the attention given to Calvin, Zanchi not only structurally gives union with Christ a greater emphasis in his theology, but unlike Calvin, Zanchi also wrote a doctrinal locus on the subject in his commentary on Ephesians. While there does seem to be some indebtedness to Calvin’s exegesis at points in Zanchi’s exegesis of Eph 5, Calvin is more interested in the husband-wife relationship and Zanchi more in union with Christ. This is not to say that Calvin makes no connection in Eph 5 to union with Christ, but Zanchi definitely places greater emphasis upon it than does Calvin as evidenced by his locus on the subject.2 These facts make an exploration of Zanchi’s understanding of union with Christ (in all of its constituent elements) a helpful project because it gives greater historical context for uncovering how a Reformed theologian other than Calvin understood the relationship between union and justification. 1 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, LCC, vol. 20–21 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.23.7; OS 4.401: “Decretum quidem horribile”. 2 John L. Farthing, “De coniugio spirituali: Jerome Zanchi on Ephesians 5.22–33,” SCJ 24/3 (1993): 646–48; John Calvin, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, CNTC, ed., David W. Torrance / T. F. Torrance (1965; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 204–05; idem, Opera Exegetica, vol. 16, ed. Helmut Feld (Geneva: Droz, 1992), 265–66.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

208

Girolamo Zanchi

11.1.2 Thesis The thesis of this chapter is that union with Christ is a key element of Zanchi’s soteriology but he maintains the priority of justification by faith alone in his soteriology and employs causal language. Zanchi does not think union with Christ and according priority to justification are contradictory but rather sees them as complementary and necessary. This chapter shows that the reason why Zanchi gives priority to justification lies not in the ontology of salvation but in redemptive history, namely the fall of Adam and the imputation of his guilt to his offspring and the subsequent imputed righteousness of the second Adam to those who believe in him. Therefore, a survey of Zanchi’s doctrine of union with Christ seems in order, though it is helpful briefly to set forth a biographical sketch of the Italian reformer as this historical information gives further reason for exploration of Zanchi’s views.

11.2 Biographical sketch 11.2.1 Life The influence of the Italian reformers, such as Peter Martyr Vermigli and Zanchi, is something that has not received as much attention as other Reformed luminaries from the same time frame.3 Nevertheless, Zanchi was converted through the preaching of Vermigli and embraced the doctrine of justification by faith alone; he eventually joined the cause of the Reformation.4 Zanchi labored as a lecturer in Old Testament at Strasbourg from 1553–63, he was pastor of a congregation at Chiavenna, and was later called by Heidelberg to take over the chair of common place theology from Zacharias Ursinus.5 One of the reasons Zanchi was called to teach at Heidelberg, was that in the wake of the controversies between the Lutherans and the Reformed and the crisis of the Augsburg Interim, he was hired to restore the reputation established by Martin Bucer, Calvin, and Vermigli.6 Hence, Zanchi’s credentials as a Reformed theologian were impeccable. Zanchi was well schooled in Reformed theology, not only 3 For a general survey, see John Tedeschi, “Italian Reformers and the Diffusion of Renaissance Culture,” SCJ 5/2 (1974): 79–94. 4 Philip McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy: An Anatomy of Apostasy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 229. 5 Christopher J. Burchill, “Girolamo Zanchi: Portrait of a Reformed Theologian and His Work,” SCJ 15/2 (1984): 1, 18. 6 Burchill, “Girolamo Zanchi,” 6.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Biographical sketch



209

having been trained by Vermigli, but also because he studied with Calvin in Geneva for some ten months.7 In fact, like many other theologians of the era, Zanchi prepared a compendium of Calvin’s 1543/5 Institutes for his personal use. Zanchi, therefore, was greatly familiar with Calvin’s theology.8 However, this is not to suggest that Zanchi was a Calvin clone.9

11.2.1 Influence While Calvin’s long shadow hangs over the Reformation and the secondary literature is legion in comparison with the studies on Zanchi, the Italian did have an influential role in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed theology. Given his position as a theology professor at Heidelberg during the height of the Lutheran-Reformed debates, he played a critical role in the development of the German Reformed church and was a leading champion of Reformed orthodoxy.10 In fact, some argue that Zanchi, along with Theodore Beza and Vermigli, had a greater influence upon the formation of Reformed doctrine than did Calvin.11 Zanchi’s influence certainly reached into sixteenth-century English Reformed theology when William Perkins prepared a translation of Zanchi’s work on perseverance and included it in his own work, A Case of Conscience (1595).12 This biographical thumbnail sketch hopefully gives the reader a bit of context for appreciating Zanchi’s work as a key Reformed theologian.

John Patrick Donnelly, “Italian Influences on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism,” SCJ 7/1 (1976): 88; Joseph N. Tylenda, “Girolamo Zanchi and John Calvin: A Study in Discipleship as Seen Through Their Correspondence,” CTJ 10/2 (1975): 104; Burchill, “Girolamo Zanchi,” 17 n. 11. 8 On the role of compendiums see O. Fatio, “Prèsence de Calvin á l’epoque de l’Orthodoxie rèformée. Les abrégés de Calvin à la fin du 16e au 17e siècle” in Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor, ed. W. H. Neuser (Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok B. V., 1978): 171–208. Also see Richard A. Muller, The Unaccomodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: OUP, 2000), 216 n. 16. See Giorlamo Zanchi, Compendium praecipuorum capitum Doctrinae Christianae, in Opera Theologica, 8 vol. (Geneva: 1605), 8.621–828. 9 Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 111. 10 Burchill, “Girolamo Zanchi,” 25. 11 Donnelly, “Italian Influences,” 82; also John S. Bray, Theodore Beza’s Doctrine of Predestination (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1985), 135–36. 12 Burchill, “Girolamo Zanchi,” 1, 17. 7

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

210

Girolamo Zanchi

11.2.3 Key works In the exploration of Zanchi’s doctrine of union with Christ, two key works will be employed, both his De religione Christiana fides (Confession of Christian Religion) and his locus from his Ephesians commentary on the doctrine. His Ephesians locus is especially helpful because it is where Zanchi’s exegesis and theology coalesce in his presentation of the doctrine. Zanchi’s De religione also gives the investigator a bird’s eye view of the structure of his thought as well as a window into the theology of the German Reformed churches at the time, as it was intended as a confession to unite the Reformed churches of Europe.13 Combined, both works can render an accurate portrait of Zanchi’s doctrine of union with Christ.14 Therefore, the rest of the chapter will proceed with an exploration of: (1) the general contours of Zanchi’s doctrine; and (2) the specific elements of the doctrine in terms of the place of regeneration and effectual calling, justification and sanctification, and lastly how Zanchi relates union with Christ to eschatology.

11.3 Zanchi’s doctrine of union with Christ 11.3.1 Placement The first place to begin is to examine the location and placement of Zanchi’s doctrine of union with Christ in the overall scope of his theology. One does not want to make too much out of structure and placement, as it can lead to erroneous conclusions, such as the oft-cited but nonetheless problematic ques-

13 Muller, Christ and the Decree, 115; Girolamo Zanchi, De religione Christiana Fides – Confession of Christian Religion, 2 vol., ed. Luca Baschera / Christian Moser (Leiden: Brill, 2007). Note, this edition contains a sixteenth-century English translation along with the original Latin. For Zanchi’s locus on union see Jerome Zanchi, An Excellent and Learned Treatise of the Spiritual Marriage between Christ and the Church (Cambridge: 1592); idem, Commentarius in Epistolam Sancti Pauli Ad Ephesos, 2 vol., ed. A. H. Hartog, Bibliotheca Reformata, vol. 5 (Amsterdam: 1888). The English translations from both works have been updated in all quotations. 14 This is not to suggest that these two works are the only place where Zanchi addresses the subject of union with Christ. He does so in his Hosea commentary (see John L. Farthing, “Holy Harlotry: Jerome Zanchi and the Exegetical History of Gomer (Hosea 1–3),” in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation, ed., Richard A. Muller / John L. Thompson [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 292–312; Girolamo Zanchi, Commentaium in Hoseam prophetam, in Opera Theologica, 5.1–207).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Zanchi’s doctrine



211

tion of the placement of a theologian’s doctrine of predestination.15 To explore the placement of Zanchi’s doctrine is not an effort to divine a Centraldogma in Zanchi’s theology, but rather to understand its relationship to the rest of his soteriology. In his confession Zanchi begins with the doctrine of Scripture and ends with eschatology. Zanchi does seem to mirror the basic structure of the Apostles’ Creed. During the preparation of his confession several models were suggested to him. It does not appear that he was inspired by the Augsburg Confession, the Gallican, or other Anglican confessions, but instead there are similarities to Heinrich Bullinger’s (1504–75) Second Helvetic Confession (1562). The following chart illustrates the similarities between Zanchi’s confession and the Second Helvetic Confession:16 Zanchi Scripture God (foreknowledge and predestination) God’s omnipotence Creation Providence Original sin Free will in fallen man Promise of salvation Law Christ the Redeemer Union with Christ Gospel Sacraments Faith, hope, and love Repentance Justification Free will in the regenerate Good works Invocation and oath

Second Helvetic Confession Scripture (Interpretation of Scripture) God (images of God) Christ as mediator Providence Creation Fall and sin Free will Predestination Christ as redeemer Law Gospel

Repentance Justification Faith and good works

Cf. e.g., Otto Gründler, “Thomism and Calvinsim in the Theology of Girolamo Zanchi (1516–1590)” (Th.D. Dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, 1961); Donnelly, “Italian Influences,” 97; Muller, Christ and the Decree, 110–20; idem, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: OUP, 2003), 63–104. 16 Baschera / Moser, ed., De religione, 1.26–28. 15

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

212

Girolamo Zanchi

Church in general Church militant Church government and offices

Church Offices Sacraments Baptism Lord’s Supper Worship Prayer and Singing Holy days and fasting Catechesis and pastoral care of the sick

Magistrates Forgiveness of sins Resurrection Second coming Eternal life

Burial Ceremonies and adiaphora Church property Marriage Magistrate

The parallels between Zanchi and the Second Helvetic Confession are evident, but so too are the differences.

11.3.2 Bullinger and Zanchi What stands out with respect to this present study is Zanchi’s chapter on union with Christ. To be sure, Bullinger does say that justification and the mercy of God comes to the believer “in Christ,” which echoes union with Christ language.17 Bullinger affirms the importance of union with Christ, as elsewhere in his Decades’ sermon on the holy catholic church he writes: “Christ our Lord is joined unto us in spirit [coniungitur nobis Christus], and we are tied to him in mind and faith, as the body unto head: they therefore that lack this knot and bond, that is, that have not the Spirit of Christ, nor true faith in Christ, are

17

Second Helvetic Confession 15.4.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Zanchi’s doctrine

213

not the true and lively members of Christ.”18 In Bullinger’s Decades’ sermon on justification, he also writes: “Therefore faith for Christ, and by the grace and covenant of God, does justify: and so faith, that is, that which we believe, and wherein our confidence is settled, God, I say, himself by the grace of God does justify us through our redemption in Christ.”19 Bullinger is aware and writes of union with Christ, but the doctrine does not take on the structural emphasis as it does for Zanchi, who titles the chapter in his confession: “Of the true dispensation of the redemption, the salvation and life, which is laid up in Christ alone, and therefore the necessary uniting and participation with Christ.”20 So, while materially, Bullinger agrees with Zanchi, formally there is a far greater emphasis upon union in Zanchi’s confession as well as in his theology as a whole. In effect, Zanchi sees union with Christ as the gateway into his soteriology.

11.3.3 Incarnational union Like the headwaters that feed into one great stream, Zanchi has a threefold understanding of the doctrine of union with Christ. Zanchi explains that the first is Christ’s incarnation, the assumption of human nature; the second is made by the assumption of believers into grace and uniting them into one mystical body as explained in 2 Pet 1:4; and the third is the assumption of believers into everlasting glory.21 In one sense, Zanchi’s understanding can be characterized as sweeping redemptive history, from the incarnation to the consummation. Zanchi begins with the incarnation because in his mind, “We cannot be united unto Christ, unless he first is united to us.”22 Hence, by assuming a human nature, by becoming man, in a sense, Christ unites with humankind. But to what end does Christ unite himself with the human race? Zanchi explains, “As the first union was made that satisfaction might be made for our sins, so the second is made, that we might be partakers of that satisfaction.” For Zanchi, by the everlasting will of God the Father, the Son became 18 Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, 4 vol. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 3.24; idem, Sermonum decades quinque, de potissimis Christianae religionis capitibus, in tres tomos digestae (London: Impensis Radulphi Newberii, & Hugonis Iaksoni, 1587), dec. 5, sermo 1 (p. 359). 19 Bullinger, Decades, 1.112; note translation altered. “Itaque fides propter Christum & ex gratia Dei aut pacto Dei iustificat: adeoque fides est id quod credimus & in quo acquiescimus, ipse inquam Deus, ipsa Dei gratia per redemptionem Christi nos iustificat” (Sermonum, dec. 1, sermo 6 [p. 44]) 20 Zanchi, De religione, 1.230–31: “De Vera redemptionis, salutis et vitae, quae in uno Christo posita est, dispensatione eoque de necessaria cum Christo unitione κοινωνίᾳ.” 21 Zanchi, De religione, 12.5 (1.234–35). 22 Zanchi, De religione, 12.4 (1.232–33).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

214

Girolamo Zanchi

incarnate that he might purge man of his sins. In his incarnation, Christ perfectly fulfilled the law of God, being obedient unto death, as well as suffered as the sacrifice for sins.23

11.3.4 Mystical union Out of the incarnational union, argues Zanchi, another kind of union emerges, the second of the threefold union—namely, the mystical union that exists between Christ and his elect. Zanchi is careful to distinguish, however, especially in the wake of the controversies surrounding the views of Andreas Osiander, who said that believers and Christ become one in nature, that believers and Christ are united together in a mystical body (mysticum corpus). This mystical body does not confuse or mix redeemed persons with Christ’s nature so that they are one person (unam personam) but rather they are joined to him mystically, or spiritually.24 But just because Zanchi argues that this union is spiritual is not to say that it is not therefore real (realis). Zanchi contends that just as Christ’s incarnational union occurred through the work of the Spirit, so too the mystical union between Christ and the elect is brought about in the same manner.25 In Zanchi’s locus he illuminates his explanation of union with a number of citations from patristic theologians including Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 378–444) and Hilary of Poitiers (ca. 300 – ca. 368). Zanchi quotes an illustration from Cyril to make his point about the union between Christ and believers: “For if a man should mingle melted wax at the fire with other wax that is likewise melted, so that of both may seem to be made but one thing, as one cake: so by the communication of the body and blood of Christ, Christ himself dwells in us and we in him.”26 Now before conclusions are too quickly drawn, as the illustration does seem to lend itself to a view akin to deification, where the natures of Christ and the believer are mixed, Zanchi stipulates: “A simile (as they say) runs not on four feet.”27 In other words, his appeal to Cyril is illustrative, not precise or exact. Zanchi, De religione, 12.6 (1.234–35): “Sicut union prima facta est, ut expiarentur peccata, sic secundum fieri, ut expiationis huius fiamus participes.” 24 Zanchi, De religione, 12.6 (1.234–37). 25 Zanchi, De religione, 12.7 (1.236–37). 26 Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 78; idem, Commentarius, 2.358. Zanchi quotes Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, 2 vol., trans. P. E. Pusey and T. Randell (Oxford: James Parker & Co., 1874), 10.2 (2.370). 27 Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 78; idem, Commentarius, 2.358: “Similie (ut dici solet) non currit quatuor pedes.” 23

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Zanchi’s doctrine



215

Zanchi explains that the union between Christ and the believer is by faith and therefore is spiritual; Christ’s presence in the believer is spiritual, not physical. Zanchi writes: What then did Cyril mean by that simile of the wax? Nothing else but that as wax is indeed incorporated into wax, so that of the two, there is one mass of wax, so we also are truly and indeed incorporated into Christ himself, and so truly our flesh is incorporated into the flesh of Christ, so that of two there is made but one flesh, according to that: ‘They shall be two in one flesh,’ which the apostle does interpret of the marriage between Christ and the church. The words therefore of Cyril are not to be wrested to the manner of the union, but we must understand them of the things which are united, and that our flesh and the flesh of Christ, no, we wholly and with the whole Christ are truly and indeed united together. But the manner is spiritual.28

Zanchi carefully explains that believers’ natures do not mix with Christ’s, but the union is a spiritual one. This union, however, is not simply with the divine nature of Christ, but also with his human nature. In other words, believers are united to the God-man, he who is both fully God and fully man. Zanchi goes on to appeal to Hilary to make the same point, but this time he appeals not to the incarnation of Christ but to the doctrine of the trinity and the Lord’s supper. Zanchi appeals to Hilary’s work, The Trinity and argues that Hilary teaches the same point found in Cyril. Hilary explains that the father and the son are one by unity of nature and essence.29 Zanchi further appeals to Hilary who argues that the union that believers share with Christ is not only spiritual but natural, that it occurs through the consumption of the Lord’s supper where the faithful consume the flesh of Christ. Zanchi quotes the following from Hilary: He Himself declares: ‘For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in him and I in him’ (John 6:56–57). It is no longer permitted us to raise doubts abut the true nature of the body and the blood, for, according to the statement of the Lord Himself as well as our faith, this is indeed flesh and blood. And these things that we receive bring it about that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is not this the truth? Those who deny that Jesus Christ is the true God

28 29

Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 81–82; idem, Commentarius, 2.359. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 82; idem, Commentarius, 2.359–60.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

216

Girolamo Zanchi

are welcome to regard these words as false. He Himself, therefore, is in us through His flesh, and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God.30

Given the debates between Protestants and Catholics and the question of the real presence of Christ in the supper, Zanchi’s appeal may be questionable, as Hilary argues for the somatic presence in the supper.31 This is a question best left for another venue. Nevertheless, it is important that in Zanchi’s appeal to Hilary, or Cyril for that matter, he repeatedly emphasizes that the union is spiritual. It is natural that Zanchi makes such an appeal, as he believes the goal of the eucharist is the same as preaching, namely eternal life through mystical union with Christ, the God-man.32 Zanchi explains, “How is his flesh eaten? By faith.”33 Or concerning Zanchi’s quotation of Hilary, he writes: “It is therefore evident also by Hilary that our true and natural flesh is joined with the true and natural flesh of Christ in his spiritual marriage whereof we speak.”34 Zanchi nicely summarizes these points in the following statement from his confession: Because by the Spirit of Christ we, although remaining on earth, yet are truly and really united with the body, blood, and soul of Christ, reigning in heaven. So as this mystical body, consisting of Christ as the head and of the faithful members, sometimes is simply called Christ. So great is the conjunction of Christ with the faithful and of them with Christ, that surely it is not wrong to say that as the first union was made of two natures in one person, so this is made of many persons as it were into one nature, according to those sayings: ‘That you should be partakers of the divine nature,’ (2 Pet. 1:4) and: ‘We are members of his body, of his bones and of his flesh’ (Eph. 5:30).35

Zanchi clearly specifies that Christ’s nature does not mix with the believer. To borrow language from the christological controversies, which is appropriate given Zanchi’s appeal to christology, the union between Christ and the church Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 83–84; idem, Commentarius, 2.360. I have cited a modern translation, St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 25, trans. Stephen McKenna (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1954), 8.14 (pp. 285–86). 31 See Edward J. Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998), 11–14, 75–77. 32 John L. Farthing, “Patristics, Exegesis, and the Eucharist in the Theology of Girolamo Zanchi,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed., R. Scott Clark / Carl R. Trueman (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999): 94–95. 33 Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 82; idem, Commentarius, 2.:359: “Sed quomodo editur? fide.” 34 Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 84; idem, Commentarius, 2.360. 35 Zanchi, De religione, 12.8 (1.236–39). 30

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Zanchi’s doctrine



217

is not monophysite, nor is it Nestorian. Rather, each retains their own distinct natures, but the two are united together by the bond of the Holy Spirit in one holy union.36

11.3.5 Zanchi and the Council of Trent There is one last point worth noting, namely, the stress that Zanchi places upon the work of the Spirit and faith. At numerous places in his initial chapter on union with Christ Zanchi reiterates that the union, though personal, real, and substantial, is one that is brought about by the Spirit through faith.37 At first glance, it may not be immediately evident as to why he stresses these points. However, examination of Zanchi’s rejection of errors sheds greater light upon the subject: “We disallow their error, who teach that remission of sins and salvation is communicated to men by the work performed, as they call it, without faith and without the true uniting to Christ.”38 Zanchi has the Roman Catholic understanding of the sacraments in view, namely that they function ex opere operato.39 This is an important point because, contrary to those who try to argue that union with Christ is unique to Reformed theology, Reformed, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic theologians all write of union with Christ.40 For example, the Council of Trent states concerning justification: “For Jesus Christ himself continually imparts strength to those justified, as the head to the members and the vine to the branches, and this strength always precedes,

Zanchi, De religione, 12.13–14 (1.242–43); Farthing, “De coniugio,” 634. Zanchi, De religione, 12.14–17 (1.242–49). 38 Zanchi, De religione, 12.19 (1.250–51). 39 Zanchi, De religione, 1.250 n. 187. 40 Cf. Craig Carpenter, “A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification” WTJ 64/2 (2002): 363–86; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3 vol. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 3.220. Carpenter characterizes Trent as taking only incidental mention of union with Christ but fails to coordinate Trent’s view of justification with baptism (“A Question of Union,” 368). The impression one gets from his essay is that Calvin alone held to union with Christ and the Roman Catholic Church did not (“A Question of Union,” 371). Carpenter does not cite other works, such as Trent’s Catechism, or statements from Aquinas or Lombard. See Phillip W. Roseman, Peter Lombard (Oxford: OUP, 2004), 173–78; Petri Lombardi, Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae, 2 vol. (Grottaferrata: Collegii S. Bonaventurae Ad Claras Aquas, 1981), 4.26–42 (2.416–509); Nicholas M. Healy, Thomas Aquinas: Theologian of the Christian Life (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 152–53; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 5 vol., trans. Vernon J. Bourke (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1957), 4.78.5 (5.296). Both Calvin and Trent affirm union with Christ, but the points of difference lie both in sola fide as well as imputed versus infused righteousness. Zanchi retains both sola fide and imputation, both of which are situated in union with Christ. Zanchi maintains, however, the priority of justification and hence the forensic (or imputed righteousness) over against Tridentine formulations. 36 37

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

218

Girolamo Zanchi

accompanies, and follows their good works.”41 How is this union with Christ brought about? The Catechism of the Council of Trent answers that it comes about through baptism. One of the effects of baptism, according to the Catechism, is infused virtues and incorporation with Christ: By baptism we are also united to Christ, as members to their Head. As therefore from the head proceeds the power by which the different members of the body are moved to the proper performance of their respective functions, so from the fullness of Chris the Lord are diffused divine grace and virtue through all those who are justified, qualifying them for the performance of all the duties of Christian piety.42

In contrast to Roman Catholic views, Zanchi emphasizes sola fide. In other words, both Trent and the Reformers believe that soteriology consists in union with Christ—there is no difference between the two camps on this point in the broad picture. This general agreement on union with Christ is something that receives little to no attention in the claims of Gaffin and his students. The differences lie in the manner in which this union occurs: through the waters of baptism and the infusion of grace and virtues for Rome or by the work of the Spirit through faith alone for Reformers such as Zanchi. These points will become clearer as we proceed to explore specific elements of Zanchi’s doctrine of union with Christ.

11.4 Union with Christ dissected 11.4.1 Predestination Zanchi does not begin either his treatise on union or his confession with the doctrine of predestination; the Centraldogma theory has been thoroughly critiqued and demonstrated to be an inadequate explanation of the theology of Reformed theologians.43 In this regard scholars have shown the coordination between the doctrine of election and christology. Richard Muller notes con41 Dogmatic Degrees of the Council of Trent (1545–63), sess. 6, chp. 16, in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 3 vol., ed. Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss (Yale: Yale UP, 2003), 2.835. “Cum enim ille ipse Christus Iesus, tanquam caput in membra et tanquam vitis in palmites, in ipsos justifcatos jugiter virtutem influat, quae virtue bona eorum oper semper antecedit et comitatur et subsequitur” (Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3 vol. [1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990], 2.108). 42 Catechism of the Council of Trent (Rockford: Tan Books, 1982), 188; Catechismus ex Decreto Consilii Tridentini (Lipsiae: 1856), q. 51 (p. 153). 43 See, e.g., Muller, Christ and the Decree, 110–26.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ dissected



219

cerning Zanchi’s theology, “Christology and Christ-centered piety pervade his system of doctrine.”44 This is certainly evident in Zanchi’s doctrine of union with Christ. Zanchi writes: “The grace of redemption and salvation is offered to all men, but indeed is not communicated but to the elect, who are made one with Christ.”45 In Zanchi’s locus, he elaborates this point in great detail and explains that the elect are chosen in Christ from before the beginning of the foundation of the world, reflecting the language of the first chapter of Ephesians. The elect are chosen in Christ to be members of his body and to be God’s children, but Zanchi specifies that there is a necessary distinction between the decree of election made in eternity past and its execution in time where a person is actually incorporated into Christ by the Holy Spirit through faith.46

11.4.2 Regeneration and effectual calling As we look at Zanchi’s understanding of regeneration, it should be noted that he holds that applied soteriology is union with Christ. But this does not mean that every element of his soteriology falls under this category. In his locus on union, Zanchi explains that there must be a distinction between regeneration and betrothal (the mystical union of Christ and the believer). To support this point, Zanchi appeals to the creation of Adam and Eve, the typical manifestation of the antitypical union between Christ and the church; recall that Zanchi’s locus comes in his commentary on Ephesians after the fifth chapter. Zanchi argues that just as Eve was first made out of Adam’s rib and then she was betrothed and given to Adam, so too a person must first possess faith and then embrace Christ as husband.47 Zanchi explains, then, the necessary prerequisite of faith: “Therefore this consent is necessary to the real contracting of this marriage with Christ. For by faith we are made one flesh with him, and for that cause Christ is said to dwell by faith in our hearts (Eph. 2).”48 Hence, while Zanchi places soteriology under the rubric of union with Christ, he distinguishes between regeneration as an act of the Holy Spirit and union with Christ that comes through faith in him. Again, Zanchi explains that “consent” (consensus) on the part of the believer is necessary prior to his union with Christ: “But this consent cannot be but that in the man that is already in some Muller, Christ and the Decree, 121. Zanchi, De religione, 12.2 (1.230–31). 46 Zanchi, De religione 17.5 (1.338–41). 47 Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 22; idem, Commentarius, 2.340. 48 Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 67; idem, Commentarius, 2.354. 44 45

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

220

Girolamo Zanchi

sort regenerate and quickened by the Holy Spirit.”49 However, it appears that Zanchi understands the term regeneration to include what more contemporary expressions would understand as both regeneration and sanctification: “Wherefore we must confess that regeneration is begun in those whosoever they are, that have a true faith, which afterwards is daily more and more perfected by the increase of the Spirit. For what power has a dead man to do the works of life but to believe in Christ, and so consent unto this spiritual marriage is a work of life.”50 It is helpful to see at this point how Zanchi understands the relationship between regeneration and union with Christ in the following, which is drawn from the structure of his confession:51 Eternal decree

Predestinarian Union

Work of the Spirit

Regeneration

Union with Christ

Faith, hope, charity Repentance Justification Regenerate Man’s Free Choice Good works (Regeneration cont.)

Given this structure to Zanchi’s soteriology, we can proceed to examine Zanchi’s understanding of justification and sanctification and the key question of the priority of justification.52

Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 67–68; Commentarius, 2.354. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 68; Commentarius, 2.354–55. 51 Zanchi, De religione, 17–21 (1.318–71). 52 Noteworthy is the claim of another Gaffin student, Lane Tipton. Tipton argues, based upon the claims of Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949), that Lutherans conceive of regeneration as something outside of union with Christ whereas Reformed theologians believe regeneration is a part of union (cf. Lane G. Tipton, “Union with Christ and Justification,” in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification, ed. K. Scott Oliphint [Fearn: Mentor, 2007], 39–44; Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. [Philipsburg: P & R, 1980], 256). Given Zanchi’s construction, the likely response would be that he has been overly influenced by Lutheran theology on this point. However, a more likely scenario is that the line of division that Tipton and Vos have drawn is not as neat and tidy as they would like. It seems like a far stretch to argue that there is one doctrine of union with Christ in the Reformed tradition. 49 50

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ dissected



221

11.4.3 Justification and sanctification Zanchi explains that those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and have been given faith in Christ, receive the remission of sins and are endued with the perfect righteousness of Christ. When God looks upon the sinner, he only sees the perfect righteousness of Christ because the sinner has been engrafted into him.53 In a word, sinners are justified, declared righteous, because they are united to Christ. But Zanchi does explain and distinguish the way in which a person is justified. Zanchi believes that a person receives both imputed and inherent righteousness through union with Christ: “We believe also that he who through Christ, into whom he is engrafted by the Holy Spirit, is accounted righteous, and is truly righteous, having obtained forgiveness of his sins in Christ, and imputation of his righteousness.” Zanchi goes on to write, “The same man forthwith is possessed of the gift of inherent righteousness, so that he is not only perfectly and fully righteous in Christ his head, but has also in himself true righteousness, whereby he is indeed made conformable unto Christ.”54 Now at first glance, it appears that Zanchi does not privilege or prioritize imputed over inherent righteousness given what he has stated thus far. But in what follows, Zanchi explains how imputed righteousness takes priority over inherent righteousness; or alternatively stated, Zanchi believes that justification has priority over sanctification. Zanchi explains that while sinners receive both imputed and inherent righteousness through union with Christ, he stipulates first that the doctrine of justification by faith alone involves the remission of sins and imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ.55 In other words, justification is purely forensic in nature. It does not change a person’s being but only one’s state—it is not transformative or renovative as with sanctification. Second, he explains that the sinners’ status coram Deo always rests upon her justification rather than her sanctification: “We confess that this inherent righteousness is through our own fault so imperfect in us, that we are made righteous before God, and can be accounted righteous only by that righteousness of Christ, whereby our sins are not imputed, not only in the beginning of our conversion, when of wicked we are made godly, but ever after even to the end of our lives.”56 This brings two important concomitants. Zanchi, De religione, 19.1 (1.334–35). Zanchi, De religione, 19.2 (1.334–37). 55 Zanchi, De religione, 19.2 (1.336–37); Farthing, “De coniugio,” 642. 56 Zanchi, De religione, 19.3 (1.338–39). 53 54

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

222

Girolamo Zanchi

First, Zanchi emphasizes that justification is by faith alone and in no way is based upon the believer’s good works: “A man is justified by that righteousness which consists in the forgiveness of sins and imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and not properly of his own works, but by them he is declared to be justified and to be righteous.”57 Second, in a number of places, in both his confession as well as in his locus, Zanchi states that sanctification is the effect of justification.58 This is not to say that Zanchi believes that justification somehow generates sanctification and thereby loses its forensic quality; rather, in terms of Aristotelian metaphysical distinctions common to early modern theology of all stripes (Reformed, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic), it is a common way to express both the priority of justification over sanctification as well as the inseparability of both.59 In the sixteenth-century worldview, unlike Enlightenment models, there are no effects without causes. Zanchi expresses the inseparability of justification and sanctification not only with the metaphysical distinction of cause and effect, but also through an analogy perhaps gleaned from Calvin.60 Concerning imputed and imparted righteousness, Zanchi writes: “These two means of communicating other good things, and especially the justice and righteousness of Christ, are so joined and linked together in themselves, as it were the cause and the effect, that they are not severed asunder, nor ought to be severed by us, no more than the sun beam can be severed from the sun, or the sun from the beam.”61

Zanchi, De religione, 19.11 (1.346–47): “Iustitia quae constat remissione peccatorum, et imputatione iustitiae Christi, non ex operibus propriè hominem iustificari: sed iustificatum & iustum esse declarari.” 58 Zanchi, De religione, 19.5 (1.340–41), 21.4 (1.362–63); idem, Spiritual Marriage, 134; idem, Commentarius, 2.378. 59 Farthing, “De coniugio,” 643. On the question of metaphysics in Reformed theology, PRRD, 1.360– 82. For causal language (Aristotelian cause and effect as well as fourfold causality) in Calvin’s doctrine of justification see, Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: OUP, 2004), 399–406; cf. the erroneous claims by Garcia, Life in Christ, 104–05, 126–27, 260, 264, 267 n. 24. For the eventual demise of causal language in post-Reformation theology see, Theo Verbeek, Descartes and the Dutch: Early Reactions to Cartesian Philosophy 1637–1650 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992); Aza Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodox and Philosophy, 1625–1750: Gisbert Voetius, Petrus van Mastrict, and Anthonius Driessen (Leiden: Brill, 2006); J. A. van Ruler, The Crisis of Causality: Voetius and Descartes on God, Nature, and Change (Leiden: Brill, 1995); Ernestine G. E. van der Wall, “Cartesianism and Cocceianism: a natural reliance?” in De l’humanisme auz lumières, Bayle et le protestantisme, ed. Michelle Magdelaine, et al. (Paris: University of Voltaire Foundation, 1996): 445–55. 60 Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.6. 61 Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 134; idem, Commentarius, 2.378. 57

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ dissected



223

11.4.4 Priority of justification Now the question arises as to why Zanchi gives justification (or the forensic) priority over sanctification. For Zanchi, both justification and sanctification are benefits of the believer’s union with Christ. The priority that Zanchi assigns to justification is logical, not temporal or chronological. Does the answer lie in the theological debates between the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformed? In one sense, these debates provide a partial answer to the question. However, for Zanchi and other reformers, it was not simply a question of swinging the pendulum as far as possible in the opposite direction from infused righteousness and justification by faith and works. While other reformers might provide slightly different answers, for Zanchi at least, the priority of the forensic lay in the creation and the fall of Adam. In Zanchi’s defense of imputation, he appeals to Romans chapter five, particularly verse 19: “So by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” Zanchi believes that the parallel between Adam and Christ establishes the priority of the forensic. In an extended explanation, Zanchi establishes the parallel between the two Adams: We must firmly hold this foundation, which we have laid before: that as the apostle makes two Adams, the first and the second, the earthly and heavenly, as it were two heads and principles of mankind, one after the flesh, another after the spirit: so also even out of that history of Moses, he gathers and sets down to us, that there is a double marriage, the first and the second, a carnal and a spiritual marriage, the one simply for the creating and multiplying of men in this world, the other for the replenishing and filling of the kingdom of heaven with the sons of God.62

All of those naturally united to Adam receive his imputed guilt and all of those united to Christ receive both his active and passive obedience through imputation: “For both parts of that obedience, which was really performed by Christ, is communicated to us by imputation, and is truly made ours by the right of marriage, seeing the whole Christ, how great so ever he is, is made one flesh with us, and we likewise with him.”63 Zanchi states that the mystical is grounded upon the forensic, for apart from the forensic there is no mystical union. In this respect, Zanchi goes as far as to say that justification by faith alone yields 62 63

Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 30; idem Commentarius, 3.342–43. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 136–37; idem Commentarius, 3.378.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

224

Girolamo Zanchi

eternal life, for just as Adam’s one sin brings eternal death, so too Christ’s one act of righteousness brings eternal life.64 In a word, given that marriage is a key to understanding union with Christ, Zanchi believes that because of what Paul writes in Eph 5.22–33, the creation account of Adam and his marriage to Eve must be read christologically.65 For Zanchi, therefore, establishing the doctrine of union with Christ is not merely a question of ontology—of deciding whether justification and sanctification have a more fundamental ontological source— but ultimately one of relating soteriology to redemptive history.

11.5 Eschatology 11.5.1 Assumptive union In contrast to Roman Catholic views of union with Christ, where the believer can fall out of union through mortal sin, Zanchi believes that union with Christ is a great source of hope for the Christian.66 This is where the third aspect of Zanchi’s threefold doctrine of union with Christ comes to the fore—the assumption of believers into everlasting glory. Union with Christ was a great source of hope because believers were immutably elected into union with Christ. However, beyond this, in the midst of life’s struggles and trials, Zanchi also takes notes of the blessings and hope that believers have through union with Christ as they await the consummation of the age. The believer can know that because of Christ’s imputed righteousness received through faith in justification, “eternal life is as due unto him as it was to Christ, and consequently finds the same to be due to free grace and favor and not for his own works.”67 Hence, the believer rests assured that eternal life has been secured by Christ’s works, not her own. Furthermore, those who are united to Christ share in his resurrection from the dead.68 And because of their union with Christ, believers therefore have a share in the blessings of their head not only in this life, but also in that to come.69

Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 138–39; idem Commentarius, 2.379; also idem, De religione, 12.1 (1.230–31). 65 Farthing, “De coniugio,” 625. 66 For a survey of the themes of union with Christ and eschatology, see John L. Farthing, “Christ and the Eschaton: The Reformed Eschatology of Jerome Zanchi,” in Later Calvinism: International Perspectives, ed. W. Fred Graham (Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994): 332–54. 67 Zanchi, De religione, 19.4 (1.338–39. 68 Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 114; idem, Commentarius, 3.371. 69 Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 129; idem, Commentarius, 2.376. 64

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Conclusion



225

11.5.2 Adam and Christ And lastly, Zanchi argues that what was lost in Adam is finally and ultimately restored by Christ. Zanchi bases this conclusion on two points: “First, because that right and dominion which was given to Adam over the rest of the creatures before his fall, is in Christ our husband and head restored to us, who are made one flesh with him.” Zanchi gives the second point, “Because in the same Christ we have not only a right over all these things, but we have also a perfect and full possession of all things.” How and why does Zanchi draw these conclusions? Because Christ has ascended to the right hand of the Father and the elect in him sit in the heavenly places with Christ. Zanchi concludes: “Therefore if the husband is Lord of this inferior world, the wife must also be lady and mistress of the same.”70 John Farthing cogently summarizes Zanchi’s understanding of eschatology and union when he states: “Underlying the points of vital contact that unite Zanchi’s Christology, ecclesiology, eschatology, and spirituality is a profound and almost mystical doctrine of union with Christ.”71

11.6 Conclusion In this brief reconnaissance of Zanchi’s doctrine of union with Christ we have examined each of the threefold aspects: the predestinarian, mystical, and eschatological. The believer is united to Christ in the decree of election, is regenerated by the Spirit and then mystically united to Christ by faith, who indwells the believer, and then is assumed into glory in the consummation. Though Zanchi believes that union is key to his applied soteriology, he does not confound the forensic and the transformative, in contrast to Trent, but recognizes that the former is foundational for the latter. Justification is foundational to redemption because of the imputed guilt of Adam’s sin: sin brings condemnation and eternal death whereas obedience brings justification and eternal life. The forensic also acts as a firewall, so to speak, and has secured eternal life for the believer until her glorification and assumption into glory. These points in Zanchi’s theology, the priority of justification, employment of cause and effect language, the centrality of union with Christ, stand in stark contrast to the conclusions that Gaffin, Carpenter, Garcia, and Evans reach. 70 71

Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 130; idem, Commentarius, 2.376. Farthing, “Eschatology of Zanchi,” 341.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

226

Girolamo Zanchi

These conclusions show that at least in this case, a Reformed theologian does not fit the Calvin mold that these aforementioned authors have shaped. This is not to concede, however, that they have accurately portrayed Calvin’s views. However, at minimum these conclusions suggest that the Reformed doctrine of union with Christ might not be as monolithic as Gaffin and others imply. Is Zanchi the only one who accords priority to justification and yet still maintains a strong doctrine of union with Christ? Can one draw a clean line of division between Lutheran and Reformed theology with the employment of causal language? In this light, it seems that greater attention should be paid to other Reformed theologians such as Zanchi. True, Calvin does affirm and expound union with Christ in his theology, but Zanchi, not Calvin, arguably has greater right to the title of, a theologian of union with Christ. But even though he is a theologian of union, he still accords justification priority in his soteriology.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

12. Faustus Socinus

12.1 Introduction The doctrine of justification as the article upon which the church stands or falls is an idea that grew out of the ferment of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation. Initially Protestant Reformers, both Lutheran and Reformed, engaged the doctrine of the Catholic Church but soon after the Reformation with the closing of the Council of Trent (1565) a new theological opponent arose that caused great concern—Socinianism. The two chief founders of the Socinian movement were Laelius Socinus (1525–62) and his nephew, Faustus Socinus (1539–1604). Through their labors they brought a challenge to key tenets of catholic theology including the doctrine of the trinity and the satisfaction of Christ. They also challenged chief elements of Reformation soteriology by reconfiguring the doctrine of justification by faith, among other important doctrines. Though both Laelius and Faustus wrote very little theology for the masses by comparison to other theologians of the period, their thought was eventually captured and disseminated in the Racovian Catechism—a document that spread throughout Europe and eventually became one of the foundational pillars of the Unitarian Church. One of the chief reasons that Protestant theologians believed that Socinianism was a great danger was because it promoted a heretical doctrine of justification. This chapter demonstrates how Socinus’ doctrine of justification diverges from accepted Reformation norms and expose why seventeenth-century Reformed theologians perceived it to be a threat. But at the same time it shows that Socinus’ heresy, identified as such by writers of the period, contains elements drawn from orthodox sources. In other words, sometimes received orthodoxy has unintended heretical consequences. Orthodoxy and heresy are often much closer to one another than some might realize. In this particular case it was Faustus Socinus’ reception of a Medieval understanding of the satisfaction of Christ, an idea gleaned from one of the Reformation’s famous theologians, that created ripples throughout his theological system. These ripples affected a number of elements in his theology but especially have an impact upon his doctrine of justification. But even though Socinus has a heterodox doctrine of justification, it might come as a surprise, that he also, along with the Socinian tradition, still has a doctrine of union with Christ. Understanding Socinus’

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

228

Faustus Socinus

doctrines of union and justification help paint the broader context for understanding these two key doctrines in the early modern period. Socinus represents one who transgresses the lines of orthodoxy. At the same time, given that his name and opinions are invoked in subsequent debates over justification, it should prove helpful to be familiar with his position. The chapter will proceed first with a brief biographical sketch so that the reader may understand something of the life of Faustus Socinus. What follows is an examination of each of the key elements of Socinus’ doctrine of justification including its definition, faith, the forgiveness of sins, the imputation of Christ’s obedience, as well as the Socinian understanding of union with Christ. Along the way Socinus’ views, drawn from two chief works as well as from the catechism he began to write and significantly influenced, the Racovian Catechism, will be compared with Protestant confessional norms of the period. Lastly, the chapter will briefly explore the Reformed response to the Socinian threat. In the end the reader will be able to see how Socinus transgressed the accepted doctrinal boundaries of his day and why Reformed theologians and those of other communions reacted so negatively to his teaching.

12.2 Biographical Sketch 12.2.1 Life Every theologian comes from a cultural and historical context that feeds into the development of his theology. Key to Socinus’ theological development is his family. He was born in Italy in 1539 to an affluent family in Tuscany in the city of Siena. His family was related not only to wealthy people but even popes, Pius II (1405–64), Pius III (1439–1503), and Paul V (1552–1621). Socinus left Italy in 1561 for Lyon, France, and quickly developed a keen interest in theology through interaction with friends and family. One relative in particular, his uncle, Laelius Socinus, a prominent Italian anti-trinitarian proved to be a significant influence upon Faustus.1 Upon receiving the news of his uncle’s death, Faustus traveled to Zürich to claim his inheritance—his uncle’s writings. Faustus never received a formal theological education and never admitted to having a human teacher save one exception, his uncle’s writings and notes.2 1 Sbigniew Ogonowski, “Faustus Socinus 1539–1604,” in Shapers of Religious Traditions in Germany, Switzerland, and Poland, 1560–1600, ed. Jill Raitt (New Haven: Yale UP, 1981), 195. 2 Marian Hillar, “Laelius and Faustus Socinus, Founders of Socinianism: Their Lives and Theology, Part One,” A Journal from The Radical Reformation 10/2 (2002): 28–29.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Biographical Sketch



229

Laelius did not write theological treatises but instead carried on continued correspondence with a number of key Protestant Reformers including Bullinger, Melanchthon, Calvin, Sebastian Castellio (1515–63), and Ursinus. In addition to these figures, Laelius studied Hebrew with Sebastian Münster (1488–1552) and stayed with Konrad Pelikan (1478–1556) during his travels in Basel, and he also developed relationships with Oswald Myconius (1488–1552), Simon Grynaeus (1493–1541), and Celio Secondo Curione (1503–1569). Laelius wrote to these reformers and asked them theological questions.3 Laelius, however, eventually wore out his welcome with some of his correspondents. In a letter to Bullinger, Calvin commented that Laelius was “a man of insatiable curiosity” (Est enim inexplebilis hominis curiositas) and that he was terribly irritating.4 Bullinger was something of a father figure to Laelius, as the latter had spent much time with the former when he lived in Zürich, and thus he took great pains to work with him.5 Despite his best efforts, Calvin was not convinced of Laelius’ orthodoxy and wrote to Bullinger that the Italian would continue to “vomit the poison that he had eaten” (virus quidem suum, quod hactenus aluit, tandem evomet).6 Beyond his correspondence, Laelius produced two brief works, De Sacramentis and De Resurrectione Corporum, which were posthumously published in 1654 in Amsterdam. In addition to this, at the behest of Bullinger, who wanted him to respond to questions about his orthodoxy, Laelius wrote a brief confession of faith to address his critics; the confession is somewhat ambiguous but nevertheless satisfied Bullinger.7

12.2.2 Works With his uncle’s writings in hand, Faustus wrote his treatise on the opening chapter of John’s gospel, Explicatio primae parties primi capiti Evangelii Joan-

Hillar, “Laelius and Faustus Socinus, pt. 1,” 24–27. The Socinus-Calvin correspondence can be found in CO vol. 13–17, nos. 1191, 1212, 1231, 1323, 1341, 1361, 2219, 3100, and 3121. Four of these letters (nos. 1191, 1212, 1231, and 1323) can be found in English translation, “Four Letters from the Socinus-Calvin Correspondence 1549,” in Italian Reformation Studies in Honor of Laelius Socinus, ed. John A. Tedeschi, trans. Ralph Lazzaro (Firenze, Università Di Siena, 1965), 217–30. 4 Calvin, “Letter to Bullinger on 7 August 1554,” no. 1995, CO, 15.208. 5 Hillar, “Laelius and Faustus Socinus, pt. 1,” 27. 6 Calvin, “Letter to Bullinger on 23 November 1554, no. 2050, CO, 15.318; Hillar, “Laelius and Faustus Socinus,” 27. 7 See Laelius Socinus, Confession of Faith (1555), in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss, 3 vol. (New Haven: Yale UP, 2003), 2.706–08. 3

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

230

Faustus Socinus

nis, which was built upon the earlier labors of his uncle.8 He also made his way from Zürich back to Italy in 1563. During his time in Italy he established contacts with other like-minded theologians and pastors in Switzerland, Poland, and Transylvania. Socinus eventually departed Italy never to return; he first went to Basel where he studied soteriology for three years and wrote two of his best-known works in 1578, De Jesu Christo Servatore, eventually published in Raków in 1594, and De statu primi hominis ante lapsum, which was posthumously published in 1610.9 De Jesu Christo Servatore has been identified as Socinus’ key theological work that embodies the core of his beliefs.10 Socinus later traveled to Kolozsvàr, Transylvania (modern-day Cluj, Romania) where he met with Giorgio Biandrata (1515–88), a well-known anti-trinitarian. During his travels Socinus made his way to Raków and eventually settled in Poland where he remained until his death in 1604.11

12.2.3 Influence Though Socinus spent the twilight of his life in Poland, he was by no means idle. In 1601 Socinus met with leading ministers in Raków to debate and discuss doctrine. Socinus presented his views in a series of theological lectures on the doctrines of Scripture, the trinity, sin, and the sacraments. Socinus’ lectures were well received and a larger group of ministers and theologians gathered the next year to continue the dialogue. The churches represented at these meetings had previously used The Catechesis and Confession of Faith of the Polish Brethren (1574), which was written by Georg Schomann (1530–91). Schomann originally began his theological pilgrimage as a “stubborn Papist,” but then became “a sort of Lutheran”. In 1559 Schomann met Johannes Alasco (Jan Laski) (1499–1560) when he associated himself with the Reformed churches. Schomann eventually embraced anti-trinitarianism.12 It should be no surprise, Hillar, “Laelius and Faustus Socinus, pt. 1,” 29; Daniel Borvan, “Destroying Babylon’s Foundations: Continuity and Discontinuity in the Early Life and Thought of Faustus Socinus” (Masters Thesis, Westminster Seminary California, 2011), 3. 9 Fausti Socini, Opera Omnia in Duos Tomos Distincta, in Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum quos Unitarios Vocant, 9 vol. (Amsterdam: 1656), vol. 1–2. 10 Hillar, “Laelius and Faustus Socinus, pt. 1,” 30. 11 Hillar, “Laelius and Faustus Socinus, pt. 1,” 32–33. 12 George (Ciachowski) Schomann, “The Last Will and Testament Containing a Brief History of His Life as well as of sundry things done in the churches,” in Stanislas Lubieniecki, History of the Polish Reformation and Nine Related Documents, trans. and ed. George Hunston Williams (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 329–30. 8

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Biographical Sketch

231

then, that Schomann’s catechism has been labeled “Unitarian,” though interestingly enough he still incorporates Alasco’s doctrine of the munus triplex in his christology.13 Despite the widespread use of Schomann’s catechism, the fruit of the Socinus lectures was a new catechism. Socinus began the work on the catechism but soon fell ill and died in 1604; he was never able to complete the work. Nevertheless, Socinus’ labors were not in vain as other theologians, Piotr Stoiñski (1565–1605), Hieronymus Moskorowski (1560–1625), Valentinus Smalcius (1572–1622), Johannes Crellius (1590–1633), and Johannes Vökel (ca. 1575–1618) completed the work, which was eventually called the Racovian Catechism (1605).14 In many ways the Racovian Catechism bears the influence of Schomann’s earlier work, but it also bears the marks of Socinus’ theology.15 Some have argued that the Racovian Catechism stands as a witness to the legacy of Socinus.16 Others have contended that Socinus is the Aquinas of the Unitarian church.17 And though the Polish anti-trinitarian movement was eventually disbanded by force under local Roman Catholic pressure by the diet of the Commonwealth of Poland in 1658, Socinus’ influence spread as the Racovian Catechism was sent to King James I of England (1566–1625). The catechism was printed in 1651 in London; the following year Parliament ordered the document to be burned. The catechism was also translated into English by well-known anti-trinitarian John Biddle (1615–62).18 As Socinus’ writings spread throughout England, John Locke (1632–1704) obtained a number of his works and became well versed in Socinian theology. The works of Socinus were also translated into Dutch and widely distributed in the Netherlands.19

13 See Georg Schomann, “The Catechesis and Confession of Faith of the Polish Brethren (1574),” in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss, 3 vol. (New Haven: Yale UP, 2003), 2.709; cf. Lubieniecki, Polish Reformation, 32; Johannes Alasco, “London Confession,” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, 3 vol., ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008 - ), 1.563–68. 14 Borvan, “Destroying Babylon’s Foundations,” 31. 15 Schomann, “Catechesis,” in Creeds and Confessions, 2.709. 16 Borvan, “Destroying Babylon’s Foundations,” 32; Hillar, Laelius and Faustus Socinus, pt. 1,” 36. 17 Hillar, “Laelius and Faustus Socinus, pt. 1,” 36. 18 Hillar, “Laelius and Faustus Socinus, pt. 1,” 36–37. 19 Lech Szczucki, “Socinianism,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 4 vol., ed. Hans J. Hilderbrand (Oxford: OUP, 1996), 4.84–85. For an overview of the life and influence of Socinus see Earl Morse Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism: Socinianism and its Antecedents (1945; Boston: Beacon Press, 1977), 384–419.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

232

Faustus Socinus

12.2.4 Doctrinal views Before the chapter proceeds, it is helpful to recognize a number of Socinus’ theological views that provide the broader context for his doctrine of justification. As an anti-trinitarian, Socinus rejects the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit.20 He also disagrees with the common Reformed understanding of the doctrine of election.21 Regarding his anthropology, Socinus discards the doctrine of original sin; he believes that Adam’s sin had no adverse effects upon himself or his descendants. He therefore does not agree with the Reformed idea of the bondage of the will—man’s will is totally free and unhindered by the noetic effects of sin.22 Adam was created mortal and therefore death is not a consequence of the fall but rather the normal course of nature.23 These different commitments help create a frame of reference for the better comprehension of Socinus’ doctrine of justification.

12.3 Justification 12.3.1 Standard elements By the beginning of the late sixteenth century there were a number of confessional and catechetical definitions of the doctrine of justification that established a norm for both the Reformed and Lutheran wings of the Reformation. Evidence of the basic agreement between the Lutherans and Reformed appears in the Harmonia Confessionum Fidei Orthodoxarum et Reformatarum (1581) that was compiled by Theodore Beza, Lambert Daneau (ca. 1535–90), JeanFrançois Salvart, Antoine de la Roche Chandieu (1534–91), and Simon Goulart (1543–1628).24 This harmony was intended to be the Reformed equivalent to See, e.g., Alan W. Gomes, “Faustus Socinus’s A Tract Concerning God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit,” Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics 1/1 (2008): 37–58. 21 Thomas Rees, ed., The Racovian Catechism, With Notes and Illustrations (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1818), 5.10 (pp. 336–37). 22 Hillar, “Laelius and Faustus Socinus, pt. 2,” 14; Ogonowski, “Faustus Socinus,” 201; Racovian Catechism, 5.10 (p. 330). 23 Faustus Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, 3.8 (p. 294). All subsequent quotations are taken from Alan W. Gomes, “Faustus Socinus’ De Jesu Christo Servatore, Part III: Historical Introductions, Translation and Critical Notes” (Ph.D. diss, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1990); also Racovian Catechism, 2.1 (pp. 20, 22–23). 24 Harmonia Confessionum Fidei (Geneva: 1581); idem, An Harmony of the Confessions of the Faith of the Christian and Reformed Churches, which purley profess the holy doctrine of the Gospel, in all the chief kingdoms, nations, and provinces of Europe (Cambridge: 1586). 20

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



233

the Lutheran Formula Concord (1577).25 The Harmonia Confessionum was approved by the pastors of Geneva, Zürich, Schaffhausen, Bern, and Neustadt. Beyond the Swiss formal adoption, the Harmonia Confessionum was published in the name of the churches of France and Belgium.26 The overall goal of the Harmonia Confessionum was to demonstrate the unity of opinion among the Reformed churches spread across Europe and the British Isles. Moreover, the intention of the work was to demonstrate Reformed agreement with Lutheran theology: “And this was the cause why we desired to put the Confession of Augsburg, together also with those of Saxony and Württemberg, in this Harmony; that it might be the more easily known, both that we agree with them in all particular points of faith, and that there are very few matters hanging in controversy between us.”27 Later in the seventeenth century, Reformed theologians such as Westminster divine Edward Leigh (1602–71) commented that the Harmonia Confessionum refuted the charge that the Reformed Churches were “variably distracted and rent in sunder with infinite differences of faith.”28 Hence, the Harmonia Confessionum provides an excellent reference point for orthodox opinions on justification during the late sixteenth century, the time when Socinus and the Socinians were formulating their own views. In the ninth chapter, “Of Justification by Faith, and of Good Works,” the Harmonia Confessionum contains Lutheran and Reformed entries on the doctrine of justification from the Second Helvetic Confession (1562), the Confession of Bohemia, or Waldensian Confession (1535), the Gallican Confession (1559), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Augsburg Confession (1530), the Confession of Saxony (1551), the Confession of Würtemburg (1551), and the Tetrapolitan Confession (1530). Given that some of the confessions come from the earlier days of the Reformation, there is a lack of specificity regarding elements of the doctrine of justification in some of the documents. For example, from the earliest version of the Augsburg Confession justification is simply described as the remissionem peccatorum.29 By contrast, the Second Helvetic Confession is much more precise. The Second Helvetic Confession was written by Heinrich Bullinger and opens the chapter on justification in the Harmonia Confessionum perhaps because it Peter Hall, ed., The Harmony of Protestant Confessions of Faith (1842; Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books, 1992), xv-xvii; H. A. Niemeyer, ed., Collectionis Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis Publicatarum (Lipsiae: 1840), v, viii-ix; Jill Raitt, “Harmony of Confessions,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand, 4 vol. (Oxford: OUP, 1996), 2.211–12. 26 Harmony, xxix; Harmonia Confessionum, praefatio. 27 Harmony, xxxiii; Harmonia Confessionum, praefatio. 28 Edward Leigh, Treatise of Religion and Learning and of Religious and Learned Men (London: 1656), §13 (p. 169). 29 Harmonia Confessionum, §9 (p. 187); Augsburg Confession, art. 4. 25

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

234

Faustus Socinus

was one of the more widely accepted documents in Reformation Europe. It was adopted by the Reformed churches of Switzerland (Bern, Geneva, Chur, Biel, and Mühlhausen), Scotland, Austria, Hungary (1567), Poland (1566/70), and was widely circulated in France, England, and the Netherlands.30 The Second Helvetic Confession describes justification as the remission of sins (peccata remittere), or the non-imputation of sin (nec illa nobis imputat), and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (iustitiam Christi). Justification is founded upon the work of Christ because he has borne the sins of the world and satisfied the justice of God (Etenim Christus peccata munis in se receipt et sustulit, divinaeque iustitiae satisfecit). The Confession eventually defines justification in the following manner: “To speak properly, then; it is God alone that justifies us, and that only for Christ, by not imputing unto us our sins, but imputing Christ’s righteousness to us (Rom. 4.23–25).” The Confession is also clear that justification is received by faith, not by works: “Sinful man is justified only by faith [sola fide] in Christ, not by the law, or by any works.”31 The Second Helvetic Confession is not unique in its affirmation of these points, as these elements also appear in the Bohemian, Gallican, Belgic, Augsburg (later editions), Saxon, Würtemburg, and Tetrapolitan confessions.32 With reference to a number of these confessions, one has a suitable benchmark with which to compare the views of Socinus on justification. But in addition to the confessions of the Harmonia, we will also use Heidelberg Catechism (1563), given its wide dissemination, acceptance, and because the Synod of Dort (1618–19) adopted it and employed it as a canon against Remonstrant and Socinian theology.

12.3.2 Definition of justification Socinus offers a definition of justification is his treatise, Tractatus de Justificatione, which was written sometime between 1587 and 1591. In this treatise Socinus explains that justification is a legal declaration whereby believers are pronounced righteous by God.33 A similar definition appears in the Racovian Catechism: “Justification is, when God regards us as just, or so deals with us as 30 The Second Helvetic Confession (1566), in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss, 3 vol. (New Haven: Yale UP, 2003), 2.458. 31 Harmony, §9.1 (p. 149); Harmonia Confessionum, 168; Second Helvetic Confession, chp. 15. 32 Harmony, § 9 (pp. 148–210); Harmonia Confessionum, 168–224; Bohemian, chp. 6; Gallian, arts. 13, 20–22; Belgic, art. 22–23, Augsburg, arts. 4–5; Würtemburg, chp. 5; Tetrapolitan, chp. 3. 33 Faustus Socinus, Tractatus Justificatione, in Opera Omnia, 1.615b; John B. Godby, “Fausto Sozzini and Justification,” in Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History, ed. F. F. Church / Timothy George (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 254.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



235

if we were altogether just and innocent. This he does in the New Covenant in forgiving our sins and conferring upon us eternal life.”34 This definition sounds very similar to those offered in the Lutheran and Reformed confessions of the Harmonia Confessionum. But when compared to the Confession of the Polish Brethren, the predecessor of the Racovian Catechism, there is a marked difference. The Confession of the Polish Brethren states: “What is justification? It is the forgiveness in living faith of all our past trespasses by the pure grace of God, through the agency of our Lord Jesus Christ, regardless of our works and merits; the most certain expectation of eternal life, and a true, not artificial, correction of our life by the aid of the Spirit of God, to the glory of God the Father and to the edification of our neighbors.”35 Immediately evident is that Socinus does not incorporate the need of a reformed life but places emphasis upon the forensic element of the legal declaration as does the Confession of the Polish Bretheren. Based upon this emphasis in his definition, some have gone as far as to say that Socinus’ doctrine of justification “deserves to be acknowledged as a legitimate variant within the Reformation” and that he “agreed entirely with the Pauline view that we are justified by faith alone without our righteousness or good works.”36 The problem with such a claim is that Socinus himself indicated his own disagreement with standard Reformation elements of justification and his disagreement was well known and praised. In Life of that Incomparable Man Faustus Socinus (1636), written by Samuel Przypkowski (1592–1670), Socinus is characterized as one at odds with Reformed doctrine. Przypkowski writes: He exploded the Opinion of the Chialists and many other fanatic dreams beside. As for the Errors received from the Reformed (Reformatis) Churches, which did in a great number as yet reign in that Church, he did with a marvelous Felicity root them out. Such were that of Justification, that of Appeasing the Wrath of God, that of Predestination, that of the Servitude of the Will, that of original sin, that of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism, together with other misconstrued Doctrines.37

If Socinus’ devotees recognized him as a Reformed iconoclast, then the question arises, In spite of his definition of justification, how does he depart from the Racovian Catechism, 5.11 (p. 346). Catechesis and Confession of Polish Brethren, art. 2, in Pelikan / Hotchkiss, ed., Creeds and Confessions, 2.723. 36 Godby, “Sozzini and Justification,” 250, 255. 37 Samuel Przypkowski, The Life of that Incomparable Man Faustus Socinus of Siena (1636), in Stanislas Lubieniecki, History of the Polish Reformation and Nine Related Documents, trans. and ed. George Hunston Williams (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 386–87. 34

35

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

236

Faustus Socinus

Reformed norm? And by extension, How does the Racovian Catechism depart from the received Reformed orthodoxy of the late sixteenth century? The answer comes from a survey of the key elements of the doctrine of justification.38

12.3.3 Faith Central to the Reformation doctrine of justification is the doctrine of faith. The Scriptures are replete with references to faith. But the question is, How is faith defined? The Heidelberg Catechism, for example, defines faith as follows: [True faith] is not only a certain knowledge by which I accept as true all that God has revealed to us in his word, but also a wholehearted trust which the Holy Spirit creates in me through the gospel, that, not only to others, but to me also God has given the forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation, out of sheer grace solely for the sake of Christ’s saving work.39

The Catechism captures the essence of faith by emphasizing the fiduciary elements—namely, a person has knowledge (Erkenntnis) and trusts (sondern auch ein herzliches Vertrauen) in the promises of God. The Catechism emphasizes that faith alone in Christ alone is the only means by which a person is justified—the believer cannot be justified by his own works or obedience. Only the obedience (den Gehorsam) and satisfaction (die Genugtuung) of Christ justifies a person before the tribunal of God.40 Socinus, on the other hand, defines faith differently. In De Jesu Christo Servatore, he explains: To believe in Christ is simply to present ourselves to God as obedient to Christ’s own standard and rule. Through this obedience we can expect to receive the everlasting crown of life from Christ himself. I will make this quite plain in what follows, God willing. We

38 For a brief survey of Socinus’ doctrine of justification see, Robert S. Franks, A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ in Its Ecclesiastical Development, 2 vol. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1918), 2.24–30. 39 Heidelberg Catechism, q. 21. All subsequent quotations from the Heidelberg Catechism are taken from Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 3 vol., ed. Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss (New Haven: Yale UP, 2003). The original German is cited from Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vol. (1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990). 40 Heidelberg Catechism, qq. 60–62.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Justification

237

receive the remission of sins, which Christ provided for us through God’s mercy, by penitence and a changed life.41

In his Tractatus Justificatione Socinus states that obedience is the “substance and form” of faith.42 He also states clearly, “Faith which justifies is namely this, obedience to God.”43 Similar statements appear throughout the Racovian Catechism. When the Catechism describes faith, it does so not only in terms of trusting in the promises of God but also includes obedience. Faith is “in our Lord Jesus Christ, whereby we keep our attention fixed upon his promises, and willingly submit ourselves to obey his precepts: which faith renders our obedience more estimable and more acceptable in the sight of God; and provided it be real and sincere, supplies the deficiency of our obedience, and causes us to be justified by God.”44 The Catechism goes on to contrast two different types of faith—a mere intellectual assent to the doctrinal truths about Christ versus a trust in Christ; but even then, this trust includes obedience. The Catechism asks, “What is meant by trusting in God through Christ?” It then offers the following response: “It is so to trust in God as at the same time to trust in Christ, whom he has sent, and in whose hands he has placed all things; and also both to expect the fulfillment of the promises which were given by him, and to observe the precepts which he delivered.”45 For the Reformed, faith is trusting in Christ but for Socinus it is obedience to him.

12.3.4 Forgiveness of sins A number of different Protestant confessions base the forgiveness of sins on the satisfaction of Christ. The Belgic Confession, for example, states: We believe that Jesus Christ is a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek— made such by an oath—and that he presented himself in our name before his Father, to appease his wrath with full satisfaction by offering himself on the tree of the cross

41 Faustus Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, 3.2 (pp. 239–40). See also Hillar, “Laelius and Faustus Socinus, pt. 2,” 16; cf. Godby, “Sozzini and Justification,” 252. 42 Socinus, Tractatus Justificatione, 610: “fides, obedientiam praeceptorum Dei, non quidem ut effectum suum, sed ut suam substantiam & formam continet atque complectitur.” 43 Socinus, Tractatus Justificatione, 610: “Fidem, hanc scilicet, qua iustificamur, Dei obedientiam esse;” Ogonowski, “Faustus Socinus,” 202. 44 Racovian Catechism, §9 (p. 321). 45 Racovian Catechism, §9 (p. 322).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

238

Faustus Socinus

and pouring out his precious blood for the cleansing of our sins, as the prophets had predicted.46

Readers should note that just because the confession invokes the term “satisfaction” (pour apaiser sa colère avec pleine satisfaction) does not mean identity with the satisfaction theory of the atonement offered by St. Anselm (1033–1109).47 In his view, Anselm advanced the dilemma of aut satisfactio aut poena, namely either God would accept satisfaction or punishment as an answer to humanity’s fallen condition: “Either the honor which has been taken away should be repaid, or punishment should follow. Otherwise, either God will not be just to himself, or he will be without the power to enforce either of the two options.”48 By choosing satisfaction over punishment, Anselm eliminated the idea of substitutionary punishment. He therefore located Christ’s satisfaction outside of the context of punishment and placed it exclusively under the rubric of merit. By his merit Christ repays the debt of honor that the sinner owes, both in terms of what he owes God as well as recompense for the failure to give him honor. Christ restores man through his satisfaction and merit.49 By way of contrast, the Reformed doctrine of satisfaction differs from Anselmian version because it offers satisfactio poenalis, or satisfaction through punishment. It eliminates the false-dichotomy of the either-or of satisfaction or punishment and posits a both-and—satisfaction and punishment.50 Christ vicariously takes the place of fallen but elect sinners, those who are in union with Christ. Again, Belgic Confession article 21 states that Christ made satisfaction through his suffering and passion; the Confession states that Christ made “full satisfaction . . . on the tree of the cross” and poured “out His precious blood to purge away our sins”. Christ “suffered, the righteous for the unrighteous . . . feeling the terrible punishment which our sins had merited . . . and has suffered 46 Belgic Confession, art. 20. All subsequent quotations from the Belgic Confession are taken from Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 3 vol., ed. Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss (New Haven: Yale UP, 2003). The original French is cited from Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vol. (1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990). 47 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition (1932–38; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 385. 48 Anselm, Why God Became Man, in The Major Works, ed. Brian Davies and G. R. Evans (Oxford: OUP, 1998), 1.13 (p. 287); idem, Cur Deus Homo? Libri Duo (London: David Nat, 1903): “Necesse est ergo, u taut ablatus honor solvatur, aut poena sequatur; alioquin aut sibiipsi Deus justus non erit, aut ad utramque impotens erit” (p. 37). 49 Anselm, Why God Became Man, 1.11–12 (pp. 282–86); Willem J. Van Asselt, “Christ’s Atonement: A Multi-Dimensional Approach,” CTJ 38 (2003): 60; cf. Dániel Deme, The Christology of Anselm of Canterbury (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 91–98. 50 Van Asselt, “Christ’s Atonement,” 61.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



239

all of this for the remission of our sins”. This satisfaction is applied to the sinner through faith and union with Christ: “But Jesus Christ is our righteousness in making available to us all his merits and all the holy works he has done for us and in our place. And faith is the instrument that keeps us in communion with him and with all his benefits. When those benefits are made ours they are more than enough to absolve us for our sins.”51 One finds a trinitarian cast to the Reformed understanding of the satisfaction of Christ whereby article 20 treats the satisfactio Christi from the perspective of the Father, article 21 from the vantage point of Christ, and article 22 from that of the Holy Spirit.52 The same cannot be said of Socinus’ understanding of the forgiveness of sins. Socinus engages his understanding of the Reformed view of the satisfaction of Christ from its commercial aspect—the illustration of the creditor and his debtor.53 Socinus believed that every creditor has the right to cancel debts: “Every creditor has the absolute right to forgive the debtor his debt—either in whole or in part—without receiving satisfaction. Surely nobody is so ignorant, not to say mindless, to think that God cannot justly remit our debts without first receiving full satisfaction.”54 Socinus believed that the language of Scripture that employed satisfaction terminology was not literal but figurative. Hence, “It is therefore quite clear that the merciful God is pleased to forgive freely our sins in the salvation provided through Christ, without any literal satisfaction.”55 The Racovian Catechism contains similarly stated ideas; it decries the substitutionary satisfaction of Christ as “false, erroneous, and exceedingly pernicious”. The Catechism states that the substitutionary satisfaction of Christ is “repugnant to the Scriptures and right reason”. Following Socinus, the Catechism explains that God forgives men freely of their sins: “But to a free forgiveness nothing is more opposite than such a satisfaction as they contend for, and the payment of an equivalent price. For where a creditor is satisfied, either by the debtor himself, or by another person on the debtor’s behalf, it cannot with truth be said of him Belgic Confession, art. 22. Van Asselt, “Christ’s Atonement,” 61. 53 This is not to say that the Reformed view of the satisfactio Christi is based upon theories of commercialism and hence German feudal law instead of scriptural ideas. In fact, recent scholarship has discredited the caricatures of Anselm’s view that God was a greedy tyrant interested only in restoring his offended dignity. Rather, Anselm employed commercial ideas, borrowed from his Germanic feudal context, as illustrations; they were not foundational to his doctrine of satisfaction (R. W. Southern, Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape [Cambridge: CUP, 1991], 227). For an overview of Socinus’ doctrine of satisfaction, see Alan W. Gomes, “De Jesu Christo Servatore: Faustus Socinus on the Satisfaction of Christ,” WTJ 55 (1993): 209–31. 54 Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, 3.1 (p. 221). 55 Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, 3.2 (p. 240). 51 52

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

240

Faustus Socinus

that he freely forgives the debt.”56 The free forgiveness of sins is antithetical to satisfaction according to Socinian thought. Moreover, the Racovian Catechism states that literal satisfaction would incite antinomianism and licentiousness because “if full payment have been made to God by Christ for all our sins, even those which are future, we are absolutely freed from all liability to punishment, and therefore no further condition can by right be exacted from us to deliver us from the penalties of sin. What necessity then would there be for living religiously?”57 The Socinian understanding of the forgiveness of sins has at least one identifiable source of influence, namely Wolfgang Musculus, though the nature of influence should be qualified. The basic premise of Socinus’ understanding of the remission of sins is that there is no ontological necessity in God’s nature that absolutely requires satisfaction for sins. In other words, the punishment for sin is rooted in God’s will and not his nature. In support of his claims Socinus cites Musculus. In the quotation taken from his Loci Communes, Socinus appeals to Musculus’ concept of the “double throne” of God. Musculus states: Everything the Holy Scriptures say about God’s grace and mercy would be in vain if God is only a just judge, and not at the same time merciful; or if he is just in such a way that he could not be merciful without threatening his justice; or if he is obligated by a legal justice which does not permit him to acquit the guilty and be merciful to whom he wills—even though rulers and magistrates can do so!58

Socinus appeals to Musculus to substantiate the point that God may freely forgive sins; however, his appeal is selective as he demurs from Musculus’ conclusions regarding justification and the remission of sins, which in his mind, “significantly weaken the doctrine of satisfaction”.59 So Musculus is not a direct source of influence but rather only a source from which Socinus culls one point but takes it in a different direction.

Racovian Catechism, 5.8 (pp. 304–05). Racovian Catechism, 5.8 (p. 306). 58 Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, 3.1 (pp. 224–25); cf. Wolfgang Musculus, Loci Communes Theologiae Sacrae (Basel: Per Sabastianum Henricpetri, 1599), De Justificatione, §3 (pp. 267–68); idem, Common Places of Christian Religion (London: 1563), fol. 225. 59 Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, 3.1 (p. 225). 56 57

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



241

12.3.5 Imputation Beyond the remission of sins, another key element of the common Protestant doctrine of justification is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Again, to quote the Belgic Confession, article twenty states: “But Jesus Christ is our righteousness in making available to us all his merits and all the holy works (mais Jésus-Christ nous allouant tous ses mérites et tant de saintes œuvres).”60 The Confession of Saxony, written by Philip Melanchthon as a response to the Council of Trent, included in Beza’s Harmonia Confessionum, states: “Because that by his merit we have remission, and God does impute his righteousness to us, and for him does account us just, and by giving his Holy Spirit, does quicken and regenerate us.”61 The Gallican Confession states: “We do altogether rest in the only obedience of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to us.”62 The Confession of Würtemburg, written by Lutheran theologian Johannes Marbach (1521–81), likewise states that Christians appear before the judgment-seat of God only by “the merit of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose merit is ours by faith”.63 The connections between the merit (or obedience) of Christ and imputation are clear in the sampled Protestant confessions from Beza’s Harmonia Confessionum—by faith believers receive the imputed righteousness / merit / obedience of Christ. By contrast, Socinus rejects the concept of imputation as one commonly finds it in Protestant confessions. For Socinus the concept of substitution, one person suffering on behalf of another, is contrary to the light of reason. But Socinus also believes that Scripture rejects substitution. Socinus bases his rejection of substitution on Ezek 18.20, where the prophet states that children will not suffer for the sins of their fathers.64 A second reason Socinus rejects substitution is his anti-trinitarian doctrine of God; he contends that the person who makes satisfaction must be utterly separate from the person who receives said satisfaction. Socinus writes: Common sense itself clearly teaches this, so that if you insist on saying that Christ paid all the penalties for our sins to God on our behalf, you are forced to choose between one of the following conclusions: (1) you must deny that Christ himself is eternal God and Belgic Confession, art. 22. Harmony of Protestant Confessions, 9.10 (p. 190); xxxviii-xxxix. 62 Harmony of Protestant Confessions, 9.5 (p. 164); Gallican Confession, art. 13. 63 Harmony of Protestant Confessions, 9.11 (p. 204); Würtemburg Confession, chp. 5; James M. Kittleson, “Johannes Marbach,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 4 vol., ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand (Oxford: OUP, 1996), 3.1. 64 Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, 3.3 (p. 253). 60 61

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

242

Faustus Socinus

Jehovah, or (2) you must affirm the extent to which he was eternal God and Jehovah could not coincide with making that payment.65

Hence Socinus attempts to pin the common Protestant assertion of substitution on the horns of a dilemma—if the one making satisfaction has to be separate from the one who receives it, then the second person of the trinity cannot make satisfaction unless the doctrine of the trinity is denied. Beyond these two reasons Socinus offers additional theological explanation for his rejection of imputation that has its origins from an unlikely source, namely from Calvin and his correspondence with Socinus’ uncle, Laelius. Socinus explains that his uncle “advised Calvin of the truth, under the pretense of inquiring into the matter” and that Calvin later incorporated his epistolary response in his Institutes.66 First, Socinus appeals to the fact that Calvin rejects the idea that Christ merited reward for himself: Calvin rules out this interpretation with sufficient clarity when he denies that Christ gained merit for himself, and censured the Scholastics who taught that he did. Calvin’s censure would have been completely unwarranted if Christ could have merited reward for himself in any way at all. He felt that it was enough to show that Christ could not merit reward for himself as God for God, or as man for man. Calvin just takes it for granted that one nature could not merit reward for the other. And rightfully so.67

Within context, Calvin refutes the views of the “schoolmen” (scholastici), though he specifically mentions Peter Lombard by name.68 The second point Socinus appeals to comes directly from the Laelius-Calvin correspondence. Though Laelius’ original letter to Calvin is no longer extant, Calvin incorporated his response to Laelius in his Institutes: “There are certain perversely subtle men who—even though they confess that we receive salvation through Christ—cannot bear to hear the word ‘merit,’ for they think that it obscures God’s grace.”69 From this response one can infer what the original question was: “If the justification of men depends on the sheer mercy Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, 3.4 (p. 276). Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, 3.6 (p. 285). 67 Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, 3.5 (p. 278). 68 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill, LCC, vol. 20–21 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 2.17.6; OS 3.514; Cf. Peter Lombard, The Sentences, trans Giulio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007–10), 3.18.1; idem, Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae, 2 vol. (Grottaferrata: Collegii S. Bonavenurae Ad Claras Aquas, 1981). For Calvin’s letter to Laelius see “Responsio ad Aliquot Laelii Socini Senensis Quaestiones,” CO 10.160–65. 69 Calvin, Institutes, 2.17.1 (OS 3.508). 65 66

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Justification

243

of God, how is it necessary that Christ’s merit should at the same time intervene? How can one say both that God freely forgives and that Christ merits our forgiveness?”70 In his response Calvin argues that one did not have to pit Christ’s merit against God’s mercy; to Calvin, to do so was an absurdity. Calvin then invokes a common scholastic rule that, “A thing subordinate to another is not in conflict with it.” In this case, Calvin argues that believers are “freely justified by God’s mercy alone, and at the same time that Christ’s merit, subordinate to God’s mercy, also intervenes on our behalf.” Calvin also affirms the compatibility of God’s mercy and Christ’s merit by arguing: “Apart from God’s good pleasure Christ could not merit anything: but did so because he had been appointed to appease God’s wrath with his sacrifice, and to blot out our transgressions with his obedience.”71 While Calvin maintains the necessity of the imputation of Christ’s merit, he unwittingly left a door open for Socinus to pass through. Scholars have previously noted that Calvin’s doctrine of Christ’s merit and satisfaction bears the imprint of the nominalism of John Duns Scotus (ca. 1265–1308).72 Both Calvin and Scotus affirm the idea that the worthiness of Christ’s merit lies in the value assigned to it by God’s decree—it has no intrinsic worth or value. God could have ordained things in such a manner as to have an angel make satisfaction and earn a sufficient amount of merit to redeem sinners.73 Readers should keep in mind that though Calvin and Scotus overlap in their conception of the satisfaction and merit of Christ, they are interested in slightly different questions. Duns Scotus, in line with other theologians of the period such as Aquinas, was interested in the question of both what Christ merited for himself and what he merited for believers. Calvin, on the other hand, is only interested in the question of what Christ merited for others as his above-quoted rejection of Lombard demonstrates.74 70 David Willis, “The Influence of Laelius Socinus on Calvin’s Doctrines of the Merits of Christ and the Assurance of Faith,” in Italian Reformation Studies in Honor of Laelius Socinus, ed. John A. Tedeschi (Firenze: University of Siena, 1965): 234. 71 Calvin, Institutes, 2.17.1 (OS 3.509). Elsewhere Calvin offers the following: “God could have redeemed us by a word or a wish, save that another way seemed to Him best for our sakes: that by not sparing His own only-begotten Son He might testify in His person how much he cares for our salvation” (John Calvin, The Gospel According to St. John 11–21, ed. T. F. Torrance and David Torrance [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 100; idem, Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica, vol. 12/2, In Evangelium Secundum Johannem Commentarius Pars Prior, ed. Helmut Feld [Geneva: Droz, 1997], 168; Carl Trueman, “Jown Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice: An Exercise in Christocentric Scholasticism,” CTJ 33 [1998]: 90). 72 François Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (1950; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 129, 228. 73 Joannis Duns Scoti, Quaestiones In Librum Tertium Sententiarum, in Opera Omnia, vol. 14 (Paris: 1894), 3.19, q. 1.7 (pp. 718–719); Willis, “Influence of Laelius Socinus,” 235 n. 2. 74 Willis, “Influence of Laelius Socinus,” 235; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, 5 vol. (Allen: Christian Classics, 1948), IIIa q. 1 art. 2; IIIa q. 46 arts. 1–4.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

244

Faustus Socinus

However, the vulnerability that Calvin exposed was on the question regarding the value of Christ’s merit. Based upon Calvin’s idea that Christ could not merit anything apart from God’s good pleasure, or his acceptatio, Socinus believed he was therefore warranted in rejecting that Christ could merit anything for another. It should be noted that Calvin was not unique but merely affirmed a mainstream opinion on the matter.75 Nevertheless, Socinus writes: No one can truly merit reward for another. Nor, even if it were possible for one person to gain merit for another, could the divine nature ever merit reward for anyone, since the divine nature functions as that which gives and lavishes, or if you prefer, as that which gives a suitable reward for any so-called merits. (Of course, Calvin had no doubt that the human nature could not have merited reward for the divine).76

Socinus goes on to contend: “If you argue that he gained merit for us as God and in the power of the divine nature, that would be ridiculous. As we said God, or the divine nature, does not merit but bestows, paying deserved rewards for any so-called merits.”77 The parallel between Calvin and Socinus is thus: if God could have designed the nature of Christ’s satisfaction differently, and if God only assigns value to Christ’s merit because of a decision of his will rather than because it has any intrinsic value or worth, then Socinus believed he was warranted in arguing that God could simply erase the sinner’s debt of sin. Socinus simply folds his rejection of imputation and merit into his understanding of the forgiveness of sins. Calvin, of course, would reject such a conclusion but Socinus nevertheless entered through the door that Calvin left opened. In case there is any doubt regarding this conclusion, Socinus is fairly clear as he affirms these points in his own words. He is fully aware that there were theologians who “deny that satisfaction arises from God’s acceptation, basing satisfaction on Christ’s very works and on the inherent power of his actual sufferings.” He rejects this position as “indefensible” because of his understanding of forgiveness and satisfaction. Instead, Socinus favorably cites Calvin on this point: “God accepted Christ’s obedience in place of satisfaction, but not because this obedience has the power to make satisfaction per se. Chief among those of this opinion appears to be John Calvin.”78 Socinus then concludes about Calvin’s view: “Calvin—who lacked neither knowledge nor sharp judgment—recognized that Christ could not gain any merit for us or make satisfaction to divine justice Trueman, “Christocentric Scholasticism,” 90. Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, 3.5 (p. 278). 77 Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, 3.5 (p. 279). 78 Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, 3.6 (pp. 283–84). 75 76

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Union with Christ

245

for us on the strength of what he did and suffered.”79 Socinus, therefore, believed that he had an unwitting ally in Calvin on this particular point, an alliance that Calvin, no doubt, would have rejected. Socinus’ theological argumentation does not appear in the Racovian Catechism, though the consequences of his positions certainly do surface when it explains that Christ’s suffering and death was in no way a satisfaction for sin but merely a moral example. When the catechism asks why Christ suffered and was crucified it replies: “He inspires us with a certain hope of salvation, and also incites us both to enter upon the way of salvation and to persevere in it. In the next place, he is with us in every struggle of temptation, suffering, or danger, affords us assistance, and at length delivers us from eternal death.”80 Christ therefore does not vicariously redeem anyone but merely demonstrates the method by which people may be saved.81 Karl Barth rightly characterizes the nature and impact of Socinus’ christology upon the Racovian Catechism. The total function of Christ’s prophetic office is “to understand the historical being and work of the Mediator as merely the manifestation, declaration and exemplification of a timeless idea of reconciliation as the true veritas coelestis, and thus in short to substitute a Gospel of Jesus Christ for the Gospel concerning him.”82

12.4 Union with Christ Given these theological commitments some might presume that Socinian theology has nothing to say about a common Reformation doctrine, namely, union with Christ. This would be a premature conclusion. The Racovian Catechism denies the deity of Christ, for example, but does affirm that Jesus and God are in union with one another: “Their union is discernible in this, that God, from the very beginning of the new covenant, has, through the instrumentality of Christ, performed, and hereafter will finally accomplish, all things that in any way relate to the salvation of mankind, and also, consequently, to the destruction of the wicked.”83 Christ is in union with God through the Holy Spirit, which is not the third person of the trinity but a “virtue or energy flowing from God

79 Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, 3.6 (p. 285). Franks bypasses Calvin and argues that Socinus draws directly upon Duns Scotus (Work of Christ, 2.17). 80 Racovian Catechism, 5.8 (p. 296). 81 Racovian Catechism, 1 (p. 1). 82 CD, IV.3/1, 15. 83 Racovian Catechism, 4.1 (p. 159).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

246

Faustus Socinus

to men, and communicated to them”.84 Hence, believers share in a union with God through Christ, though it is different from common Reformation variants. Rather than being held in an unbreakable bond through the Holy Spirit, believers hold themselves in union with Christ: “For no one is a member of this church who has not true faith in Christ and real piety; for by faith we are grafted into the body of Christ, and by faith and piety we remain in him.”85 If obedience is the form and substance of faith, then believers can only remain in Christ if they are faithful and only then can they have any hope of attaining eternal life.

12.5 The Reformed response 12.5.1 Initial reception In one sense, there was no official response to Socinian theology that originated during the Reformation (1517–65) as Socinus had not yet written or disseminated his teaching until the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. The closest thing to Socinus’ thought was the letters of his uncle, Laelius. Even then, as noted in the biographical sketch, opinions were divided over Laelius’ beliefs. Laelius agitated Calvin with his persistent questions but satisfied Bullinger with his personal confession. Other correspondents, such as Zanchi had definite opinions. Zanchi acknowledged that Laelius was born of a noble family, knowledgeable of Greek and Hebrew, blameless in his comportment, but nevertheless “full of diverse heresies”.86 Socinian teaching, therefore, did not go unnoticed and as time passed, greater attention was given to this spreading doctrine. In the early days of the seventeenth century Socinian theology made inroads into Remonstrant circles. Conrad Vorstius (1569–1622) was the successor to Jacob Arminius at the University of Leiden. Vorstius encountered a number of works by Socinus, but chiefly his De Jesu Christo Servatore. In his interaction with other Reformed theologians such as Heidelberg’s Daniel Tossanus (1541–1602) and David Pareus (1548–1622), both believed that Vorstius had embraced Socinian doctrine on a number of points.87 Arminius was not the Racovian Catechism, 5.6 (p. 285). Racovian Catechism, 8.4 (p. 382). 86 Girolamo Zanchi, De Tribus Elohim, Aeterno Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, Uno eodemque Iehova, libri XIII (Neustadt Matthaei Harnisii, 1589), praefatio: “plenus diversarum haereseum”. 87 Jan Rohls, “Calvinism, Arminianism and Socinianism in the Netherlands Until the Synod of Dort,” in Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in SeventeenthCentury Europe, ed. Martin Muslow / Jan Rohls (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 21–22. 84 85

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The Reformed response



247

only tributary feeding Remonstrant thought; Vorstius was also a contributor. The Synod of Dort eventually took action against Vorstius and exiled him.88 The contra-Remonstrants believed there were close connections, though not exact duplication, between Arminian and Socinian thought and therefore took steps to redress and eliminate the false teaching.89

12.5.2 Anti-Socinian works As Socinian doctrine began to spread, the body of anti-Socinian literature grew. Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) published his Defense of the Catholic Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ Against Faustus Socinus of Siena (1617).90 Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644), one of the delegates to the Synod of Dort, wrote three anti-Socinian works, The First False Adversaries, Cases of Conscience From Socinian Doctrine Arranged in a Dialogue, and Anti-Socinus.91 In Reformed works like those such as Maccovius, polemical interaction with Socinian teaching became a regular feature. As one can imagine, chief topics of debate include the doctrine of the trinity, justification, and the satisfaction of Christ.92 In fact, the number of anti-Socinian writings includes over 700 works during the period of 1595–1797. This number does not completely reveal the effort that went into opposing Socinian thought; professors of theology, for example, bound student anti-Socinian dissertations together. One collection includes 154 dissertations and runs over 1,200 pages.93 Another collection is over 900 pages consisting of 56 dissertations; a third combines 17 dissertations that cover 1,000 columns of text, and a fourth runs 555 pages.94 Rohls, “Calvinism, Arminianism and Socinianism,” 44. Rohls, “Calvinism, Arminianism and Socinianism,” 37. On the connections between Socinianism and Arminianism, see Kestutis Daugirdas, “The Biblical Hermeneutics of Socinians and Remonstrants in the Seventeenth Century,” in Arminius, Arminianism, and Europe: Jacobus Arminius (1559/60–1609), ed. Th. Marius Van Leeuwen / Keith D. Stanglin / Marijke Tolsma (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 89–114. 90 Hugo Grotius, Denfensio Fidei Catholicae de Satisfactione Christi Adversus Fastum Socinum Senensem (Leiden: Ioannes Patius, 1617). 91 See Johannes Maccovius, Johannes Maccovius Redivivus, seu Manuscripta eius Typis Exscripta (Franeker, 1647). 92 See, e.g., Johannes Maccovius, Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules, ed. Willem J. van Asselt / Michael D. Bell / Gert van den Bring / Rein Ferwerda (Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009), 1.45, 2.6, 5.1, 5.6, 5.9, 5.21 (pp. 82, 88, 126, 128, 130, 136) 93 Joannes Adamus Scherzerus, Collegii Anti-Sociniani (Leipzig: 1702). 94 Josua Stegmann, Photinianismus: hoc est, succincta refutatio errorum Photinianorum (1623); Christiani Becmani, Exercitationes theologicae (Amsterdam: J. Janssonium, 1643); Ludovicus Crocius, Antisocinismus contractus: hoc est errorum Socinianorum privatarum consequentiarum nebulis 88 89

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

248

Faustus Socinus

12.5.3 John Owen Perhaps one of the best examples of a reaction to Socinianism comes from the pen of John Owen (1616–83). When Owen originally penned his Death of Death in the Death of Christ (1647), he was chiefly concerned with Arminianism. In this treatise Owen argued against the Arminian position of what Owen calls a “universal redemption, or the general ransom”.95 Owen engages the Arminian argument by demonstrating that Christ’s death is not absolutely necessary to redeem the elect.96 Owen explains: It is true, indeed, supposing the decree, purpose, and constitution of God that so it should be that so he would manifest his glory, by the way of vindicative justice, it was impossible that it should otherwise be . . . but to assert positively, that absolutely and antecedently to his constitution he could not have done it, is to me an unwritten tradition, the Scripture affirming no such thing, neither can it be gathered from thence in any good consequence.97

Owen, like Calvin before him, grounds the necessity of Christ’s satisfaction in the will of God rather than his nature—it is based on the divine decree and the potentia Dei ordinata, not God’s essence.98 By 1652 Owen had different concerns—he no longer feared Arminianism but instead the growing threat of Socinianism. He was concerned about the Socinian denial of the necessity of the satisfaction of Christ.99 His concern caused him to pen A Dissertation on Divine Justice. Owen’s subtitle is noteworthy: “Wherein that essential property of the divine nature is demonstrated from the sacred writings, and defended against Socinians, particularly the authors of the Racovian Catechism, John Crellius, and F. Socinus himself.”100 Owen involutorum examen & brevis ostensio principiorum quibus illi XXVIII disputationibus refutantur & dogmata catholicae fidei defenduntur (1639); Alan W. Gomes, “Some Observations on the Theological Method of Faustus Socinus (1539–1604),” WTJ 70 (2008): 50 n. 2. 95 John Owen, Salus Electorum, Sanguis Jesu; or The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: A Treatise of the Redemption and Reconciliation that is in the Blood of Christ, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, 24 vol. (1850–53; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1993), 10.140–429. 96 Trueman, “Christocentric Scholasticism,” 89. 97 Owen, Death of Death, in Works, 10.205. 98 Trueman, “Christocentric Scholasticism,” 89; cf. Augustine, On the Holy Trinity, 13.10 in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, 13 vol., ed. Philip Schaff (rep.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 3.174. 99 Trueman, “Christocentric Scholasticism,” 91. 100 John Owen, A Dissertation on Divine Justice, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, 24 vol. (1850–53; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1993), 10.480–624.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Conclusion



249

mentions Crellius, one of several theologians who assisted in the completion of the Racovian Catechism; he also mentions Socinus, who being dead for nearly fifty years, was perceived by Owen to be a present threat. In his Dissertation, Owen changes his position on the necessity of the satisfaction of Christ. Owen knew he was parting company with a number of significant theologians who held his former position. Owen writes that the position had the “mighty names” of Augustine, Calvin, Musculus, William Twisse (1578–1646), moderator of the Westminster Assembly, Gerardus Vossius (1577–1649), and Samuel Rutherford (1600–61). Owen, however, now joined the ranks of other theolgians who argued for the essential necessity of the satisfaction of Christ, including Pareus, Johannes Piscator (1546–1625), Charles Dumoulin (1500–66), Sibrandus Lubbertus (1556–1625), André Rivet (1572–1651), John Cameron (ca. 1579–1623), Maccovius, Franciscus Junius (1545–1602), and the professors of the Academy at Saumur.101 Some might accuse Owen of switching positions out of political expediency or out of a desire to distance himself from Socinian doctrine. However, recent analysis of his change demonstrates that Owen was driven both by theological and scriptural considerations.102 In fact, one can rule out politics from Owen’s decision because his new position is significantly closer to the position of Arminius, one for whom he reserved his greatest disdain.103

12.6 Conclusion Faustus Socinus transgressed the confessional and biblical norms of his day by advocating a doctrine of justification that had people seeking to justify themselves by their own good works. Socinus’ gospel was devoid of a mediator who vicariously suffered on behalf of his bride but merely pointed the way for her to follow. If she would repent of her sinful ways and place her faith in Christ, that is, obey the law of God and live an upright life, then she would be rewarded with eternal life. In the eyes of the Reformers, such a gospel was in no way good news. Socinus displaced sola fide, solus Christus, and sola gratia. In terms of Socinus’ perceived impact upon the history of the church, perhaps the epitaph engraved upon his tombstone best captures it: Tota licet Babylon Owen, Dissertation, in Works, 10.487–88; Trueman, “Christocentric Scholasticism,” 91 n. 11. Trueman, “Christocentric Scholasticism,” 91–103. 103 Trueman, “Christocentric Scholasticism,” 102; cf. Jacob Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, 3 vol., ed. James Nichols (1853; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), private disp. 21, 2.49–50; idem, Disputationes, magnam partem s. theologiae complectentes, publicae & privatae, quarum index epist. dedicatoriam sequitur, in Opera Theologica (Leiden: 1629), 360–62. 101 102

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

250

Faustus Socinus

destruxit tecta Lutherus, muros Calvinus, sed fundamentus Socinus (“Although Luther destroyed all of the house-tops of Babylon, Calvin the walls, but Socinus destroyed its foundations”).104 Luther and Calvin sought to reform the doctrine of the church but Socinus was perceived by his devotees as wanting utterly to destroy it. Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930) comments that Socinianism as a movement represented “that destruction of Catholicism which could be effected on the basis of what was furnished by Scholasticism and the Renaissance while there was no essential deepening or quickening of religion. In Antitrinitarianism and Socinianism the Middle Ages and the newer period stretch hands forth to each other across the Reformation.”105 In many ways, Harnack’s observations are true, though one cannot too easily dismiss the fact that Calvin was the deliveryman of the package of Medieval theology that Socinus opened with glee. Nevertheless, regardless of how Socinus encountered the various ideas that he incorporated into his thought, one thing is clear: Reformed theologians for generations to come sought repeatedly to confront his teachings to preserve the truth, especially as it pertains to the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. But this chapter also demonstrates several other elements crucial to this study. First, Calvin was certainly an influence of sorts upon Socinian theology, but there were a host of other contemporaries that interacted with Laelius, for example. In other words, Calvin was one among many. Second, self-defined Reformed lines of orthodoxy are not drawn upon contemporary denominational lines, i.e., the Lutheran-Reformed divide. Beza and the pastors of Geneva saw themselves in essential harmony with the Lutherans on a host of issues, including the doctrine of justification. Third, key in Beza’s Harmonium Confessionum is not the doctrine of union with Christ but rather the elements of the doctrine of justification: proper definitions of faith, justification, imputation, and the merit of Christ. Fourth, Socinus did not perceive any differences between the Lutheran and Reformed camps as his alternative doctrines of justification and union cut across their shared position. Fifth, even Socinians affirm union with Christ, albeit of a very different sort. Sixth, and finally, unlike his orthodox contemporaries, Socinus does not maintain the priority of justification over sanctification. Instead, the believer’s justification hinges upon his sanctification. The believer must obey and submit his own good works in order to be justified, not the works of Christ. 104 Joshua Toulmin, Memoirs of the Life, Character, Sentiments, and Writings of Faustus Socinus (London: J. Brown, 1777), 12; Gomes, “Theological Method of Socinus,” 50. 105 Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, 7 vol., trans. William M’Gilchrist (London: Williams and Norgate, 1899), 7.120. For a similar observation see Franks, Work of Christ, 2.13.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

13. William Perkins

13.1 Introduction Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) once wrote that the doctrine of justification by faith is a subsidiary crater formed within the rim of the main crater, the doctrine of mystical union with Christ. According to Schweitzer there were two competing redemptive strains within Paul’s thought, that of mystical union and the forensic. Schweitzer believed that because Paul excluded works of the law from justification that he closed the road to ethics. “Those who subsequently made his doctrine of justification by faith the center of Christian belief,” writes Schweitzer, “have had the tragic experience of finding that they were dealing with a conception of redemption, from which no ethic could logically be derived.”1 Schweitzer believed that the Protestant church had adopted the forensic model almost to the exclusion of the mystical.2 In contrast, Schweitzer believed that union with Christ was central to Paul’s soteriology, a soteriology characterized by eschatology.3 In many respects the tensions that Schweitzer perceives in quest for the center of Paul’s theology has characterized historical theological discussions and debates about the place of union with Christ and its relationship to the doctrine of justification especially as it relates to Calvin’s views on these matters. The contemporary tension over whether union with Christ or justification is more central to historic Reformed theology can be illustrated by two different assessments of the theology of William Perkins (1558–1602). In his History of Pietism Heinrich Heppe claims that Perkins was the father of pietism and the chief concern of Perkins’ theology was union with Christ. According to Heppe, Perkins believed that the Christian life had to be directed to the crucified Christ and a possession of him through fellowship (Gemeinschaft) and mystical union (mystischen Vereinigung mit Christus).4 On the other hand, historian Christopher Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (1931; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1998), 223–25. 2 Schweitzer, Mysticism, 387. 3 Schweitzer, Mysticism, 138–40. 4 Heinrich Heppe, Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der Reformirten Kirche (Lieden: Brill, 1879), 24–26; also see Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 131–32. 1

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

252

William Perkins

Hill has more recently argued that among the four chief points that surface in Perkins’ theology is his “obsession” with the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Hill does not even list union with Christ among the chief characteristics in Perkins’ theology.5 Heppe and Hill give two disparate readings of Perkins, and a similar trend continues in the work of others, such as William Evans. Evans argues that for Calvin the doctrine of union with Christ was chief and central to Calvin’s theology and that subsequent Reformed theologians vitiated his doctrine with the imposition of federalism (presumably the bi-covenantal structure of the covenants of works and grace) and the ordo salutis.6 Though Evans does not treat Perkins, the Elizabethan theologian would undoubtedly be viewed as one who vitiated Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ because he was chiefly responsible for the solidification of the ordo salutis with his famous work, A Golden Chaine. Given the above-cited claims, what are we to make of Perkins? Is union with Christ or justification more central to his theology? Does federalism and the ordo salutis (a sequence) vitiate the doctrine of union with Christ? This chapter answers these questions by showing that recent claims like those of Evans, illustrated in the analyses of Heppe and Hill, foist a false dilemma upon the evaluation of a theologian like Perkins. There is no need to choose between union with Christ and justification, but rather Perkins holds both consistently while at the same time giving justification logical (or theological) priority over sanctification in his soteriology. Perkins’ soteriology as a whole demonstrates what many contemporary historians and theologians are unable to grasp, namely, looking for a central organizing principle, such as union with Christ or justification, is historically anachronistic in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Whether or not such a quest is a legitimate dogmatic enterprise is a question for another day. This chapter is chiefly concerned with the historical-theological question set before us in Perkins’ theology: Is it impossible to affirm the doctrine of union with Christ and at the same time the ordo salutis, according priority to justification over sanctification? The chapter proceeds with a brief biographical and bibliographic sketch outlining Perkins’ influence upon the development of Reformed theology. Second, we will explore his views on union with Christ and justification as they are set forth in his broader understanding of the ordo salutis. And third, the chapter concludes with some Christopher Hill, Puritanism and Revolution: The English Revolution of the Seventeenth Century (1958; New York: Schocken Books, 1967), 217. 6 William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 38–39, 81. A similar stance is taken in Michael McGiffert, “The Perkinsian Moment of Federal Theology,” CTJ 29 (1994): 117–48. 5

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Biographical and bibliographic sketch



253

observations about how Perkins’ theology, indeed that of the sixteenth- and seventeenth centuries, does not fit the current central-theme hunting agenda of dogmaticians and historians.

13.2 Biographical and bibliographic sketch 13.2.1 Life William Perkins is known as one of the more influential Reformed theologians of the late sixteenth century. He was educated at the University of Cambridge and was a leading Puritan of his day. He was trained in scholastic theology, though he was more interested in the modified place logic of Peter Ramus (1515–72). Ramism was a method of simplifying topics by dividing them in two.7 Ramists typically displayed great interest in practical application of doctrine. During his ministry Perkins was a preacher at Great St. Andrews Church, Cambridge, the most influential pulpit near Christ’s College, and he also served as a fellow at Christ’s College from 1584 to 1595.8

13.2.2 Works In addition to this preaching and teaching activity, Perkins authored a number of theological works. Around the time of Perkins’ death, eleven editions of his writings were issued. Those editions contained fifty treatises, among which included expositions on Gal 1–5, the Sermon on the Mount, Heb 11, the book of Jude, and the first three chapters of Revelation. In addition to these exegetical works, Perkins also wrote treatises on predestination, the Lord’s prayer, preaching, the Christian life, Roman Catholicism, the doctrine of assurance, and the order of salvation.9 Perkins’ works sold quite well in England and were the first to surpass both Calvin and Beza in terms of the number of published editions. Perkins works went through fifty editions in Switzerland, nearly sixty in Germany, and more than one hundred in Holland. His works were also published in France, Hungary, and Bohemia, and were translated into Welsh, See Peter Ramus, The Logike (1574; Leeds: The Scholar Press, 1966); Donald K. McKim, Ramism in William Perkins’ Theology (New York: Peter Lang, 1987). 8 Joel R. Beeke and Randall J. Pederson, Meet the Puritans: With a Guide to Modern Reprints (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 471. 9 Beeke and Pederson, Puritans, 474. 7

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

254

William Perkins

Irish, Dutch, German, French, Spanish, and Hungarian.10 Perkins’ influence not only extended through his theological works, but he also impacted a number of students and contemporaries including: William Ames (1576–1633), Richard Sibbes (1577–1635), and John Cotton (1585–1652). Thomas Goodwin (1600–80) notes that six of his professors had sat under Perkins and were still disseminating his teaching.11 For all of these reasons, Raymond Blacketer opines, “Perkins was arguably the most significant English theologian of the Elizabethan period”.12 Others have noted that Perkins was a chief architect of the theology that was later codified in the Westminster Standards (1646).13 Gisbert Voetius (1589–1676) includes Perkins’ didactic theology with the caliber of work from the likes of Beza, Vermigli, Lambert Daneau, and Ames. Voetius also includes Perkins’ catechetical work as being as worthy as that of Daneau, and Ursinus, Zanchi, and Andre Rivet.14

13.2.3 Scope of the investigation For the purpose of this chapter, attention will be given to three of Perkins’ chief works: his Armilla Aurelia (Golden Chaine), Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, and Commentary on Galatians.15 There are certainly other works that could be explored, but these three stand out among the rest for the following reasons. First, though Perkins’ Golden Chaine has been vilified by some as a decretal system of theology, it is more responsibly known as Perkins’ explanation of the ordo salutis.16 This work shows how Perkins relates the different elements of his 10 Raymond A. Blacketer, “William Perkins (1558–1602),” in The Pietist Theologians: An Introduction to the Theology in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 48. 11 Beeke and Pederson, Puritans, 475. 12 Blacketer, “William Perkins,” 41. 13 Paul R. Schaefer, “Protestant ‘Scholasticism’ at Elizabethan Cambridge: William Perkins and a Reformed Theology of the Heart,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. Carl R. Trueman / R. Scott Clark (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999), 149. 14 Gisbert Voetius, Disputationes, in Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John W. Beardslee (Oxford: OUP, 1965), 289–90; Richard A. Muller, “Perkins’ A Golden Chaine: Predestinarian System of Schematized Ordo Salutis?” SCJ 9/1 (1978): 1 n. 1. 15 William Perkins, An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed (1595; London: 1616); idem, Golden Chaine, or The Description of Theology (London: 1592); idem, A Commentary on Galatians, ed. Gerald T. Sheppard (1617; New York: Pilgrim Press, 1989). 16 See e.g., R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford: OUP, 1981), 54–66; Basil Hall, “Calvin against the Calvinists,” in John Calvin, ed. Gervase Duffield (Appleford: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1966), 17–31; cf. Muller, “Golden Chaine,” 68–81. A similar work that has drawn criticism is by Theodore Beza, Summa totius Christianismi, sive descriptio et distributio causarum salutis electorum, et exitii reproborum, ex sacris literis collecta (Geneva: 1570). For analysis of this document see Richard

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Union with Christ

255

soteriology. Second, Perkins’ Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed by his own admission is his most comprehensive treatment of Christian doctrine.17 His treatment of union with Christ in that work, then, provides important theological data. And, third, Perkins’ commentary on Galatians is important not only because it was his last theological work, but also because Paul’s epistle to the Galatians treats the doctrine of justification. It should be no surprise, then, that Perkins has much to say on the doctrine in his commentary. These three works provide an excellent window into Perkins’ theology and the relationship between union with Christ and justification, and more broadly the ordo salutis.

13.3 Union with Christ It may be a surprise to some, but as Heppe has noted, even though Perkins is known for his Golden Chaine, he is also a theologian of union with Christ. In his Exposition Perkins begins his chapter on mystical union by explaining the three different types of union that exist: (1) a union of nature, when different things are joined by one and the same nature, such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who are different persons but nevertheless share a common nature; (2) a union of person, when things in nature are different but nevertheless cohere in one person, such as the union between body and soul; and (3) a spiritual union whereby Christ and his church are united. This third type of union, states Perkins, is in view under the subject of mystical union. And the bond that unites Christ to his bride, the church, is the Holy Spirit.18

13.3.1 Union defined Perkins explains the nature of the union: There is a most near and straight union between Christ and all that believe in him: and in this union Christ with all his benefits according to the tenor of the covenant of grace, is made ours really: and therefore we may stand just before God by his righteousness;

A. Muller, “The Use and Abuse of a Document: Beza’s Tabula Praedestinationis, the Bolsec controversy, and the Origins of Reformed Orthodoxy,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999): 33–61. 17 William Perkins, A Cloud of Faithful Witnesses (1607; London, 1618), 1. 18 Perkins, Exposition, 299.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

256

William Perkins

it being indeed his, because it is in him as in a subject; yet so, as it is also our; because it is given unto us of God.

Noteworthy in this statement is that Perkins locates justification as a benefit of union with Christ and coordinates this as a benefit of the covenant of grace.19 Here Perkins’ federalism raises its head, a subject to which we will give greater detail below. But Perkins not only connects justification with union, but also sanctification: “From this fountain,” that is, union with Christ, “springs our sanctification, whereby we die to sin, and are renewed in righteousness and holiness”.20 So, like other Reformed theologians before and contemporaneous with him, Perkins identifies justification and sanctification as two of the many benefits of union with Christ.21 Among the more interesting images that Perkins employs to illustrate the necessity of the believer’s union with Christ are that of worms and flies, and fruit trees. Perkins explains that worms and flies lie dead all winter until they are exposed to the sunlight of Spring, which begins to bring them to life. “Even so,” writes Perkins, “when we are united to Christ, and are (as it were) laid in the beams of this blessed sun of righteousness, virtue is derived thence, which warms our benumbed hearts dead in sin, and revives us to newness of life.”22 The other image that Perkins uses to illustrate union with Christ is a common one, a fruit-bearing tree, though his version has a slight twist. With an appeal to John 15.1, where Christ explains that he is the vine and believers are the branches, Perkins writes: “Christian men are trees of righteousness growing by the waters of the Sanctuary: but what trees? Not like ours for they are rooted upward in heaven in Christ, and their grains and branches grow downward that they may bear fruit among men.”23 Perkins turns a common biblical illustration on its head, and paints a picture of believers as fruitbearing trees that grow downward from heaven because they are rooted in (or in union with) Christ. 19 Young Jae Timothy Song, Theology and Piety in the Reformed Federal Thought of William Perkins and John Preston (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1998), 35, 37, 53–54, 69. 20 Perkins, Exposition, 300. 21 See, e.g., Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, 4 vol. (1849–52; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2004), 3.9 (2.330); John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, LCC, vol. 20–21, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.11.1; Girolamo Zanchi, De Religione Christian Fides – Confession of Christian Religion, 2 vol., ed. Luca Baschera / Christian Moser (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 19.1–2 (1.334–37). See also James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, 3 vol., trans. James Nichols and William Nichol (1825–75; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 2.204–05. 22 Perkins, Exposition, 300. 23 Perkins, Exposition, 301.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ



257

Though Perkins considers his Exposition to be his most detailed explication of the Christian faith, a comprehensive statement on the nature of the believer’s union with Christ appears in his Galatians commentary. Perkins reflects upon a number of texts that address the subject of union with Christ when he comments on Gal 2.20, “I am crucified with Christ: thus I live, yet not I any more, but Christ lives in me” (Eph 1.22; John 15.1; 1 Cor 6.15, 17; 12.13; 15.45; Acts 3.15; Rom 6.5; 8.11; 11.24; Phil 3.10; 1 John 5.12). Perkins explains that the union between Christ and believers is a substantial union. Perkins does not argue that the natures of Christ and the believer are mixed, but rather that the person who believes is united to the person of Christ. This union, as previously noted, is brought about by the work of the Spirit and therefore is a spiritual bond. Perkins then asks two questions: “One, in what order Christ gives himself to us?” and, “How can Christ be said to live in us?”

13.3.2 Nature of the union Perkins answers the first question by stating that Christ gives himself to believers by his flesh and blood, which is synonymous with Christ himself. The answer to the second question is: Christ’s gifts, namely, the efficacy and merit of his death. Perkins answers the second question of how Christ lives in the believer by making reference once again the work of the Spirit. Christ does not indwell the believer with a local presence, but through the special operation of the Spirit, which is threefold: The first is, when God imputes the righteousness of Christ to them that believe, and withal gives the right to eternal life, and the earnest of this right, namely, the firstfruits of the Spirit. Hereupon justification is called ‘the justification of life’ (Rom 5). The second is, vivification by the virtue of the resurrection of Christ (Phil 3.10). And this virtue is the power of the God-head of Christ, or the power of the Spirit, raising us to newness of life, as it raised Christ, from the death of sin. And by this power, Christ is said to live in them that believe. The third is, the resurrection of the dead body to everlasting glory, in the day of judgment (Rom 8.11).24

In this explanation Perkins assigns priority to the imputed righteousness of Christ and justification. He prioritizes justification over sanctification in terms

24

Perkins, Galatians, 128–29.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

258

William Perkins

of the order that he assigns them. Sanctification (or vivification, as he terms it here), is second.

13.3.3 Priority of justification In another explanation from his exposition of Jude, Perkins once again prioritizes the forensic over the transformative. Perkins prioritizes justification over sanctification, but also coordinates them with union with Christ and the doctrine of the covenant. Note how Perkins sets union within the context of the covenant of grace: According to that order which God has set down in the covenant, not of works but of grace, wherein God promises to give Christ with all his merits and graces to every believer. Now according to the tenor of this covenant, first Christ with his merits is given unto the believer; he again is given unto Christ, by virtue of which donation many may say Christ is mine, his benefits are mine also, as truly and surely as my land is my own. Hereupon, to make this mutual donation effectual, follows a second thing, which is the union of us with him by the bond of the Spirit, and this is a mystical union but a true union, whereby he that is given unto Christ is made one with him.25

So at the outset Perkins lays a foundation of the merit of Christ, which is the promise that constitutes the covenant of grace. He gives priority to the obedience of Christ. God then executes this promise through the believer’s union with Christ. But when the believer is united to Christ, Perkins distinguishes between imputed and infused righteousness: After this comes a third thing, which is a communication of Christ himself and all his benefits unto believers. This is done two ways: first, by way of imputation, which is an accounting and accepting of his obedience and sufferings as ours, for the discharge of our sins and acquitting us from them. Secondly, by a kind of propagation, whereby grace is derived from his grace, and infused into those that are set into him. For as many candles receive light from one great torch or light, and as many branches; even so all his members drink of his fountains, are enriched by his treasures of wisdom and

25 William Perkins, Exposition upon the Epistle of Jude, in The Workes of that Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridge M. William Perkins, vol. 3 (London: 1631), 594.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ



259

knowledge: yes indeed and live by no other life, than that which by his Spirit he inspires into the faces of their souls.26

Imputed and infused righteousness are not confused but distinguished, with priority given to imputed righteousness, as he lists it as first of two benefits, but also because of the antecedent promise of the covenant. But why must Christ’s obedience have priority in the covenant? A forensic foundation has been laid with the respective works of Adam and Christ, the second Adam, in the unfolding of redemptive history: He shows himself to be a root, even that root of life, and that second Adam conveying unto all his branches righteousness and life, as the first Adam (being a root also) derived corruption from himself to all his posterity springing and arising from him; so is that place 1 Cor. 1.30 to be understood, he is made of God to us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; because he is the root and fountain of all these graces unto us, of whose fullness we receive them.27

Perkins argues that the believer’s mystical union is grounded upon the imputed obedience of Christ because his merit is promised in the covenant of grace. This priority, therefore, is not temporal (Perkins is not saying that imputation precedes union), but theological. Salvation is ultimately grounded in the representative obedience of Christ, which the believer receives through imputation. In both cases, whether with Adam or the second Adam, each secures the respective destinies prior to the existence of those whom each Adam represents. And to be sure, though Perkins’ nomenclature was of recent origin (i.e., placing the works of the two Adams under the covenants of works and grace), his federalism was not. Federalism was part and parcel of Reformed theology from the outset of the Reformation.28 So within the broader rubric of union with Christ, Perkins prioritizes justification over sanctification. Perkins, Exposition of Jude, 594. Perkins, Exposition of Jude, 594. 28 See, e.g., Bullinger, who writes: “For Paul, the teacher of the Gentiles, does in the way of opposition compare Christ with Adam, and shows that of Adam, and so of our own nature and strength, we have nothing but sin, the wrath of God, and death. And this does he show under the name of Adam, to the intent that no man should seek for righteousness and life in the flesh. And again, on the other side, he declares that we by Christ have righteousness, the grace of God, life, and the forgiveness of all our sins” (Decades, 1.6 [1.113]). Bullinger does not speak in terms of the covenants of works and grace, but he does have in view the federal effects of Adam and Christ. And from the earliest of days of the Reformation (1534), Bullinger explained that Christ’s redemptive work came through covenant (see Heinrich Bullinger, De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et aeterno, in Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition, ed. and trans. Charles S. McCoy / J. Wayne Baker 26 27

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

260

William Perkins

13.4 The ordo salutis: justification and sanctification Why does Perkins prioritize justification over sanctification? An answer comes from both his formulation of the ordo salutis as well as the exegetical-theological reasons presented in his Galatians commentary. It is helpful, however, to answer first a broader question, namely, Why does Perkins even argue for an ordo salutis, or a sequence? If the believer receives all of the benefits of Christ through union, why conceive of an order in which those benefits are received? There is a twofold answer to this question.

13.4.1 Why the ordo salutis? First, Perkins explains in the introduction to his Golden Chaine that there are four different ways that theologians conceive of “the order of God’s divine predestination”. When Perkins writes of an “order,” he does not have in mind a specific ordo decretorum vis-à-vis the lapsarian question, but rather the way in which soteriology in general is conceived. This conclusion is evident when he lists the “the old and new Pelagians; who place the cause of God’s predestination in man,” in that they believe that God neither ordained life or death but he merely foresaw what man would do by his own free will in his rejection or reception of God’s grace.29 He next identifies Lutherans as those who argue that based upon God’s foreknowledge, who saw that all men were imprisoned in unbelief and would therefore reject God’s mercy, he chose some to salvation by his mercy and rejected the rest based upon his foreknowledge that they would reject his grace. Lastly he identifies the “semi-Pelagian Papists,” who attribute salvation partly to God’s predestination and partly to man’s “foreseen preparations, and meritorious works”.30 Perkins’ intention is to show how these three positions are erroneous. But noteworthy are the reasons why he identifies error in them. Perkins is certainly interested in refuting what he perceives as erroneous views of predestination, [Louisville: WJK, 1991], 99–138). On the development of the bi-covenantal structure of Reformed theology, see Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: OUP, 2003), 175–90. 29 See Mark R. Shaw, “William Perkins and the New Pelagians: Another Look at the Cambridge Predestination Controversy of the 1590’s,” WTJ 58 (1996): 267–301. Cf. Michael T. Malone, “The Doctrine of Predestination in the Thought of William Perkins and Richard Hooker,” ATR 52 (1970): 103–17; Muller, Christ and the Decree, 129–32, 142–49, 160–73. 30 Perkins, Golden Chaine, preface (note, this edition has no page numbers and will be referenced by chapter numbers).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The ordo salutis



261

particularly those which found God’s choice of sinners upon foreknowledge of human choices and works. However, also in Perkins’ crosshairs is the place of works in redemption—this is especially evident when he describes the Roman Catholic position as one where redemption is based partly in God’s mercy and partly in man’s good works. When we consider that the full title of Perkins’ treatise is, A Golden Chaine, or the Description of Theology, containing the order of the causes of Salvation and Damnation, according to God’s word, it is evident that one of Perkins’ goals is to show how and in what way works factor into redemption among the causes of redemption. This conclusion is also further strengthened when we consider that Perkins devotes a chapter to “the order of the causes of salvation according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome”.31 Of particular interest on this point is Perkins’ positive quotation of Luther: “That saying of Luther is most true: Good works make not a man just, but a just man makes good works. For good fruit makes not a good tree, but declares it to be good, but a good tree must need make good fruit.”32 A second answer as to why Perkins argues for an ordo salutis (or sequence) comes from comparing his Golden Chaine with a similar work of the period. Perkins was not the only theologian to write a treatise by this title. Little is known about Herman Rennecher (1550 - ?), though Jacob Arminius (1560– 1609) sought him out for Hebrew instruction because of his reputation as a linguist, but this German Reformed theologian also wrote his own treatise, Aurea Salutis Catena (The Golden Chayne of Salvation).33 Rennecher was not plagiarizing Perkins’ title, but was expounding a commonly held idea that Rom 8.29–30 contains the golden chain of salvation. The opening words of Renncher’s work confirms this: “The golden chain of salvation, containing and opening all the causes thereof: and orderly reckoning up and displaying all God’s benefits that come unto us by the eternal election through Christ, out of the words of Saint Paul (Rom 8.29–30).”34 Rennecher goes on to explain: “For the causes in regard of their coherence are arranged and displayed by Saint Paul by a most divine skill, and a most exquisite logical method.”35 Perkins, Rennecher, and Reformed orthodox theologians identified Rom 8.29–30 as Perkins, Golden Chaine, 51; cf. Muller, “Golden Chaine,” 1 n. 2. Perkins, Golden Chaine, 51. 33 Herman Rennecher, Aurea Salutis Catena (Lichae: 1597); idem, The Golden Chayne of Salvation (London: 1604); Caspar Brandt, The Life of Jacob Arminius, trans. John Guthrie (London: Ward & Co., 1854), 17. 34 Rennecher, Golden Chayne, 1: “Aurea salutis catena; continens et explicans omnes ejus causas: et singula Dei beneficia ex aeterna electione per Christum ad nos descendentia ordine enumerans et demonstrans: ex verbis Pauli Rom. 8. 29 & 30” (Aurea Catena, 1). 35 Rennecher, Golden Chayne, 4; Aurea Catena, 5. 31 32

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

262

William Perkins

the golden chain, or ordo salutis.36 Hence, for Reformed orthodox theologians such as Perkins and Rennecher, the ordo salutis is not the foreign imposition of an alien principle of logic or dogma upon the Scriptures but rather one that grows organically from them. Hence, the simple answer as to why Perkins and others employ the ordo salutis (or sequence) to explain the nature of union with Christ is because Paul gives an order of redemption. Given Reformed orthodox views on Scripture and its divine inspiration, there are not two competing strands of redemption, the mystical and the forensic, nor are the concepts of union and the ordo salutis inherently fraught with irresolvable tensions. Rather, Scripture presents both union and the ordo salutis, and Perkins’ intention is to show how others have misunderstood this order specifically as it relates to predestination (Pelagians and Lutherans) and the role of good works in redemption (Roman Catholics). Moreover, Perkins consistently shows throughout his Golden Chaine that “the ordo salutis both originates and is effected in Christ.” Perkins seeks to show how the work of Christ is applied to each aspect of the ordo salutis.37 For Perkins, union with Christ is the ordo salutis. In other words, when Perkins discusses the ordo salutis he is ultimately talking about union with Christ. The different elements of the ordo salutis are given to the believer as part of his union with Christ—for example, justification, the forensic aspect of union with Christ, and sanctification the transformative aspect of union. Given this information regarding of the origin and role of the ordo salutis in Perkins’ thought, we have the necessary contextual data to understand the relationship between justification and sanctification.

13.4.2 Justification and sanctification When it comes to the narrow question of the relationship between justification and sanctification, and more specifically, the priority of the former over the latter, we find Perkins casting his soteriology in federal terms. Perkins draws his readers’ attention to the origin of sin and its punishment and notes that mankind participates both in Adam’s first sin and consequent guilt. Perkins DGLTT, s. v. armilla aurea, ordo salutis. Muller, “A Golden Chaine,” 76–77. Some, such as G. C. Berkouwer, have claimed that the ordo salutis does an injustice to Christ because it makes “subtle distinctions and divisions between the objectivity and subjectivity of salvation” (Faith and Justification [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954], 25–36, esp. 33). Perkins shows that Berkouwer’s fears are unwarranted, as he understands that the ordo salutis is synonymous with union with Christ. 36 37

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The ordo salutis



263

explains: “Adam was not then a private person but represented all mankind, and therefore look what good he received from God, or evil elsewhere, both were common to others with him.”38 By contrast, those who are elect, chosen in Christ, have him as their foundation.39 Christ serves as the foundation for believers because Christ offered satisfaction, “a full propitiation to his Father for the elect,” though by the term satisfaction, Perkins has both Christ’s passion and his fulfillment of the law in view, his passive and active obedience. In this respect, Perkins identifies Christ as a public person (or federal head): “Christ, because he is the head of the faithful, is to be considered as a public man sustaining the person of all the elect.”40 Man’s sin, according to Perkins, is imputed to Christ and Christ’s satisfaction is imputed to man. Perkins then states: “The end of Christ’s intercession is, that such as are justified by his merits, should by this means continue in the state of grace.” For Perkins, the merit of Christ is foundational for the salvation of the elect. Christ also accomplishes this work to confirm the covenant of grace for the sake of the elect.41 Once again Perkins wraps his soteriology in the robe of federalism and the doctrine of the covenant, as both Adam and Christ are federal representatives and accomplish their respective work as mediators of either the covenant of works (for Adam) or the covenant of grace (for Christ). As Perkins explains: “The covenant of grace, is that, whereby God freely promising Christ, and his benefits, exacts again of man, that he would by faith receive Christ and repent him of his sins.”42 Perkins explains the federal relationship between Adam and Christ in the opening chapters of his Golden Chaine, and after an exposition of the Law, Perkins then moves into his explanation of the ordo salutis. For Perkins, the ordo salutis is an extension of God’s love in Christ by which he reaches out to save the elect. God’s love in Christ comes in a number of degrees, or the logical steps of the ordo salutis (or sequence).43 The degrees of God’s love are effectual calling, justification, sanctification, glorification. Through effectual calling believers are united to Christ, which is “a union or conjunction, which is the engrafting of such, as are to be saved, into Christ, and their growing up together with him: so that after a particular manner, Christ is made the head, and every repentant sinner, a member of his mystical body.” Hence, at the outset of Perkins’ ordo Perkins, Golden Chaine, 11.3. Perkins, Golden Chaine, 15. 40 William Perkins, Golden Chaine (London: 1616), 36. Note this quotation comes from a later edition. 41 Perkins, Golden Chaine, 18. 42 Perkins, Golden Chaine, 31. 43 Perkins, Golden Chaine, 35. 38 39

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

264

William Perkins

salutis, union with Christ is effected by the work of the Spirit, who works faith, thereby giving a person a miraculous and supernatural faculty within the heart by which he may apprehend Christ.44 This leads to the second degree of God’s love, justification. Justification has two parts, the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The remission of sins frees a person from the guilt and punishment of sin; the imputation of righteousness accounts him righteous in God’s sight. Perkins also argues that justification has another forensic benefit annexed to it, namely adoption, whereby believers are accounted as God’s sons.45 The third degree of God’s love is sanctification. Perkins explains: “The third degree is sanctification, whereby such as believe, being delivered from the tyranny of sin, are by little and little renewed in holiness, and righteousness.”46 Perkins stipulates that repentance is derived from sanctification, as “no man can repent, before he has begun to hate sin”.47 The final degree is glorification, which “is the perfect transforming of the saints into the image of the Son of God”. However, glorification begins at death and is completed at the Day of Judgment.48 Given this order of the degrees of God’s love, why does Perkins list them in this particular sequence? The easy answer is that this is the order that Paul gives in Rom 8.29–30, though Perkins adds sanctification, something Paul does not mention. But why does Paul list the degrees in the order that we find in Rom 8.29–30? Perkins does not directly address this question in his treatment of the ordo salutis, but he does explain it when he critiques the Roman Catholic understanding of redemption. As mentioned above, Perkins believes the Roman Catholic Church misunderstands the place and function of works. Perkins believes that the Roman Catholic Church confuses law and gospel and faith and works in salvation. Salvation is not partly by God and partly by man: “That there is neither any justification by works nor any works of ours that are meritorious. For election is by the free grace of God: and therefore in like sort is justification. For (as I said before) the cause of the cause, is the cause of the thing caused.”49 Perkins wants to show that election (and therefore salvation) is not in any way based upon foreseen works.

Perkins, Golden Chaine, 36. Perkins, Golden Chaine, 37. 46 Perkins, Golden Chaine, 38. 47 Perkins, Golden Chaine, 39. 48 Perkins, Golden Chaine, 48. 49 Perkins, Golden Chaine, 57. 44 45

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The ordo salutis



265

13.4.3 Justification and eternal life For Perkins, justification secures eternal life for the elect. In the context of delineating the difference between law and gospel and faith and works Perkins explains: “The thing which is the means to procure life unto us, is also the means of our justice or justification before God. And good reason. Justice causes life: and that which gives life, first of all, gives justice. Hence it follows that works cannot meritoriously deserve eternal life. For if life be by the works of the law, then justice also: but that cannot be: for we must first of all be justified before we can do a good work.”50 As noted, Perkins appeals to Luther’s claim that only a good tree produces fruit.51 Perkins elaborates on this point: “Righteousness is indeed imputed to them that believe, and that in this life, yet the fruition and the full revelation thereof is reserved to the life to come, when Christ our righteousness shall appear, and when the effect of righteousness, namely sanctification, shall be accomplished in us (Rom 8.23; 1 John 3.2).”52 Perkins is jealous to guard the grace of salvation and consequently bars works from any role in securing it. Hence, for Perkins, justification takes logical, not temporal, priority in redemption. This does not mean, however, that he marginalizes sanctification. When Perkins discusses the ordo salutis he is not talking about something different from union with Christ—they are one and the same. But to protect the sola of sola gratia he excludes works from securing salvation in any way, but especially as it relates to justification. For Perkins, justification secures salvation; however, when a person is saved the fruit of his redemption is good works. Perkins explains that though justification is by faith alone, “Faith is never alone in the person justified, nor in godly conversation: but is joined with all other virtues.” Borrowing a Pauline analogy, Perkins contends that the eye is not alone in the body but is joined to it, but the eye alone has the office of sight. Perkins also uses a distinction between a way and a cause of salvation: “If faith be considered as a way, we are not only saved by faith. For all other virtues and works are the way to life as well as faith, though they be not causes of salvation.”53 Works considered broadly are a part of a person’s salvation. They accompany it but they do not cause it, according to Perkins. Therefore, Perkins rejects the Roman Catholic doctrine of a second justification: “There is not a second justification, by works, as the Papists teach. For he that is justified by Perkins, Galatians, 194. Perkins, Golden Chaine, 51. 52 Perkins, Galatians, 334. 53 Perkins, Galatians, 114. 50 51

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

266

William Perkins

Christ, is fully justified, and needs not further be justified in any thing out of Christ, as by the law.”54 Rather, at the tribunal of Christ before the evaluation of their works, the elect will be separated from the reprobate and taken to the right hand of Christ, who will pronounce the sentence: “Come ye blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt 25.33).55 Moreover, when God does accept the works of the elect on the last day, he accepts them through the lens of the imputed righteousness of Christ: “And it is the reward of good works: not because works can merit: but by reason of God’s favor, who thus accepts works, and in respect of the merit of Christ’s righteousness, imputed to the elect.”56 In the end, for Perkins, the believer’s good works can never sustain the scrutiny of divine judgment because sanctification is always imperfect—justification, on the other hand, is always perfect because it rests upon the work of Christ and is immediate and complete the moment a person believes.57 Hence, for all of these reasons, though justification and sanctification are both benefits of union with Christ, Perkins gives justification priority in redemption and in the ordo salutis.

13.5 Conclusion The evidence that this chapter has presented shows that the late sixteenthcentury was not driven by the agendas of contemporary dogmaticians and historians. Schweitzer believed that there were two competing models of redemption in Paul partly because he stood in a line of theological development rooted in the historical-critical school, one that believed that the Bible was not divinely inspired but a product of human imagination. Moreover, Schweitzer was also partly driven by the philosophical quest of looking for central dogmas—uncovering the one principal from which a system of thought could be logically deduced. This dogmatic presupposition also explains the one-sided readings of those like Heppe. When historians and dogmaticians come to someone like Perkins, they must read him within his own historical and theological context. Perkins held to the divine inspiration of Scripture and believed, therefore, that union with Christ and the ordo salutis are not in any way contradictory. MoreoPerkins, Galatians, 117. Bullinger employs the same passage in the manner that Perkins does in his explanation of the final judgment (Bullinger, Decades, 3.9 [2.346]). 55 Perkins, Golden Chaine, 49. 56 Perkins, Golden Chaine, 50. 57 Perkins, Galatians, 112, 152. 54

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Conclusion



267

ver, Perkins’ own theology is based on the locus method, a method that could account for multiple foci in a theological system. Richard Muller explains: “Such doctrines as God, predestination, Christ, and covenant provide not alternative but coordinate foci—and the presence of each and every one of these topics in theology rests not on a rational, deductive process but on their presence as loci in the exegetical or interpretive tradition of the church.”58 This means that union with Christ cannot and does not comprise the absolute center of Perkins’ theology or soteriology, and neither does the doctrine of justification for that matter. Rather, union with Christ is one focal point of his overall soteriology that is coordinated with the doctrines of God, the decree, pneumatology, and the covenants. Perkins does prioritize justification over sanctification within his soteriology and his doctrine of union with Christ, not because it is the center of his soteriology or doctrine from which all others is deduced, but because it is the nexus where Christ’s federally representative obedience is imputed to the believer by faith alone, apart from good works, which secures the believer’s redemption. Justification, then, is an anchor of sorts, but this is not to the exclusion of sanctification or the rest of the golden chain. The path to ethics is severed in Schweitzer’s thought because union and justification are alternative contradictory models of redemption. But for Perkins, it is the believer’s union with Christ, that unbreakable golden chain, that ensures the believer’s indefectible status because of Christ’s imputed righteousness and the indwelling presence of Christ for his sanctification. Neither the ordo salutis nor federalism appear to have vitiated Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ, as if such a question were even proper, as Evans claims. Rather, Perkins simply expresses what some theologians have known since the earliest days of the church’s reflection upon soteriology: A person is sanctified because he is justified, he is not justified because he is sanctified. Peter Martyr Vermigli showcases this fact when he once quoted Augustine: “Good works derive from the fact that we are justified, and not that we are justified because of prior good works.”59 If the ordo salutis is a foreign imposition upon the text of Scripture, then Perkins and other Reformed theologians knew nothing of it. If, however, the ordo salutis is simply the recognition of the priorities that Scripture assigns to the various aspects of union with Christ, then Perkins and others whole-heartedly affirm it. While perhaps it is unthinkable for moderns, Muller, After Calvin, 97. Peter Martyr Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, ed. and trans. Frank A. James III, The Peter Martyr Library, vol. 8 (Kirksville: Truman State UP, 2003), 151–52. 58 59

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

268

William Perkins

for Perkins union with Christ and the ordo salutis are one and the same, which enables him to give justification priority over sanctification in his soteriology.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

14. Jacob Arminius

14.1 Introduction Two thousand and nine marked the five hundredth anniversary of the birth of Calvin and, as a result, there has been a flurry of publication activity surrounding the Genevan reformer. However, what many might not know is that 2009 was also the anniversary of a significant seventeenth-century theologian, Jacob Arminius (1560–1609). Two thousand and nine marked the death of the famous Dutch theologian, one who has historically been pitted against Calvin even though they were not contemporaries. Perhaps this is due to the fact that both theologians have their names connected with two theological traditions: Calvinism and Arminianism.1 What is also of great interest is that attention has been given to Calvin on the doctrine of union with Christ, but there appears to be little if anything written on Arminius’ understanding of union. The lion’s share of the literature on Arminius is focused largely upon his views of predestination, though there are also other key studies on his doctrines of God, creation, and providence, and his doctrine of assurance.2 But there is not a single monograph or essay dedicated to union with Christ in Arminius’ theology. Hence, this chapter sets forth a survey of Arminius’ understanding of union with Christ, both in the broad sweep as well as in some of the particulars, especially as it relates to the relationship between the doctrines of justification and sanctification. At the same time, the chapter draws comparisons to the views of other Reformation and Early Orthodox Reformed theologians. This chapter shows that Arminius has the same overall structure to his doctrine of union with Christ as other Reformed theologians—all of the blessings of redemption come to believers in Christ, including the twofold benefit of justification and On the problematic of the term Calvinism, see Richard A. Muller, “Was Calvin a Calvinist? Or, Did Calvin (or Anyone Else in the Early Modern Era) Plant the ‘TULIP’?” in Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: Studies on the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker, forthcoming). 2 See A. W. Harrison, The Beginnings of Arminianism (London: University of London Press, 1926); Carl Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1998); Richard A. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991); Keith D. Stanglin, Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation: The Context, Root, and Shape of the Leiden Debate 1603–09 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). 1

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

270

Jacob Arminius

sanctification. However, given that he does not give priority to the doctrine of justification by faith alone over sanctification is one of the key elements that yields a different soteriology than his predecessors and contemporaries. What is meant by priority? By way of reminder, Reformed theologians are accustomed to giving justification priority over sanctification by arguing that justification indefectibly secures a person’s salvation. Justification is also the lens through which the believer’s sanctification (good works) are always viewed by God. Another way to summarize the common Reformed view of priority is: a person is sanctified because he is justified, but a person is not justified because he is sanctified. To prove this thesis, we will first explore Arminius’ doctrine of union with Christ in the broad picture and then narrow the investigation to the twofold benefit of union with Christ and the relationship between justification and sanctification. The chapter will then conclude with some general observations concerning union with Christ as a doctrine.

14.2 Arminius on union 14.2.1 Union as the end of theology In his oration on “the author and end of theology,” Arminius begins by explaining that the author and object of theology is God. Arminius argues that God is the first and highest being (primum et summum ens) and therefore he is the first and highest good (primum et summum bonum), and for these reasons he is the ultimate end of all things. God extends himself as an object to the faculties of a rational creature and even unites himself to the creature.3 In fact, Arminius states: “Theology may with the utmost propriety be called, the union of God with man.”4 But what sort of union does Arminius contemplate? Arminius carefully distinguishes the precise nature of the union: it is not an essential union where two essences, those of God and man, are joined together so that humanity is absorbed into God. Neither is it a formal union where God by that union would become a human, like a spirit united to a body and conferring upon man eternal life.5 Rather, Arminius holds that it is an objective union by which God gives 3 Arminius, Works, 1.362–63; idem, Orationes, in Opera Theologica (Leiden: Apud Godefridum Basson, 1629), 49. All subsequent Arminius works are cited from his Opera Theologica. Page numbers in parentheses following Arminius citations are to the Opera. 4 Arminius, Works, 1.362: “Commodissimè finis Theologiae adpellari potest, unio Dei cum homine” (Orationes, 49). 5 Muller, God, Creation, and Providence, 78.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Arminius on union

271

such convincing proofs of himself to humanity, that God is therefore called “all in all” (1 Cor 15.21). By denominating the union as objective, Arminius does not mean to say that it is purely an intellectual union. He goes on to explain: “God unites himself to the understanding and to the will of his creature, by means of himself alone, and without the intervention of image, species, or appearance . . . But by this union, the understanding beholds the clearest vision, and as if ‘face to face,’ God himself, and all his goodness and incomparable beauty.”6

14.2.2 Union with Christ Everything that Arminius argues to this point, is what he calls legal theology (theologia legalis), namely the nature of theology before the fall. Arminius locates the ground of legal theology in the divine command not to eat of the tree of knowledge (Gen 2.16–17).7 So, then, Adam’s goal in the garden was to seek union with God and do so through obedience to the divine command not to eat from the tree of knowledge. With an awareness of the fall and the insufficiency of theologia legalis, Arminius also teaches that there is evangelical theology (theologia evangelica). God is the author of both legal and evangelical theology, but with evangelical theology Arminius coordinates the work of Christ.8 The end of evangelical theology, then, is: “God and Christ, the union of man with both of them, and the sight and fruition of both, to the glory of both Christ and God.”9 Elsewhere, in Arminius’ private disputations, which were a later and more refined version of his public disputations, and were ultimately supposed to be the basis from which Arminius would have written a system of theology, he defines theology in the following manner: The doctrine or science of the truth which is according to godliness, and which God has revealed to man, that he may know God and divine things, may believe on him, and may through faith perform to him the acts of love, fear, honor, worship and obedience, and may in return expect and obtain blessedness from him through union with him, to the divine glory.10 6 Arminius, Works, 1.362 (Orationes, 49–50). From this quotation the priority of the intellect is evident as it is the intellectus that beholds the vision of God. Muller notes how this is a reproduction of Thomas Aquinas’ (ca. 1225–74) intellectualist thesis (God, Creation, and Providence, 78). Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Ia, q. 82, art. 3. 7 Arminius, Works, 1.349 (Orationes, 42). 8 Arminius, Works, 1.352 (Orationes, 43). 9 Arminius, Works, 1.364 (Orationes, 51); also Muller, God, Creation, and Providence, 77. 10 Arminius, Works, 1.3 (2.319) (Disp. Priv., 339).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

272

Jacob Arminius

Some might think that Arminius’ definition of theology was unique, but a similar definition also appears in one of his contemporaries, Bartholomew Keckerman (1572 – ca. 1608).11 Keckerman writes: “Theology is the faculty and skill infused by God in elect men, by which means they might be able to join themselves to him, which pertains to religion, that is, union with God, in which our whole salvation consists.”12 So then, for Arminius, and others like Keckerman, union with God and Christ is the end and goal of theology. What remains to be seen, however, is the nature of this union.

14.3 Union and redemption In order to understand the particulars of his doctrine of union with Christ, the best course seems to be to follow the path laid by Arminius in his private disputations. These disputations were the outline for a system of theology. Hence, we will begin by exploring what Arminius has to say on predestination and follow it with his treatment of the rest of redemption: calling, repentance, faith, justification, and sanctification.

14.3.1 Predestination As we explore the particulars of Arminius’ understanding of union with Christ and especially the relationship between justification and sanctification, it is important to note the unique nature of Arminius’ soteriology. Confessional Reformed theologians were bound by the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, hence Arminius’ views on predestination were called into question as being outside the confessional bounds. Like his peers, Arminius believes that predestination was in Christ: “We place the form of this predestination in the internal act of God, who foreordains to believers this union with Christ their head, and a participation in his benefits.”13 What are the benefits of Christ that are the consequent result of predestination? Arminius gives answers in his definition of predestination, which he explains is: “The decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ, by which He determined within himself from all eternity to Richard A. Muller, “Arminius and the Scholastic Tradition,” CTJ 24/2 (1989): 273. Bartholomew Keckerman, Systema S.S Theologiae (Hanau: Apud Guilielmum Antonium, 1602), 4: “Theologia est facultas et peritia hominibus electis à Deo infusa, qua possint ea media sibi comparare, quae pertinent ad religionem, id est, unionem cum Deo, in qua cōsistit omnis nostra salus.” 13 Arminius, Works, 40.6, 2.393 (Disp. Priv., 390). 11 12

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union and redemption



273

justify believers, to adopt them, and to endow them with eternal life.”14 This too is a commonplace definition of the benefits of union with Christ. For example, William Perkins writes of predestination: “The foundation is Christ Jesus, called of his Father from all eternity to perform the office of the Mediator that in him all those which should be saved might be chosen.”15 However, unlike his contemporaries, Arminius believed that predestination was based upon the foreknowledge of God—the foreseen faith of the believer.16 In the big picture, Arminius sounds similar to his peers, but beneath the surface there is a significant difference.

14.3.2 Calling, repentance, and faith The same holds true for the rest of Arminius’ understanding of the ordo salutis. Arminius believes that calling brings a person into union with Christ. Calling is an act of God’s grace by the Spirit whereby the sinners are called out of natural life “to obtain a supernatural life in Christ through repentance and faith; that they may be united in him, as their head destined and ordained by God, and may enjoy the participation of his benefits, to the glory of God and to their own salvation.”17 In one sense, this statement sounds very similar to those of his peers, but there is a key difference: Arminius states that the sinner is united to Christ through “repentance and faith” and the order that he lists them is significant. Unlike his peers, who argued that faith logically precedes repentance, or more broadly that regeneration logically precedes faith, Arminius believed that a person first repented of her sin and then exercised faith in Christ. Perkins, for example, treats repentance after effectual calling, union with Christ, justification, and sanctification. Perkins writes concerning repentance: “This no man either will or can perform, but such an one as in the sight of God regenerated and justified and endued with true faith. Therefore in such as are converted repentance does first manifest itself, yet regarding the order of nature it follows Arminius, Works, 40.2, 2.392 (Disp. Priv., 390). William Perkins, A Golden Chain or the Description of Theology, § 15, in The Work of William Perkins, ed. Ian Breward (Appleford: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1970), 198. 16 Arminius, Works, 1.745–50 (Orationes, 138–40); cf. Bangs, Arminius, 350–55; Eef Dekker, “Was Arminius a Molinist?” SCJ 27/2 (1996): 337–52; Richard A. Muller, “God, Predestination, and the Integrity of the Created Order: A Note on Patterns in Arminius’ Theology,” in Later Calvinism: International Perspectives, ed. W. Fred Graham (Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994): 431–46; idem, “Grace, Election, and Contingent Choice: Arminius’ Gambit and the Reformed Response,” in The Grace of God and the Bondage of the Will, 2 vol., ed. Thomas R. Scheiner / Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995): 2.251–78. 17 Arminius, Works, 2.395 (Disp. Priv., 392). 14

15

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

274

Jacob Arminius

both faith and sanctification.”18 Instead, Arminius believes that there are three parts of obedience: repentance, faith in Christ, and the observance of God’s commands. Repentance is antecedent, faith is the consequent of repentance, and obedience to the commands of God fully comprises its nature.19 Arminius contends that the cause of repentance is “God by his word and Spirit in Christ”.20 So, he does not believe that repentance is within the ability of fallen humanity. However, Arminius does not believe that calling is effectual. In other words, he believes that the call and grace of God can be rejected.21 But when Arminius discusses faith, he does not follow the typical Reformed position that identifies the three parts of faith as: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.22 Rather, for Arminius, fiducia is not part of faith but rather a consequence of it.23 Arminius instead believes that faith consists of notitia and assensus. Arminius, for example, defines faith as “an assent of the mind, produced by the Holy Spirit, through the gospel, in sinners, who through the law know and acknowledge their sins, and are penitent on account of them.”24 So to this point, were one to read quickly through Arminius’ statements, she might think his teaching was very similar to his peers, however some significant differences have certainly arisen. This trend continues with what Arminius has to say about union with Christ and justification and sanctification.

14.3.3 Union with Christ defined Up to this point, Arminius discusses predestination, calling, repentance, and faith, and has done so coordinating these elements of redemption to union with Christ. But in his series of private disputations, Arminius then turns to expound upon the nature and priority of union with Christ in his soteriology before he goes on to discuss justification and sanctification. Arminius argues that Christ was constituted the savior of those who believe and therefore communicates to Perkins, A Golden Chain, § 39, in Work, 237. Arminius, Works, 2.398 (Disp. Priv., 394). 20 Arminius, Works, 2.399 (Disp. Priv., 394). 21 Arminius, Works, 2.53 (Orationes, 177). 22 E.g., John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, LCC, vol. 20–21, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.2.33 (OS 4.44). Cf. Heidelberg Catechism q. 21, hereafter abbreviated as HC. 23 Arminius, Works, 2.400–01 (Disp. Priv., 396). 24 Arminius, Works, 2.400 (Disp. Priv., 395). On the broader contours of Arminius’ doctrine of faith, see Richard A. Muller, “The Priority of the Intellect in the Soteriology of Jacob Arminius,” WTJ 55/1 (1993): 55–72. 18 19

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Union and redemption

275

believers all of the blessings that he has solicited from the Father, which he has obtained through his obedience. But Arminius stipulates, “The participation of blessings cannot be through communication, unless where there has previously been an orderly and suitable union between him who communicates and those to whom such communications are made.”25 And so Arminius therefore concludes: “It is therefore necessary for us to treat, in the first place, upon the union of Christ with us, on account of its being the primary and immediate effect of that faith by which men believe in him as the only Savior.”26 From here, he then offers his definition of union with Christ: “That spiritual and most strict and therefore mystically essential conjunction, by which believers, being immediately connected, by God the Father and Jesus Christ through the Spirit of Christ and of God, with Christ himself, and through Christ with God, become one with him and the Father, and are made partakers of all his blessings, to their own salvation and the glory of Christ and of God.”27 When Arminius spells out the specific aspects of union with Christ, particularly as it relates to the death and life of Christ, he states that by union with Christ, everything that Christ possesses, believers hold in common with him because they are united to him. In terms of Christ’s death, believers participate in his power, which brings about the burial of “our old man” or the “body of sin”. Through Christ’s death and the believer’s share in it, the strength and power of sin and death and the law is broken. From this Arminius lists three concomitant blessings that flow from union with Christ and the benefits of Christ’s death: (1) removal of the curse, (2) deliverance from the dominion and slavery of sin, and (3) deliverance from the law. With respect to the benefits that flow from the life of Christ, Arminius holds that his life brings holiness and righteousness to the life of the believer—in a word, conformity to the image of Christ. He explains that the blessings that flow from the life of Christ occur partly in this life and partly within the life to come. The blessings that are of this life include adoption as sons of God and the communication of the Holy Spirit. Under the rubric of the blessings of this life, Arminius also includes three specific benefits: (1) regeneration and renewal of the heart, (2) the perpetual aid of the Holy Spirit, and (3) the assuring adoptive testimony of the Spirit. The blessings that occur in the life to come are the preservation from future wrath and the bestowal of eternal life.28 25 Calvin makes a very similar statement: “We must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us” (Institutes, 3.1.1 [OS 4.1]). 26 Arminius, Works, 2.401–02: (Disp. Priv., 396). 27 Arminius, Works, 2.402 (Disp. Priv., 397). 28 Arminius, Works, 2.401–05 (Disp. Priv., 396–99).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

276

Jacob Arminius

Arminius further explains what he means when he writes of the preservation from future wrath. He writes that the preservation from wrath appears to be a continued act, begun and carried on in this world and consummated at the last judgment.29 Arminius then coordinates the preservation from future wrath, one that spans this life and concludes at the final judgment, with justification: “Under the preservation from wrath, also, is not unsuitably comprehended continued justification from sins through the intercession of Christ.”30 More will be said about this below, but for now, suffice it to say that this is a unique construction in comparison to Arminius’ peers. For Arminius, justification is not a one-time declaration but is instead an ongoing process, one that is begun in this life and is completed at the consummation.31 This justification dynamic is more evident in what follows in Arminius’ private disputations and his treatment of justification and sanctification.

14.4 Justification and sanctification 14.4.1 Justification defined Following a well-worn path made by his Reformed predecessors, Arminius explains the twofold blessing connected with union with Christ: The spiritual benefits which believers enjoy in the present life, from their union with Christ through communion with his death and life, may be properly referred to that of justification, and of sanctification, as in those two is comprehended the whole promise of the new covenant, in which God promises that he will pardon sins, and will write his laws in the hearts of believers, who have entered covenant with him.32

The question arises as to what precisely does Arminius mean by the term justification? Historically there has been question, for example, as to whether Arminius believes in the imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience. To be clear, Arminius affirms that justification is a forensic act, as he contrasts it with its antonym, condemnation. Moreover, there is indication not only from Arminius, Works, 2.405 (Disp. Priv., 399). Arminius, Works, 2.405 (Disp. Priv., 399). 31 Cf. “Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent, 1545–63,” sess. 6, 13 Jan 1547, chp. 7, in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 3 vol., ed. Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss (Yale: Yale UP, 2003), 2.830. 32 Arminius, Works, 2.405–06 (Disp. Priv., 399). 29 30

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification and sanctification



277

Arminius’ definition of justification but also from his elaboration that justification involves the imputation of both Christ’s active and passive obedience: “Justification is a just and gracious act of God as a judge, by which, from the throne of his grace and mercy, he absolves from his sins man, a sinner, but who is a believer, on account of Christ, and the obedience and righteousness of Christ, and considers him righteous, to the salvation of the justified person, and to the glory of divine righteousness and grace.”33 Arminius is clear; he identifies the meritorious cause of justification in the imputed righteousness and obedience of Christ.34 In one sense, there does not seem to be anything out of the ordinary here, as his definition of justification seems to be in order by Reformed standards. Moreover, when challenged on the question as to whether he believed in imputation, Arminius not only defends the doctrine but also indicated his agreement with Calvin’s definition of justification to pacify his critics.35 However, at the end of Arminius’ disputation on justification, he has a statement that is uncommon among his peers. Arminius explains that he has dealt with justification at the point of conversion and then reminds his reader that the forgiveness of sins is promised throughout the entirety of the life of the believer. For anyone who has entered into the covenant with God by faith in Christ, as often as she repents she receives the forgiveness of sins. But in a unique move, Arminius then writes: “But the end and completion of justification will be near the close of life, when God will grant, to those who end their days in the faith of Christ, to find his mercy absolving them from all the sins which had been perpetrated through the whole of their lives. The declaration and manifestation of justification will be in the future general judgment.”36 This move is unprecedented in comparison with his peers.

14.4.2 Justification as a process There are two notable points worthy of attention. First, unlike his peers, Arminius does not hold justification as a definitive declaration but as something that begins in conversion and finds its conclusion at the consummation at the final Arminius, Works, 2.406 (Disp. Priv., 399). Arminius, Works, 2.406; idem, Disp. Priv., 400. 35 F. Stuart Clarke, “Arminius’ Understanding of Calvin,” EQ 54 (1982): 28–29; also John Mark Hicks, “The Righteousness of Saving Faith: Arminian versus Remonstrant Grace,” EJ (1991): 29. See Arminius, Works, 1.700; cf. Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.23 (OS 4.206–07). 36 Arminius, Works, 2.407 (Disp. Priv., 401). 33 34

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

278

Jacob Arminius

judgment. Ursinus explains this point differently in his commentary upon the Heidelberg Catechism.37 In his interpretive aid to the Heidelberg Catechism, Caspar Olevianus discusses the nature of justification when he explains that through faith believers possess a “complete justification or acquittal of all the accusations of sin and the evil one before the judgment seat of God.”38 When Olevianus discusses justification vis-à-vis the final judgment he classifies good works in the following manner: “After we have been freely and graciously justified through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, we show with good works that we are thankful to God the Lord, so that God might be praised through us.”39 Good works are expressions of thanksgiving and are not connected with justification.

14.4.3 Justification and the final judgment In his explanations of justification and the final judgment, two separate loci, Perkins mentions nothing of justification taking place at the final judgment. Rather, the elect are treated quite differently than the non-elect: “Last of all when they are convented before the tribunal seat of Christ he will forthwith place the elect severed from the reprobate and taken up into the air at his right hand: and to them being written in the book of life will he pronounce this sentence, Come ye blessed of my Father, posses the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world (Matt. 25.33).”40 Likewise, in the Leiden Synopsis, we find that through the imputation of Christ’s passive righteousness (or the forgiveness of sins), believers are delivered from the liability of sin, whereas through the imputation of Christ’s active obedience believers “are judged worthy of a reward and receive the right to eternal life and it is adjudicated to us.”41 Arminius’ construction is therefore unique. The closest parallel comes from Martin Bucer. Bucer wrote of the justification of sinners (justificatio impii), 37 Cf. HC qq. 56, 59–60; BC 22–23; Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (Phillipsburg: P & R, n. d.), 324–40; idem, Corpus doctrinae orthodoxae, sive Catecheticarum explicationum (Heidelberg: Impensis Ionae Rhodii, 1616), 324–42. 38 Caspar Olevianus, A Firm Foundation: An Aid to Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. and ed. Lyle D. Bierma (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), q. 163 (p. 112). 39 Olevianus, Firm Foundation, q. 170 (p. 116). 40 Perkins, A Golden Chain, § 49, in Work, 248. 41 Johannes Polyander, Andre Rivet, Antonius Thysius, and Aontinus Waleaeus, Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, ed. Herman Bavinck (Leiden: 1881), 33.8: “Ejus partes duae sunt, Imputatio justitiae passivae seu absolutio a peccatis, et justitiae activae imputatio. Quarum illa a reatu et condemnatione liberamur, morteque aeterna eximimus; had etiam praemio digni cenemur, ac jus vitae aeternae accipimus, eaque nobis adjudicatur” (p. 332).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification and sanctification



279

which was by faith alone in Christ alone, and the justification of the righteous (iustificatio pii) in which sinners are made righteous. It should be noted that Bucer’s approach is not common, as his view has been called “distinctive,” because of his refusal to separate imputed from imparted righteousness.42 So, for example, Bucer writes that when Paul uses the word justification he means, “The remission of sins, yet at the same time always indicating in addition that imparting of righteousness which God proceeds to work in us by the Spirit.”43 There is a possibility that Arminius was influenced by Bucer’s formulations as Arminius draws upon Bucer’s commentary on Romans in his exegesis of Romans 7.44 But it should be noted, Bucer’s formulation is not commonplace, nor is Arminius’ in his own day. The second observation is that Arminius states that only those who “end their days in the faith of Christ” will be justified at the final judgment. This aspect of Arminius’ understanding of justification reveals the differences that he had with his peers as well as the confessional documents of his day, namely, the differences on the doctrines of predestination and perseverance.45 As noted above, Arminius believes that predestination is based upon God’s foreknowledge not upon an absolute decree. He also does not hold to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Arminius contends that “it was possible for believers finally to decline or fall away from faith and salvation.”46 To illustrate this point, Arminius states: “If David had died in the very moment in which he had sinned against Uriah by adultery and murder, he would have been condemned to death eternal.”47 The question arises as to what doctrine in Arminius’ system drives his conclusions? Does Arminius’ doctrine of perseverance affect his doctrines of justification and sanctification, or do his doctrines of justification and sanctification affect his doctrine of perseverance? While such questions are important, answers may not be forthcoming because Arminius does not directly address these questions. Though, Keith Stanglin has argued persuasively that Arminius’ doctrine See Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification from 1500 to the Present Day (Cambridge: CUP, 1994), 2.34; also Martin Bucer, Common Places of Martin Bucer, trans. and ed. D. F. Wright (Appleford: Courteny Press, 1972), 159. 43 Bucer, Common Places, 163: “Dei. Sic ergo cum Paulus loqui soleat, et iustificationis voce, remissionem peccatorum primùm quidem exprimere, simul tamen semper significare, etiam illam iustitiae communionem, quam Deus eodem in nobis spiritu” (idem, Metaphrasis Et Enarratio In Epist. Ad Romanos [Basel: Apud Petrum Pernam, 1562], 12); cf. W. P. Stephens, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer (Cambridge: CUP, 1970), 48–70. 44 Arminius, Works, 2.523, 538 (De vero et genuino sensu, 847, 852). 45 Cf. Synopsis Purioris, disp. 31 (pp. 301–19). 46 Arminius, Works, 1.741: “Fideles posse à fide et salute finaliter deficere” (Orationes, 136); cf. Charles M. Cameron, “Arminius-Hero or Heritic?” EQ 64/3 (1992): 225–27. 47 Arminius, Works, 2.725 (Epistola ad Hypolytum à Collibus, 961). 42

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

280

Jacob Arminius

of assurance was a driving force in the formation of his theology.48 Regardless, Arminius’ understanding of these doctrines does go hand in hand and produces results that are different from those of his contemporaries. The differences between Arminius and his contemporaries do not arise so much in his doctrine of sanctification, as his doctrinal expressions appear to be common. Arminius argues that sanctification consists in mortification and vivification, putting to death of the “old man” and enlivening the “new man.”49 He also holds, “Sanctification is not completed in a single moment; but sin, from whose dominion we have been delivered through the cross and death of Christ, is weakened more and more by daily losses, and the inner man is day by day renewed more and more, while we carry about with us in our bodies the death of Christ, and the outward man is perishing.”50 Furthermore, Arminius did not see sanctification as something that redeemed humanity accomplished on its own but was one of the two benefits of union with Christ.

14.4.4 Justification without prioritization What is missing in contrast to his predecessors and contemporaries is that there is no mention of the priority of justification over sanctification. Arminius’ predecessors express the priority of justification over sanctification in a number of different ways. Calvin is famously known for his statement that justification is the hinge upon which all religion turns, the foundation of salvation.51 Similarly, Vermigli believes that justification is the “head, fountain, and mainstay of all religion”.52 Zanchi also writes: “Good works are not the cause, but the effects of our union with Christ, and our justification, and our life.”53 Among Arminius’ contemporaries, the same kind of trend appears. Lucas Trelcatius (1573–1607), professor of theology at the University of Leiden, and one of the key participants in a number of debates with Arminius, writes: “The nearest cause indeed of a Stanglin, Arminius, 145–235, 244. Cf. Perkins, A Golden Chain, § 38, in Work, 234–36. 50 Arminius, Works, 2.409–10 (Disp. Priv., 402). 51 Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.1: “Meminerimus praecipuum esse sustinedae religionis cardinem . . . salutis fundamentum” (OS 4.182). 52 Peter Martyr Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, The Peter Martyr Library, vol. 8, trans. and ed by Frank A. James III (Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 2003), 96: “Cùm hoc dogma caput sit, fons et columen totius pietatis” (idem, Loci Communes [London: 1583], 3.4.8 [p. 578]). 53 Girolamo Zanchi, De religione Christiana fides—Confession of Christian Religion, 2 vol., ed., Luca Baschera / Christian Moser (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 21.4 (pp. 362–63): “Bona opera non esse causam, sed effecta nostri cum Christo unitionis et iustificationis nostraeque vitae.” 48 49

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Justification and sanctification

281

righteous work, is inherent righteousness; but the chief and principal cause is the Spirit of Christ imputing his righteousness to us and by the power of that imputed righteousness, working this inherent righteousness in us.”54 Francis Junius makes a similar statement by citing Augustine (354–430): “Good works do not precede justification, but follow justification.”55 In all of these statements, the authors prioritize justification by saying that it is the hinge, foundation, or cause of sanctification so that the believer’s good works and sanctification cannot be construed as the foundation of justification. Statements like these do not appear in any of Arminius’ explanations of justification. Why is this omission important? Within the works of the above-cited figures, the doctrine of justification serves as something of a firewall. In other words, justification involves the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and thereby secures not only eternal life for the one who believes but also serves as the lens through which God looks upon the works of believers. Even though believers’ works are stained with sin, because of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, God only sees them as holy and righteous. For example, Vermigli writes: “We say that justification cannot consist in that righteousness and renewal by which we are created anew by God. For it is imperfect because of our corruption, so that we are not able to stand before the judgment of Christ.”56 No such statements appear by Arminius, which shows that though he has all of the common pieces of the Reformed doctrine of justification, he nevertheless comes to very different conclusions.57 Another way Arminius’ un-prioritized doctrine of justification surfaces is the lack of a connection between justification and eternal life. Perkins, for example, argues that adoption is annexed to justification, which means that the elect in Christ become heirs of the kingdom of God with Christ.58 Francicus Gomarus (1563–1641) also believes that justification secured eternal life.59 Justification is 54 Lucas Trelcatius, A Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinity (London: 1610), 2.9 (p. 265); idem, Scholastica, et methodica, locorum communium, s. theologiae institutio didacticè, et elencticè in epitome explicata (London: 1604), 92: “Iusti operas causa proxima quidem, est justitia inherens, praecipua vero, ac primaria, Spiritus Christi, justitiam Christi nobis imputantis, et vi imputatae illius justitiae, hanc inhaerentem in nobis operantis.” 55 Francis Junius, Opuscula Theologica Selecta, ed. Abraham Kuyper, Bibliotheca Reformata, vol. 1 (Amsterdam: 1882), 36.17 (p. 221): “Bona opera non praecedunt iustificandum, sed sequuntur iustificantum.” 56 Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, 159; idem, Loci Communes, 3.4.46 (p. 606). 57 Stanglin, Arminius, 111. 58 Perkins, A Golden Chain, § 37, in Work, 234. 59 Francicus Gomarus, Disputationes theologicae: habitae in variis academiis (Amsterdam: Joannis Janssonii, 1644), 26.6 (p. 108): “Haec Christiani iustificatio, est actio Dei interna, iudicialis, gratuita, qua electum ad vitam, et vocatum fidelem, in se iniustum, Christoque mediatori suo et capitiunitum, et in

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

282

Jacob Arminius

not a one-time definitive act for Arminius as it is for others, but it is a process begun in conversion and completed at the final judgment. Arminius contends that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer, but it does not have the same function as it does for others. For Arminius, justification does not secure eternal life for the believer but rather only the possibility. Not only is justification not a definitive act, but it also awaits the final outcome of the believer’s life, one that might not end in faith but in unbelief. Therefore, justification hinges upon the believer’s sanctification.60 Given that Arminius argues that justification and sanctification are the twofold benefit of union with Christ, it is fair to say that he holds union as the more fundamental category, as he does not prioritize justification—he flattens out the relationship between the two in contrast to his predecessors and contemporaries.61 In the light of the un-prioritized relationship between justification and sanctification, we have evidence that demonstrates why Arminius received questions, criticism, and even accusations of doctrinal error on the doctrine of justification.62 There have been some, such as Carl Bangs, who present Arminius’ views as being harmonious with common expressions of the day noting that Arminius was willing to agree with Calvin’s definition of justification in the Institutes.63 However, it is one thing to affirm the same point as Calvin, and entirely another to say that it holds the same function. Arminius affirms the imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ as does Calvin and many other Reformed theologians, but what is clear is that it does not have the same function in Arminius’ doctrine of justification.64 As with other Reformed theologians, Arminius does not discuss the effects of the federal representation of Adam and Christ vis-à-vis justification even though he affirms a twofold covenant structure of redemption, a covenant with Adam and a covenant with Christ.65 The representative actions of Adam and Christ are fundamental not only to Reformed soteriology but especially for the priority of justification within the all-encompassing rubric of union with Christ. For example, Perkins writes: eodem iustum, acceptatae universalis Christi erga Legem, iustitiae, pro ipso solutae, imputatione, iustum iudicat; ad suae solius iustitiae, et misericordis gratiae, laudem, et certam iustificati sanctificationem, ac salutem.” 60 Cf. Stanglin, Arminius, 135, 141. 61 So Stanglin, Arminius, 104. 62 See, e.g., Aza Goudriaan, “Justificaiton by Faith and the Early Arminian Controversy,” in Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honor of Willem J. van Asselt, ed., Maarten Wisse / Marcel Sarot / Willemien Otten (Leiden: Brill, 2010): 155–78. 63 Bangs, Arminius, 344–45; also Hicks, “Righteousness of Saving Faith,” 35. 64 Arminius, Works, 2.44 (Orationes, 172). 65 Arminius, Works, 2.374–77 (Disp. Priv., 377–80).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification and sanctification



283

Christ, because he is the head of the faithful, is to be considered as a public man sustaining the person of all the elect. Hence it is that the faithful are said to be crucified with Christ and with him to die and to be buried, to be quickened, to be raised up and placed in heaven: the which is not only in regard of the hope of the faithful, but because they are accepted of God certainly to have done all these things in Christ, even as in Adam’s first sin all his posterity afterwards was tainted of sin.66

Perkins prioritizes the forensic, whether the imputation of Adam’s or Christ’s work, as Christ is a “public man” who sustains the elect. This priority is something that Arminius did not retain, which therefore led to different conclusions than his predecessors and contemporaries.

14.4.5 Justification and sanctification merged The differences with his Reformed colleagues are most evident in the way that Arminius illustrates the relationship between saving faith and human free will. Rather than go into an extended treatise on the matter, Arminius writes: A rich man bestows, on a poor and famishing beggar, alms by which he may be able to maintain himself and his family. Does it cease to be a pure gift, because the beggar extends his hand to receive it? Can it be said with propriety, that ‘the alms depended partly on the liberality of the donor, and partly on the liberty of the receiver,’ though the latter would not have possessed the alms unless he had received it by stretching out his hand? Can it be correctly said, because the beggar is always prepared to receive, that ‘he can have the alms, or not have it, just as he pleases?’ If these assertions cannot be truly made about a beggar who receives alms, how much less can they be made about the gift of faith, for the receiving of which far more acts of divine grace are required!67

This illustration opens a window into Arminius’ theology, particularly regarding the nature of faith, and when combined with his un-prioritized doctrine of justification, shows that his soteriology is quite different from his Reformed predecessors and colleagues. Richard Muller notes that Arminius’ beggar analogy bears a certain resemblance to the medieval aphorism, Facientibus quod in se est, Deus non denegat gratiam (“To those who do what is in them, God will not deny grace.”) He comes 66 67

Perkins, A Golden Chain, § 36, in Work, 227. Arminius, Works, 2.52 (Orationes, 176).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

284

Jacob Arminius

to this conclusion because Arminius describes the beggar as always ready to receive faith.68 In fact, Muller elsewhere explains that Arminius reintroduced this medieval concept to Protestant theology.69 Hence, Arminius introduces synergism not only at the entry point of conversion with his doctrine of faith, but also retains it in his doctrine of justification. Only those who persevere in Christ are finally justified. This justification is not grounded solely upon the imputed righteousness of Christ but also upon the believer’s sanctificationdriven perseverance. Granted, Arminius’ soteriology is bathed in affirmations of the necessity of the grace of God, but it is fair to say that Arminius’ soteriology is nevertheless out of the norm for the Reformed consensus of the day. While Arminius thought he was a confessional Reformed theologian, his soteriology stands outside the confessional boundaries of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession.70

14.5 Conclusion This survey of Arminius’ understanding of union with Christ with a focus upon justification has reveals some important information regarding his soteriology that bears upon this study. Union with Christ is touted as a great insight and means by which long-divided communions Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant, can find common ground. However, in the light of Arminius’ views, this chapter shows that union with Christ is not a category that can bear all that much weight. Arminius holds to a doctrine of union with Christ with all of the common elements: effectual calling, predestination, the twofold benefit of justification and sanctification, and eternal life. On the surface, his views look very similar to those of his predecessors and peers. But the point that must be grasped is that early modern theologians commonly speak of union with Christ, Lutheran, Reformed, and Roman Catholic. The divergence between the different views, therefore, lies not in the affirmation of union with Christ but in how that union is parsed. In particular, with respect to Arminius and his peers, a large part of his soteriology is shaped by his un-prioritized view of justification. In other words, depending on one’s point of view—Arminian, Reformed, 68 Muller, “Priority of the Intellect,” 60; cf. Cameron, “Arminius-Hero or Heretic?,” 216–17; Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (1963; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 131–45. 69 DGLTT, 113; cf. Stanglin, Arminius, 82–83; Hicks, “Righteousness of Saving Faith,” 30–31. 70 See Richard A. Muller, “Arminius and the Reformed Tradition,” WTJ 70/1 (2008): 48; cf. Carl Bangs, “Arminius as a Reformed Theologian,” in The Heritage of John Calvin: Heritage Hall Lectures, ed. John H. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973): 209–22, esp. 212, 215, 221; Hicks, “Righteousness of Saving Faith,” 35.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Conclusion

285

Lutheran, or Roman Catholic—the devil is in the details: does justification have priority over sanctification, is righteousness infused or imputed, and how does imputed or infused righteousness function within a theologian’s doctrine of union with Christ? Arminius is a perfect illustration that demonstrates that the trees must not be lost in view of the forest, or union with Christ cannot swallow the ordo salutis (or sequence), particularly the relationship between justification and sanctification.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

15. John Owen

15.1 Introduction John Owen (1616–83) is perhaps the most significant English theologian and certainly on a very short list for premier Protestant theologians from Europe from the seventeenth century.1 Owen’s writings are contained in the twenty-four volume nineteenth-century edition and cover a range of theological topics.2 But what is of particular interest for this chapter are Owen’s views on union with Christ and the doctrine of justification. What commends an investigation on these subjects is the fact that Owen spent a good part of his writing career engaged in debate over these two doctrines. The seventeenth century was a period where antinomianism was on the rise and the pendulum swung hard in the opposite direction and yielded a neonomian reaction.3 Works such as Tobias Crisp’s (1600–43) Christ Alone Exalted and Edward Fisher’s (fl. 1625–55) Marrow of Modern Divinity were labeled antinomian and the likes of Richard Baxter, fired off numerous responses throughout his writing career.4 Between the Scylla of antinomianism and the Charybdis of neonomianism, Owen set forth his own understanding of union with Christ and justification. Carl R. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 1. Trueman elsewhere cites a biography of Owen, Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen (Exeter: Paternoster, 1971) (Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology [Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998], 1 n. 1). 2 John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William Goold, 24 vol. (Edinburgh and London: Johnstone and Hunter, 1850–53). 3 For the historical context of the antinomian controversies see, Theodore Dwight Bozeman, The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion and Antinomian Backlash in Puritanism to 1638 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003); David R. Como, Blown by the Spirit: Puritanism and the Emergence of an Antinomian Underground in Pre-Civil-War England (Stanford: Stanford: UP, 2004); David D. Hall, ed., The Antinomian Controversy, 1636–38: A Documentary History (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990). 4 Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted (London: 1832); Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (London: 1645); see, e.g., Richard Baxter, Confession of His Faith: Especially Concerning the Interest of Repentance and Sincere Obedience to Christ, in our Justification and Salvation (London: 1654); idem, Aphorismes of Justification With Their Explication Annexed. Wherein also is Opened the Nature of the Covenants, Satisfaction, Righteousness, Faith, Works, etc. (Hague: 1655); idem, Of The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness to Believers (London: 1676); idem, A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness in Two Books (London: 1676). 1

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



The pactum salutis

287

This chapter proves that Owen gives priority to the doctrine of justification over sanctification all the while situating both doctrines within the broader rubric of the doctrine of union with Christ. By way of reminder, by priority what is intended is that a person can say he is sanctified because he is justified, but for Owen, a person could not say he was justified because he was sanctified. While some are of the opinion that maintaining such a priority, which is expressed through an ordo salutis (or sequence), is at odds with the doctrine of union with Christ, Owen saw no such conflict.5 The reason why Owen saw no conflict was he has a full-orbed soteriology that has its roots in the pre-temporal pactum salutis between the Father and the Son. Key to comprehending Owen’s views is the recognition between the proximate and ultimate sources of the believer’s redemption. To prove this thesis, the chapter will proceed at the logical beginning of Owen’s soteriology with the pactum salutis. This doctrine in many ways sets the stage for what follows. We will then move on to discuss the relationship between union with Christ, justification, and sanctification. Last, the chapter will show how Owen assembles the individual parts as a whole all the while maintaining the priority of the forensic in redemption. Along the way, the essay will compare Owen’s views with other views of the period.

15.2 The pactum salutis Among the many adjectives that can be applied to Owen’s theology is the term covenantal.6 This term certainly applies to Owen’s soteriology. From the earliest days of the Reformation Reformed theologians employed the covenant concept in their theology, but by the seventeenth century the pactum salutis was beginning to feature more commonly in the theological systems of the Reformed orthodox. In general terms many Reformed theologians held to a threefold division of the pactum salutis, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace.7 The pactum salutis is the covenant made among the members of the trinity to bring about the redemption of the fallen man through the covenant of grace, and 5 So William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation: Union with Christ in American Reformed Theology (Eugene: Paternoster and Wipf & Stock, 2008), passim. 6 Sebastian Rehnman, Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 156–57. 7 For a brief survey of Owen’s views on the covenants, see Sinclair Fergusson, John Owen on the Christian Life (1987; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1995), 20–32. For the origins of the pactum salutis see Richard A. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept,” MAJT 18 (2007): 11–65.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

288

John Owen

the covenant of works was the original covenant made with Adam at creation. Concerning the doctrine of the covenant, Owen writes in the preface to Patrick Gillespie’s (1616–75) book on the pactum salutis: “For the doctrine hereof, or the truth herein, is the very center wherein all the lines concerning the grace of God and our own duty, do meet; wherein the whole of religion does consist.”8

15.2.1 Five characteristics of the pactum salutis Regarding the pactum salutis (or covenant of redemption), Owen explains that there are five characteristics: (1) the Father and the Son mutually agree to the common goal of the salvation of the elect; (2) the Father as principal of the covenant requires the Son to accomplish all that is necessary to secure the redemption of the elect—to do the Father’s will; (3) the Father promises to reward Christ for accomplishing his will; (4) the Son accepts the work given to him by the Father; and (5) the Father agrees to accept the Son’s work upon its completion. Within these basic characteristics are the ground of Owen’s doctrines of union with Christ and justification.9

15.2.2 Election For Owen, as for most Reformed theologians, the doctrine of election is never considered abstractly—it is never a bald choice on God’s part. Rather, election is always coordinated with the other loci, such as christology, pneumatology, and soteriology.10 For example, in the Savoy Declaration (1658), the congregational version of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), and document to which Owen contributed, states: It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus his onlybegotten Son, according to a covenant made between them both, to be the Mediator between God and man; the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of his church, the Heir of all things and Judge of the world; unto whom he did from all eternity give a 8 John Owen, “Preface” to Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant Opened; or a Treatise of the Covenant of Redemption Between God and Christ as the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace (London: 1677), n. p. See also Rehnman, Divine Discourse, 162. 9 Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 12.500–07. 10 See, e.g., Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The pactum salutis



289

people to be his seed, and to be him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.11

In Owen’s case, as well as for other Reformed orthodox theologians, election is coordinated with the pactum salutis, which entails these other doctrinal loci. Owen believes that the whole of redemption, justification, and reconciliation is predicated upon the work of Christ, which was agreed upon in the pactum, but is not effectual until its actual execution in history. A person does not lay hold of Christ’s accomplished work until he is in union with him and shares in the communion of his benefits through the work of the Spirit.12

15.2.3 Rejection of justification from eternity Owen rejects the doctrine of justification from eternity and believes that the pactum is something distinct from its execution in time and history. Again, the Savoy Declaration states: “God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for the justification: nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit does in due time actually apply Christ unto them.”13 Rather, the pactum established Christ as the federal representative of his people as the second Adam, which establishes a forensic foundation for all that follows in the redemption of the elect. Owen writes: “This, I say, was the covenant or compact between the Father and the Son, which is the great foundation of what has been said and shall farther be spoken of about the merit and satisfaction of Christ. Here lies the ground of the righteousness of the dispensation treated of, that Christ should undergo the punishment due to us.”14

A Declaration of the Faith and Order Owned and Practiced in the Congregational Churches in England; Agreed upon and consented unto By their Elders and Messengers in Their Meeting at the Savoy October 12, 1658 (London: 1659), 8.1, in Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss, ed. Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 3 vol. (New Haven: Yale UP, 2003), 3.112. 12 Owen, Vindicae Evangelicae, 12.507. See also idem, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, 11.336– 43; Trueman, Claims of Truth, 145. 13 Savoy Declaration, 11.4, in Creeds, 3.115; cf. Trueman, Claims of Truth, 212–13; idem, “John Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice: An Exercise in Christocentric Scholasticism,” CTJ 33 (1998): 103; Hans Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy (Vancouver: Regent Press, 2004), 103–05. 14 Owen, Vindicae Evangelicae, 12.507. 11

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

290

John Owen

15.3 Union with Christ and the ordo salutis 15.3.1 Union with Christ Grasping Owen’s doctrine of the pactum is cardinal in understanding how he prioritizes the forensic element in redemption. But we must first understand what Owen believes about union with Christ before we can proceed. Owen, like most Reformed theologians, holds to the doctrine of union with Christ.15 Owen believes that all of the benefits of redemption flow from the believer’s union with Christ.16 Concerning union with Christ, Owen writes: “It is the cause of all the other graces that we are made partaker of; they are all communicated to us by virtue of our union with Christ. Hence is our adoption, our justification, our sanctification, our fruitfulness, our perseverance, our resurrection, our glory.”17 Union with Christ, therefore, is the all-encompassing doctrinal rubric that embraces all of the elements of redemption. But this is not to imply that for Owen union is merely an intellectual concept. Rather, union with Christ is a spiritual conjugal bond effected by the Holy Spirit, the goal of which is love: “There is love in the person of the Father peculiarly held out unto the saints, as wherein he will and does hold communion with them.”18 But Owen’s doctrine of union does not preclude him from making distinctions among the different elements (justification, sanctification, adoption, etc.) comprehended by union.

15.3.2 Ordo salutis Owen sees no problem with affirming both union with Christ and articulating an ordo salutis or sequence. Owen explains that the apostle Paul never speaks about the necessity of sanctification, regeneration, or renovation by the work of the Spirit antecedently to the believer’s justification. Owen is careful to preclude the inclusion of the believer’s good works from any role in regeneration, renovation, and justification. Owen declares that Paul does not intimate any order of precedency or connection between the things that he mentions, but only between justification and adoption, justification having the priority in order of nature: For a brief survey of Owen’s doctrine of union, see Ferguson, Christian Life, 32–36. Owen, Communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 2.8–9, 16. 17 Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 21.149–50. 18 Owen, Communion, 22, 54. 15 16

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification and sanctification



291

‘That, being justified by his grace, we should be heirs according to the hope of eternal life.’ All the things he mentions are inseparable. No man is regenerate or renewed by the Holy Ghost, but withal he is justified;—no man is justified, but withal he is renewed by the Holy Ghost.19

Owen carefully safeguards the doctrine of justification because Paul states that God justifies the ungodly (Rom 4.5), which means that the believer’s justification has to be antecedent to his sanctification. Owen explains: “It is necessary that we should be sanctified, that we may be justified before God, who justifies the ungodly, the apostle says not in this place, nor any thing to that purpose.”20 Sinclair Ferguson summarizes Owen’s understanding of the ordo salutis as follows: “For Owen, then, such order as there is in the ordo salutis would seem to be: Effectual Calling; Regeneration, Faith; Repentance; Justification; Adoption; and Sanctification.”21 Ferguson goes on to comment that for Owen, divine election finds its outworking in the ordo salutis, which all coalesces in the believer’s union with Christ.22

15.4 Justification and sanctification 15.4.1 The priority of justification As we look more intently into Owen’s doctrine of justification, other reasons surface as to why he gives priority to the doctrine of justification. The priority of justification is especially evident when it is compared and contrasted with the doctrine of sanctification. Owen believed that the doctrine of justification was of the greatest importance, even siding with Luther, who wrote: “Amisso articulo justificationis, simul amissa est tota doctrina Christiana” (If the article of justification is lost, the whole of Christian doctrine is lost). Owen then comments, “And I wish he had not been a true prophet, when he foretold that in the following ages the doctrine hereof would be again obscured.”23 By the time Owen wrote his treatise on justification (1677), there was a confessional corpus of definitions that had codified the doctrine, whether in the Gallican Confession

Owen, The Doctrine of Justification, 5.133. Owen, Justification, 5.133. 21 Ferguson, Christian Life, 35. 22 Ferguson, Christian Life, 36. 23 Owen, Justification, 5.67. 19 20

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

292

John Owen

(1559), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563), the Irish Articles (1615), or the Westminster Confession (1646). One of the key elements of the Savoy Declaration that Owen saw to was the inclusion of explicit reference to the imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ. In Savoy 11, we read: Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believer, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ’s active obedience to the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (emphasis).24

Owen holds that justification is by faith alone, includes the forgiveness of sins, the imputed active and passive obedience of Christ, and is a once-for-all definitive act.25 Beyond these basic points, how does the priority of justification emerge in comparison with sanctification in Owen’s theology? Owen believes that nothing less than perfect righteousness can withstand the scrutiny of God’s judgment before the divine bar. Reflecting upon Psa 130.3, “If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?” Owen was convinced that the believer’s inherent righteousness was incapable of withstanding the demands of God’s justice required for justification: “If no man can stand a trial before God upon his own obedience, so as to be justified before him, because of his own personal iniquities; and if our only plea in that case be the righteousness of God, the righteousness of God only, and not our own; then is there no personal, inherent righteousness in any believers whereon they may be justified.”26 Why is inherent righteousness imperfect and therefore unsuitable for a believer’s justification? Owen gives three reasons for the imperfection of inherent righteousness. First, there is a contrary principle of habitual sin that abides within the believer so long as he dwells in this world. He explains, based upon Gal 5.17, that none of the faculties of the soul are perfectly renewed as long as a person lives in the world. Second, inherent righteousness is defective because Savoy Declaration, 11.1, in Creeds, 3.115. Cf. Owen, Justification, 5.87, 89, 96, 110, 217, 219. 26 Owen, Justification, 5.225. 24 25

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification and sanctification



293

sin clings to every act and duty, whether internal or external. The believer’s good works are but “filthy rags” (Isa 64.6). And, third, inherent righteousness is lacking because of actual sins (in contrast to original sin).27 For these three reasons, Owen accorded justification priority over sanctification. Owen establishes the bedrock of salvation, therefore, upon the imputed righteousness of Christ: If it be a perfect righteousness that is imputed unto us, so it is esteemed and judged to be; and accordingly are we to be dealt withal, even as those who have a perfect righteousness: and if that which is imputed as righteousness unto us be imperfect, or imperfectly so, then as such must it be judged when it is imputed; and we must be dealt withal as those which have such an imperfect righteousness, and no otherwise. And therefore, whereas our inherent righteousness is imperfect (they are to be pitied or despised, not to be contended withal, that are otherwise minded), if that be imputed unto us, we cannot be accepted on the account thereof as perfectly righteous without an error in judgment.28

So for Owen, the imputed perfect righteousness of Christ is the ground of the believer’s justification and salvation, because imputation, not inherent righteousness, gives right and title unto eternal life.29 Owen’s position is in contrast to the views of Baxter, who argued that the believer’s final justification at the consummation was based upon his good works.30

15.4.2 Justification and the final judgment The priority of justification prominently emerges when Owen explains the relationship between justification and the final judgment. Owen writes, “Some affirm that the apostle excludes all works from our first justification, but not from the second; or, as some speak, the continuation of our justification.”31 Though Owen does not name names in this statement, he has the views of the Roman Catholic Church, Jacob Arminius, and Baxter in mind. With Rome, Arminius, and Baxter, all three hold that justification is an ongoing process where the believer’s sanctification (good works) play a role in his final justification.32 Owen, Justification, 5.234–35. Owen, Justification, 5.172–73. 29 Owen, Justification, 5.173, 267. 30 Baxter, Justifying Righteousness, 7; idem, Confession of Faith, 296. 31 Owen, Justification, 5.284–85. 32 Council of Trent, Session 3 (13 Jan 1547), in Creeds, 2.826–39; Baxter, Justifying Righteousness, 7; idem, Confession of Faith, 296; Jacob Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, 3 vol., ed. James Nichols / William Nichols (1825–75; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 2.407. 27 28

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

294

John Owen

Elsewhere, Owen acknowledges that the Roman Catholic Church holds to a double justification, a first and second. The first justification is the infusion of a habit of grace or charity in baptism, and the second is consequent of the first and based upon the good works that proceed from this infused habitual grace. Owen specifically mentions the Council of Trent (1546) by name.33 Owen objects to such a formulation because it turns sanctification into justification. According to Owen, “The whole nature of evangelical justification, consisting in the gratuitous pardon of sin and the imputation of righteousness, as the apostle expressly affirms, and the declaration of a believing sinner to be righteous thereon, as the word alone signifies, is utterly defeated by it.”34 If Owen rejects double justification, how does he explain the relationship of justification to the final judgment? Owen makes a distinction between the nature and essence of justification and the manifestation or declaration of it. The former, argues Owen, occurs in this life, the latter on the Day of Judgment. In this life when a person is justified he knows of it in his heart, but there is no formal external evidence of it before the church and the world. At the final judgment, the believer’s justification will be publicly declared and made manifest before the church and world. But Owen is careful to stipulate, “Yet is it not a second justification: for it depends wholly on the visible effects of that faith whereby we are justified, as the apostle James instructs us; yet is it only one single justification before God, evidenced and declared, unto his glory, the benefit of others, and increase of our own reward.”35 For Owen, there is only one justification grounded upon the imputed perfect righteousness of Christ. To introduce a second or final justification, in his mind, introduces the believer’s sanctification and good works (hence confusing justification and sanctification), which are ill suited for the scrutiny of judgment before the divine bar.36

15.5 Relating the parts to the whole Thus far we have surveyed Owen’s soteriology and recognize that he affirms the pactum salutis, union with Christ, the ordo salutis, and the priority of justification over sanctification. How does Owen relate all of these different elements within his soteriology? Does union with Christ or justification retain chief place in Owen’s theology? Or has Owen presented an irreconcilable soteriology that Owen, Justification, 5.137–38. Owen, Justification, 5.138. 35 Owen, Justification, 5.139. 36 Owen, Justification, 5.140. 33 34

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Relating the parts to the whole



295

cannot be sorted out? In some cases, historians must rely upon implication and interpretation of a theologian’s soteriology in order to relate the individual parts to the whole. But this is not the case with Owen, as in a number of places he addresses and answers these questions.

15.5.1 The causes of justification If we start with the question of the causes of justification, Owen can explain this point in a very traditional manner with the employment of Aristotelian distinctions. Owen explains that the supreme moving cause of justification is God, the meritorious cause is Jesus Christ and his mediatorial work, and that the instrumental cause is faith.37 When we dig a little deeper into the particular elements of justification, such as imputation, Owen looks to union with Christ: God has appointed that there shall be an immediate foundation of the imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ unto us; whereon we may be said to have done and suffered in him what he did and suffered in our stead, by that grant, donation, and imputation of it unto us; or that we may be interested in it, that it may be made ours: which is all we contend for. And this is our actual coalescency into one mystical person with him by faith.38

To be sure, Owen does not confuse justification (the forensic) with sanctification (the transformative), but rather states that a person must be in union with Christ to partake of the forensic benefit of imputation. Owen clearly states this point: “Our actual interest in the satisfaction of Christ depends on our actual insertion into his mystical body by faith, according to the appointment of God.”39 Elsewhere, Owen bluntly asserts: “The foundation of the imputation asserted is union.”40

15.5.2 Union and imputation The question quickly arises, How can Owen consider union with Christ to be the foundation of the forensic benefits, which implies that union takes priority Owen, Justification, 5.360. Owen, Justification, 5.218. 39 Owen, Justification, 5.218. 40 Owen, Justification, 5.209. 37 38

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

296

John Owen

over both justification and sanctification as the more fundamental category, and yet still assert the priority of justification over sanctification? Has Owen inextricably impaled himself upon the horns of a dilemma? Owen is not confused, but rather addresses imputation anthropologically, or from the point of the application of redemption. Owen explains that concerning union and imputation, “Hereof there are many grounds and causes . . . but that which we have immediate respect unto, as the foundation of this imputation, is that whereby the Lord Christ and believers do actually coalesce into one mystical person.”41 Here, the broader context of the on going justification debates provides some interpretive assistance, as Owen likely had the views of Baxter in mind. Baxter redefined union with Christ in such a manner as to exclude the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as well as his indwelling through the Holy Spirit. Baxter’s view was one of a political rather than mystical union.42 In opposition to Baxter, though he is not mentioned by name, Owen writes: That there is such a union between Christ and believers is the faith of the catholic church, and has been so in all ages. Those who seem in our days to deny it, or question it, either now not what they say, or their minds are influenced by their doctrine who deny the divine persons of the Son and of the Spirit. Upon supposition of this union, reason will grant the imputation pleaded for to be reasonable; at least, that there is such a peculiar ground for it as is not to be exemplified in any things natural or political among men.43

Owen does not believe he asserts anything distinctively Reformed in his promotion of imputation being founded in union, but rather something that the universal church has affirmed in every age. But one should not therefore stop the investigation and conclude that Owen believes that union was more foundational to justification and sanctification. What of Owen’s statement about the “many grounds and causes” of imputation? Owen is not content to define union with Christ and justification strictly in terms of the applicatio salutis, or redemption considered anthropologically. When one steps back to the bigger picture, beyond the application of redemption, Owen explains how imputation occurs prior to its application to the believer through union with Christ: The imputation of sin unto Christ was antecedent unto any real union between him and Owen, Justification, 5.209. Baxter, Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness, 55; cf. Boersma, Hot Pepper Corn, 234–41. 43 Owen, Justification, 5.209. 41 42

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Relating the parts to the whole



297

sinners, whereon he took their sin on him as he would, and for what ends he would; but the imputation of his righteousness unto believers is consequential in order of nature unto their union with him, whereby it becomes theirs in a peculiar manner: so as that there is not a parity of reason that he should be esteemed a sinner, as that they should be accounted righteous.44

Owen is not guilty of doublespeak when he writes that imputation is both antecedent to union and consequent to it. Rather, we come full circle to our starting point and Owen’s doctrine of the pactum salutis.

15.5.3 Covenant surety When Owen discusses the origins of union with Christ, he reaches back to the pactum salutis: “The first spring or cause of this union, and of all the other causes of it, lie in that eternal compact that was between the Father and the Son concerning the recovery and salvation of fallen mankind.”45 The incarnation, the assumption of human nature, was designed in the pactum salutis. Within the terms of the pactum, the Son as the incarnate God-man was predestined unto grace and glory unto two ends: (1) that which was specific to his own person and work; and (2) that which was to be communicated through him to the church. As such, Christ was designated head of the church, and the elect of God were, according to the terms of the pactum, committed unto Christ to be delivered from sin, the curse of the law, and death.46 Owen summarizes the work of Christ within the architecture of the pactum under the idea that Christ was made “the surety of the new covenant.” Quoting and commenting on Heb 7.22, Owen writes: “‘Jesus was made a surety of a better testament.’ This alone, of all the fundamental considerations of the imputation of our sins unto Christ, I shall insist upon, on purpose to obviate or remove mistakes about the nature of his suretiship, and the respect of it unto the covenant whereof he was the surety.”47 Owen then goes on to discuss in great exegetical detail the nature of Christ’s role as surety of the covenant. Owen argues that even though the term ἔγγυος (surety) only appears in this one place in the New Testament, one occurrence is just as authoritative as twenty. To define and understand the term, Owen digs Owen, Justification, 5.354. Owen, Justification, 5.179. 46 Owen, Justification, 5.179–80. 47 Owen, Justification, 5.181. For Owen’s extended treatment of the pactum and Christ’s suretiship, see his Hebrews, “Federal Transactions Between the Father and the Son,” (Exercitation 28), 19.77–97. 44 45

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

298

John Owen

into the Septuagint and Hebrew Old Testament. He notes that the term occurs in Prov 6.1: “My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger.” According to Owen, the Hebrew OT term “’rv” is translated by the Septuagint as ἐγγυάω. Owen cites Prov 17.18, 20.16 as other occurrences of these lexemes. He then explains, “’rv” originally signifies to mingle, or a mixture of any things or persons; and thence, from the conjunction and mixture that is between a surety and him for whom he is a surety, whereby they coalesce into one person, as unto the ends of that suretiship, it is used for a surety, or to give surety.”48 Owen illustrates this point from Gen 39.9, Judah’s words to his father Jacob concerning Benjamin: “I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him.” Owen explains: “In undertaking to be surety for him, as unto his safety and preservation, he engages himself to answer for all that should befall him; for so he adds, ‘If I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, let me be guilty for ever.’” All of this lexicographical and exegetical spadework leads Owen to the following conclusion: “A surety is an undertaker for another, or others, who thereon is justly and legally to answer what is due to them, or from them.”50 Given that Christ’s suretiship is legal in nature and involves the imputation of the sins of the elect to Christ and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the elect as a stipulation of the pactum salutis, we find that Owen rests redemption upon the forensic. For Owen, therefore, the legal elements of redemption are ultimately foundational for the transformative. Or Owen’s position may be alternatively stated: the proximate source of the believer’s redemption is union with Christ with its dual benefits of justification and sanctification. Justification has priority, however, over sanctification because at its core is the perfect and complete imputed righteousness of Christ, the ultimate cause of which is Christ’s voluntary acceptance and promise to be covenant surety for the elect in the pactum between the Father and the Son. 49

15.6 Conclusion Owen cut a careful path between the dangerous poles of antinomianism and neonomianism. With great precision Owen skirts the dangerous Scylla of antinomianism by arguing that the believer is in union with Christ, which ensures Owen, Justification, 5.181. Owen, Justification, 5.182. 50 Owen, Justification, 5.182. 48 49

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Conclusion

299

that the believer yields the fruit of good works because of Christ’s indwelling presence. At the same time, Owen also successfully navigates by the treacherous Charybdis of neonomianism because he argues that the believer’s justification, title, and right to eternal life is grounded upon the imputed righteousness of Christ. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is not something that the believer earns through his obedience but is something he receives—something that had been agreed upon in a mutual covenant between the Father and the Son in eternity past, long before the believer ever existed. For Owen, though, this covenant in eternity past is not merely a bald choice by God but rather involves a number of different doctrinal loci, christology, pneumatology, soteriology, as well as their sub-sets, such as union with Christ and the ordo salutis. The doctrine of the pactum salutis provides the answer as to how Owen gives ultimate priority to the forensic and proximate priority to union with Christ. For Owen, the ground of redemption is to be found in the imputed righteousness of Christ.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

16. Richard Baxter

16.1 Introduction Richard Baxter (1615–91) is perhaps at the same time one of the best- and leastknown theologians of the seventeenth century. People are likely familiar with Baxter’s practical works, such as The Reformed Pastor, The Saints’ Everlasting Rest, or A Christian Directory.1 These works, however, only scratch the surface of Baxter’s total theological output. Baxter’s practical works were published in twenty-three volumes in the nineteenth-century.2 But even then, only forty percent of his writings appear in the twenty-three-volume set.3 In his survey of Baxter’s theology, George Fisher notes that Baxter authored 168 treatises.4 On the other hand, what might be a surprise to some is that Baxter not only wrote practical works but also technical theological works. Fisher observes: “We feel bound to enter a protest against the extraordinary liberty which has been taken with the writings of this great divine. While Baxter is regarded by the multitude as a man of saintly piety, his intellectual traits are poorly appreciated.”5 Baxter’s theological works are quite remarkable given that he was self-taught. Baxter’s theological works manifest a knowledge of medieval, Renaissance, and scholastic works. Baxter interacts with the likes of Aquinas, John Duns Scotus (1265–1308), Guillaume Durandus (c. 1230–96), Francisco Suarez (1548–1617), as well as a host of contemporary theologians. Baxter is perhaps second to no other Reformed theologian in the seventeenth century in terms of the breadth

Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1981); idem, The Saints’ Everlasting Rest (Fearn: Christian Heritage, 2000); idem, A Christian Directory, in The Practical Works of Richard Baxter, 4 vol. (Ligonier: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997). 2 Richard Baxter, The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter with a Life of the Author and a Christian Examination of His Writings, ed. William Orme. 23 vol. (London: Duncan, 1830). 3 Hans Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its SeventeenthCentury Context of Controversy (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2004), 2. 4 George Fisher, “The Theology of Richard Baxter,” Bibliotheca Sacra and American Biblical Repository 3 (1852): 135. 5 George Fisher, “The Writings of Richard Baxter,” Bibliotheca Sacra and American Biblical Repository 3 (1852): 314. 1

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Introduction

301

of his knowledge and interaction with theological literature.6 In Baxter’s technical theological works, he wrote more on the doctrine of justification than any other subject. But what is likely unknown in our own day is that Baxter’s peers largely rejected his formulation; he received much criticism. In spite of the criticism, Baxter believed that he made his most valuable contribution to theology on the doctrine of justification.7 This chapter focuses upon Baxter’s doctrine of justification and how it relates to the other parts of his theology, particularly, the relationship between justification, sanctification, and union with Christ. At first glance, Baxter appears to sound like his Reformed contemporaries: “The two great works of Christ in the application or collation of the benefits that he has merited, are those before mentioned: justification, and sanctification.”8 And like his Reformed peers, Baxter also sees redemption related to the doctrine of union with Christ: Man’s perfection and felicity is finally in God, and that his recovery consists in being brought back to him, which must be done, as by the merits of Christ, so by union with him, and consequently by communication of life from him: and having union with Christ, it necessarily follows that we have union with the Church, which is his body, and communion with it. Were we not one among ourselves, we were not a body: and were we not one in Christ our center and head, we were not his body. As we have internal communion in the same Spirit, in the same faith, hope, and love, so have we external communion in the same profession of faith and piety (in the essentials) and in the same practice of worshipping God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and in sincerely assisting each other for our salvation.9

Baxter’s affirmations appear rather ordinary, but when we delve into the specifics, we will find that Baxter’s doctrines were anything but ordinary according to Reformed confessional norms. This chapter demonstrates that Baxter does not assign the doctrine of justification theological priority in his ordo salutis as was the Reformed confessional norm. By priority, the following is intended: a person can say he is sanctified 6 Carl R. Trueman, “A Small Step Towards Rationalism: The Impact of the Metaphysics of Tommaso Campanella on the Theology of Richard Baxter,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. Carl R. Trueman / R. Scott Clark (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999), 184. 7 J. I. Packer, The Redemption and Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter (1954; Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2003), 241. 8 Richard Baxter, Confession of His Faith: Especially Concerning the Interest of Repentance and Sincere Obedience to Christ, in our Justification and Salvation (London: 1654), preface. 9 Baxter, Confession, preface.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

302

Richard Baxter

because he is justified, but he cannot say he is justified because he is sanctified. In other words, the believer’s good works do not play a role in his justification. The believer’s justification is grounded upon the works of Christ, not those of the believer. Instead, Baxter believes that justification and sanctification are mutually interdependent—that justification hinges upon the believer’s sanctification. His undifferentiated view of justification and sanctification also affect his doctrine of union with Christ. No longer are justification and sanctification the duplex gratia of the believer’s union with Christ, but rather union is now ultimately the consequence of the believer’s faith and ongoing faithfulness. Baxter believes that one enters the covenant by grace but maintains his place by covenant faithfulness. The chapter proceeds with an examination of the broader context of Baxter’s theology to set the stage for his doctrine of justification. Then we will examine Baxter’s threefold doctrine of justification. The chapter then explains the way Baxter relates justification to his doctrine of union with Christ. The chapter concludes with observations regarding one of the key driving factors in Baxter’s theology—the fear of antinomianism. Baxter served as an army chaplain in the early part of his ministry and the moral conduct of the soldiers led him to believe that antinomianism was the greatest of dangers. Baxter believed that one of the chief causes of antinomianism was the growing popularity of the concept of eternal justification, namely, that believers are justified from eternity.10 The idea is that in foro Dei (in the court of God), elect sinners are already justified because of the divine decree; the missing element is for the elect sinner to come to a knowledge of his justified status in foro conscientiae (in the court of conscience). Baxter made it his mission to correct these antinomian errors. However, as will be demonstrated, Baxter believed that there were other factors that contributed to antinomian trends. These other factors surface throughout his theology as the rest of this chapter will demonstrate. 10 Baxter identifies a number of theologians as antinomian because he believed they held to eternal justification in some sense: Tobias Crisp, William Twisse, and John Owen. See Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted (London: 1852); William Twisse, Vindicae gratiae (Amsterdam: 1632); John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, in The Works of John Owen, 23 vol., ed. William H. Goold (1850–53; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1998), 5.1–401. The Westminster Confession specifically rejects eternal justification: “God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them” (All citations from the Westminster Standards are taken from Westminster Confession of Faith [1646; Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1995]. Cf. Boersma, Hot Pepper Corn, 66–124; Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 206–14; idem, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 113–18.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Law and covenant in Baxter’s theology

303

16.2 Law and covenant in Baxter’s theology 16.2.1 Covenant Before delving into Baxter’s doctrine of justification and its relationship to sanctification and union with Christ, it is first necessary to understand the broader context of Baxter’s theology, particularly his doctrines of creation and redemption, the respective works of Adam and Christ, and the law. Looking into these matters provides the proper frame of reference for comprehending Baxter’s soteriology. For Baxter, all of the aforementioned subjects (creation and redemption, Adam and Christ, and the law) are summarized in his understanding of the covenants. Richard Muller notes, “Baxter’s entire system, doctrinal and practical, coalesces around the concept of the divine covenanting.”11 The Westminster Standards (1646) with its bi-covenantal structure of the covenants of works and grace provide a basic roadmap to what Baxter believes. Baxter, for example, explicitly gives his approval and consent to both the Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms. In fact, Baxter writes: “I do heartily approve of the shorter Catechism of the Assembly, and of all therein contained.” Baxter also writes: “I have perused the larger Catechism of the Assembly, and judge it a most excellent sum of Divinity.”12 In the broad scope Baxter affirms the covenant of works and grace, but his construction of the relationship between these two covenants and the Christian’s relationship to them is quite different from the theological norm. Typically, theologians who assented to the Westminster Standards believe that Adam was covenanted with God and through perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience was supposed to secure a state of indefectibility and eternal life, but by his fall into sin Adam forfeited that possibility.13 The fall necessitated the work of a second Adam who not only fulfilled the broken covenant of works but also secures the believer’s salvation through his imputed active and passive obedience.14 The work of Christ in fulfillment of the covenant of works comes 11 Richard A. Muller, “Covenant and Conscience in English Reformed Theology: Three Variations on a 17th Century Theme,” WTJ 42 (1980): 328. 12 Richard Baxter, Confession, 19–20. 13 See WCF 6–7; LC 21–29, 30–35; SC 12, 14–20. 14 That the active and passive obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer according to the WCF is a contended point in recent scholarship. Cf. Chad B. VanDixhoorn, Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly 1643–52 (Cambridge: Ph.D Dissertation, 2004), 270–345; Jeffrey K. Jue, “The Active Obedience of Christ and the Theology of the Westminster Standards: A Historical Investigation,” in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification (Fearn: Mentor, 2007), 99–130; Trueman, Reformed Catholic, 105. If the Standards are taken as a whole, namely that under the covenant

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

304

Richard Baxter

through the covenant of grace. Thomas Watson (c. 1620–86) offers a common explanation of the relationship between the two covenants: “The first covenant being broken, allowed the sinner no remedy, all doors of hope were shut; but the new covenant allows the sinner a remedy: it leaves room for repentance, and provides a mediator . . . The first covenant ran all upon ‘working,’ the second is upon ‘believing.’”15 Watson argues that one of the fruits of Christ’s intercession as mediator is justification—the remission of guilt (for original and actual sin) and the imputation of righteousness.16 Baxter dissents from this common understanding and offers his own unique formulation. Baxter believes, in agreement with the Westminster Standards, that God required perfect perpetual obedience.17 In the wake of the fall, according to Baxter, sinful man was still perpetually bound to the punishment of the broken covenant of works. The promised reward of the covenant of works was also abrogated, not by God, but by man because man ceased to be capable of achieving the reward.18 With the abrogation of the covenant of works and the suspension of its reward, Baxter explains: “No man is justified by the Law of Innocency (nor the Law Mosaical as of works) either by the preceptive or retributive part: for we broke the precept.”19 Baxter understands that the remedy to man’s fallen condition lies with the covenant of grace. But Baxter differs with how the Westminster Larger Catechism explains things. The Catechism states: “The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed” (q. 31). Baxter takes issue with this statement and counters that the covenant of grace is one genus with two different species: a covenant made with Christ and a separate covenant made with man.20 Why does Baxter posit two different covenants under the genus of the covenant of grace?21 Baxter believes that Christ dealt with the consequences of the of grace the WCF states that Christ perfectly fulfilled the law (8.4) and the LC states that Christ offered “perfect obedience and full satisfaction” (70), they affirm the necessity of the imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ (Jue, “Active Obedience,” 127–28). One thing is clear, Baxter rejected the imputation of Christ’s active obedience as it is found in the Savoy Declaration (Richard Baxter, A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness In Two Books [London: 1676], 23–27). 15 Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity: Contained in Sermons Upon the Westminster Assembly’s Catechism (1692; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2008), 155. 16 Watson, Body of Divinity, 181. 17 WCF 7.2; LC 20; SC 12. 18 Richard Baxter, Catholick Theology: Plain, Pure, Peaceable for Pacification of the Dogmatical WordWarriors, 3 vol. (London: 1675), 2.29–30. 19 Richard Baxter, A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness In Two Books (London: 1676), 83. 20 Baxter, Confession, 18. 21 The WCF states concerning the different administrations of the one covenant of grace across all of redemptive history, Old and New Testaments: “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations” (7.6).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Law and covenant in Baxter’s theology



305

violation of the covenant of works but he does not automatically secure the redemption of the elect through the imputation of his active obedience. Baxter explains in thesis 10 of his Aphorismes of Justification: (1) Man having not only broken this first covenant, but disabled himself to perform its conditions for the future, and so being out of all hope of attaining righteousness and life thereby, (2) It pleased the Father and Mediator to prescribe unto him a new Law, (3) and tender him a new covenant, (4) the conditions whereof should be more easy to the sinner and yet more abasing, (5) and should more clearly manifest, and more highly honor the unconceivable love of the Father and Redeemer.22

Christ, therefore, pays the penalty for the broken covenant of works and returns man to the position of Adam. God required perfect obedience from Adam, but God lowers the requirements of obedience for the covenant of grace.

16.2.2 Covenant of grace revised Baxter is clear that Christ’s active obedience is not the righteousness of the covenant of grace, or what he calls the “second covenant”. In thesis 33 in his Aphorismes Baxter writes: As the active obedience of Christ was not the righteousness of the second covenant, or the performing of its conditions, but of the first, properly called a legal righteousness; so also his passive obedience and merit was only to satisfy for the violation of the covenant of works, but not at all for the violation of the covenant of grace, for that there is no satisfaction made, and there remains no sacrifice.23

If Christ’s righteousness (his active obedience) is not given in the covenant of grace, then whence does the Christian’s righteousness arise? The simple answer for Baxter is that the believer provides his own righteousness. Baxter contrasts the legal righteousness that Christ provides through his passive obedience vis-àvis the broken covenant of works and the evangelical righteousness that believers themselves provide as a necessary condition of the covenant of grace. Baxter explains in thesis 20 in his Aphorismes: “Our evangelical righteousness is not Richard Baxter, Aphorismes of Justification With Their Explication Annexed. Wherein also is Opened the Nature of the Covenants, Satisfaction, Righteousness, Faith, Works, etc. (Hague: 1655), 47–48. 23 Baxter, Aphorismes, 104. 22

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

306

Richard Baxter

without us in Christ, as our legal righteousness is: but consists in our own actions of faith and gospel obedience. Or thus: Though Christ performed the conditions of the law, and satisfied for our non-performance; yet it is ourselves that must perform the conditions of the gospel.” Baxter formulates the requirements of the law in this manner because he believes that the imputation of Christ’s active obedience is a tenet of antinomianism; he contends that the doctrine subverts the gospel, all true religion, and morality.24 Baxter also argues that the imputation of Christ’s active obedience renders sanctification superfluous. Baxter explains: It seems to make internal sanctification by the Spirit needless, or at least, as to one half its use: For if we are by just imputation in God’s account perfectly holy, in Christ’s holiness the first moment of our believing, nothing can be added to perfection; we are as fully amiable in the sight of God, as if we were sanctified in ourselves; because by imputation it is all our own. And so it seems to make our after-obedience unnecessary, at least as to half its use: For if in God’s true account, we have perfectly obeyed to the death by another, how can we be required to do it all or part again by ourselves? If all the debt of our obedience be paid, why is it required again?25

Hence, in terms of the believer’s justification vis-à-vis the demands of the law, Christ’s righteousness is not the material cause as Reformed theologians for some 150 years had affirmed.26 Rather, the believer’s righteousness is the mateBaxter, Justifying Righteousness, 91. Baxter, Justifying Righteousness, 95. 26 Baxter, Aphorismes, 138. Baxter did not believe that he was beyond the bounds of the Reformed tradition in his rejection of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience. In a number of places Baxter cites Calvin, Olevianus, Ursinus, and Johannes Piscator (1546–1625), among others in support of his rejection of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience (Baxter, Justifying Righteousness, 105, 179; idem, Aphorismes, 36). Baxter’s appeal to works prior to 1570 is anachronistic, as questions over the imputed active obedience were not an issue of debate. Nevertheless, the substance of the doctrine can be found in Calvin, Olevianus, and Ursinus. Calvin, for example, writes concerning the righteousness of Christ and the apparent contradiction in Rom 8.3–4, namely that the righteous requirements of the law are fulfilled in the believer: “The only fulfillment he alludes to is that which we obtain through imputation. . . To declare that by him alone we are accounted righteous, what else is this but to lodge our righteousness in Christ’s obedience, because the obedience of Christ is reckoned to us as if it were our own” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, LCC, vol. 20–21, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], 3.11.23). Ursinus writes in his Smaller Catechism: “Q. What do you believe about ‘the remission of sins’? A. That because of Christ’s satisfaction God has forever blotted out the memory of all my sins, receives me in grace, and imputes to me the obedience of Christ, so that I will never come under judgment” (Lyle D. Bierma, et al., An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005], 148). Olevianus writes: “For Christ became obedient to the Father for our sake, even unto death on the cross. This obedience of Christ, freely and graciously bestowed upon each believer as if he himself had suffered everything and 24 25

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Law and covenant in Baxter’s theology

307

rial cause of justification in Baxter’s view: “As the accepting of Christ for Lord, (which is the heart’s subjection) is as essential a part of justifying faith, as the accepting of him for our Savior: so consequently, sincere obedience, (which is the effect of the former,) has as much to do in justifying us before God, as affiance, (which is the fruit of the latter).”27 In this respect, J. I. Packer rightly observes that for Baxter, “the Covenant of Grace is also in an important sense a covenant of works.”28

16.2.3 Perfect vs. sincere obedience Was it possible for fallen man to offer the obedience that the law required? Baxter believes that once fallen man is rescued from the consequences of the fall, he is capable of fulfilling the requirements of the covenant of grace. In thesis 27 of his Aphorismes Baxter writes: “(1) As it was possible for Adam to have fulfilled the Law of Works by that power which he received by nature; (2) So is it possible for us to perform the conditions of the new Covenant by the (3) power which we receive from the grace of Christ.”29 Not only does Baxter believe that the Christian can fulfill the relaxed requirements of the covenant of grace, but he also argues that the Christian can attain a degree of perfection. Though, Baxter is not naïve enough to believe that the Christian can attain perfection in an unqualified sense. Baxter acknowledges that if the Christian’s holiness and obedience is viewed pro sanitate (for soundness) or pro maturitate (for maturity), it is imperfect.30 However, for Baxter a Christian’s obedience is not measured according to its soundness or maturity, but according to its sincerity: “Sincerity is usually said accomplished the obedience in body and soul that Christ performed for him. This obedience alone can make the believing heart completely right with God” (Caspar Olevianus, A Firm Foundation: An Aid to Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. Lyle D. Bierma [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995], 109). The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), likely largely written by Ursinus, states: “Q. 60 How are you righteous before God? . . . without any merit of my own, out of pure grace, [God] grants me his righteousness and holiness as if I had never committed a single sin or had ever been sinful, having fulfilled myself all the obedience which Christ has carried out for me” (Mark A. Knoll, ed., Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992], 148). For further historical documentation on this matter, see R. Scott Clark, “Do This and Live: Christ’s Active Obedience as the Ground of Justification,” in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California, ed. R. Scott Clark (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2007), 229–66. 27 Baxter, Aphorismes, 182. 28 Packer, Redemption and Restoration, 134. 29 Baxter, Aphorismes, 92. 30 Baxter, Aphorismes, 85–86.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

308

Richard Baxter

to be our gospel-perfection: not as it is accepted instead of perfection, but as it is truly so; for sincere faith is our conformity to the rule of perfection, viz. the new covenant as it is a covenant; yet as it is sincere faith, it is only materially our righteousness and perfection, but formally as it is relatively our conformity to the said rule.”31 Baxter goes on to explain how the believer’s relative perfection (or sincere obedience) relates to the doctrine of justification: “Our righteousness is perfect as in its being, so also in order to its end. The end is to be the condition of our justification, etc. This end it shall perfectly attain. The tenor of the new covenant is not, ‘Believe in the highest degree, and you shall be justified,’ but ‘believe sincerely, and you shall be justified.”32 From this survey of Baxter’s understanding of the law as it relates to the covenants of works and grace it is evident that his formulation was beyond the bounds of the Westminster Standards. In fact, Packer notes that Baxter’s understanding of the law was heterodox according to Reformed confessional norms: “Where orthodox Calvinism taught that Christ satisfied the law in the sinner’s place, Baxter held that Christ satisfied the Lawgiver and so procured a change in the law. Here Baxter aligns himself with Arminian thought rather than with orthodox Calvinism.”33 Though Baxter vehemently rejects the Arminian label, Packer’s analysis is difficult to evade.34 Jacob Arminius, for example, holds the same view of the law vis-à-vis the relaxed standards for believers: “Whence it appears, that the law is not abrogated ‘with respect to the obedience which must be rendered to God;’ for though obedience be required under the grace of Christ and of the Gospel, it is required according to clemency, and not according to strict rigor.”35 Baxter’s explanation of the demands of the law stands in parallel with Arminius’ understanding: “The law that says, ‘Obey perfectly and live, sin and die,’” a likely reference to Lev 18.5, “does not justify us as persons that have perfectly obeyed it, really or imputatively; but its obligation to punishment is dissolved, not by itself, but by the law of grace. It is then by the law of grace that we are judged and justified.”36

Baxter, Aphorismes, 87. Baxter, Aphorismes, 87. 33 Packer, Redemption and Restoration, 262. 34 Baxter, Confession, 6. 35 Jacob Arminius, Twenty-Five Public Disputations, no. 12.6, in The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols and William Nichols, 3 vol. (1825; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 2.200; idem, Disputationes, in Opera Theologica (Leiden: Apud Godefridum Basson, 1629), 268. 36 Baxter, Justifying Righteousness, 63–64. 31 32

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



309

16.3 Justification 16.3.1 Constitutive justification Baxter’s formulation of the law is foundational for his doctrine of justification.37 Unlike his contemporaries who hold that justification is a divine act in contrast to the process of sanctification, Baxter argues that justification is a three-staged life-long process. The first stage is constitutive justification, which is a “right to impunity, and to life or glory”. According to Baxter, constitutive justification gives pardon to all past sins “at our first faith or conversion,” but this first stage is not perfect. Baxter rejects the common formula: “And the saying of many that justification is perfect at first, and sanctification only by degrees, is a palpable error.”38 Baxter does not cite specific examples of this error, but his disapprobation would likely fall upon the likes of Samuel Rutherford (1600–61), one of the Westminster divines. Rutherford writes: (1) Justification is an indivisible act; the person is but once for all justified, by grace. But sanctification is a continued daily act. (2) Justification does not grow; the sinner is either freed from the guilt of sin, and justified, or not freed; there is not a third. But in sanctification, we are said to grow in grace (2 Pet. 3) and advance in sanctification: nor is it ever consummate and perfect, so long as we bear about a body of sin.39

Similar statements can be found in the work of another contemporary of Baxter’s, John Davenant (1572–1641), one of the Church of England delegates to the Synod of Dort (1618–19), with whom Baxter was familiar. Davenant writes: “Remission is perfect, and is instantly accomplished; sanctification, or the purification of corrupt nature, is effect by degrees, nor is it completed before death.”40 Since Baxter rejects this construction (the perfect nature of justification), this Fisher, “Theology of Baxter,” 164. Baxter, Catholick Theology, 2.85. For treatment of these same three categories, see also Baxter, Confession, 52; idem, Methodus Theologiae Christianae, 1 Naturae reurm, 2. Sacrae Scripturae, 3 Praxi (London: 1681), 3.27.3 (pp. 302–03). Cf. Packer, Redemption and Restoration, 251–53; Boersma, Hot Pepper Corn, 89–92. C. Fitzsimons Allison, The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter (1966; Vancouver: Regent Publishing, 2003),154–62. 39 Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying, and Drawing Sinners to Himself (Edinburgh: 1727), 313. 40 John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification or the Disputatio De Justitia Habituali et Actuali, 2 vol. (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1844), 1.27. In effect, Davenant, and Anglican Bishop, was maintaining the position of the Thirty-Nine Articles, §§ 11–13 (see Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss, ed., Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 3 vol. [New Haven: Yale UP, 2003], 2.531). 37

38

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

310

Richard Baxter

means that a person’s past sins are pardoned by his constitutive justification, his future sins are not. In fact, Baxter maintains that though God’s grant of constitutive justification is unalterable, man’s will is nevertheless mutable and if a person engages in apostasy, then he would “lose his right, and be unjustified and unpardoned, without any change in God.”41

16.3.2 Sentential justification The second stage (or degree) is sentential justification (or justification by sentence), which “is done by Christ as judge, and so is an act of his kingly office.” This form of justification is something that is on going throughout the life of the Christian. Baxter explains that sentential justification is when the believer’s conscience is informed and made aware of his constitutive justification. This form of justification rests in foro conscientiae (in the court of the conscience) but is susceptible to man’s mutability and weaknesses—subject to his doubts and self-condemnation. This degree of justification may cease when the Christian sleeps or thinks of other things, and may ebb and flow with the events of the day. But according to Baxter, sentential justification “is not of that grand importance to our salvation, as justification by faith is.”42

16.3.3 Executive justification The third and final degree of justification is another form of sentential justification, namely executive justification. This form is the “public sentence and execution at the day of judgment.” Baxter explains: In this sense to sanctify a man, is to justify him executively, and so sententially. For executive justification and pardon is the actual impunity, removing of deserved punishment, and actual giving possession of life and salvation, which constitutive justification gave us right to. And as our privation of the Spirit and holiness, and to be left in sin, is Baxter, Catholick Theology, 2.85. Fisher notes that Baxter held that original sin for infants was pardoned by their baptism—they were regarded as part of their parents and therefore heirs of the kingdom of heaven. The Spirit would renew their hearts from infancy and then the child was to mature in faith and obedience. However if the child lived a wayward life, it was no fault of the parents; additionally, Baxter believed that they could actually apostatize (Fisher, “Theology of Baxter,” 144). Cf. Baxter, Methodus, 3.9.1 (p. 98). 42 Baxter, Catholic Theology, 2.85–86. 41

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



311

a great punishment; so to have the Spirit and holiness given us, is executive pardon and justification; and so will glorification much more.43

Baxter believes that this final form of justification is the noblest of all three and the end and perfecting of the whole work of justification. It is also evident that for Baxter, justification only begins at the moment of conversion but is concluded at the final judgment. With the way that Baxter describes the differences between constitutive and executive justifications, the former is virtual and defectible, and the latter is actual and indefectible. Common formulations in Baxter’s day hold that justification is a definitive forensic act that does not rest upon the believer’s own sanctification or good works. The Westminster Confession, for example, states: “Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone.”44 Clearly Baxter’s doctrine of justification rests upon the believer’s sanctification. This conclusion is evident, not only from what Baxter believes regarding a person’s ability to meet the relaxed demands of the law in the covenant of grace, and implicitly from his threefold structure of justification, but also explicitly in how he defines faith and relates obedience to executive justification.

16.3.4 Faith as obedience First, concerning faith, Baxter argues: “Faith includes a consent to future obedience (that is, subjection) so the performance of that consent in sincere obedience, is the condition of our justification as continued (secondarily) as well as faith (or consent itself) primarily.” Baxter argues that faith as consent to future obedience is what the apostle James means by justification by works.45 Baxter further elaborates upon the significance of the epistle of James and the statement: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (2.24 KJV). He argues that James “flatly affirms, that we are justified by works, and not by faith only.” Baxter explains what is meant by James’ statement: “It is a practical faith, in which is contained a consent or covenant to obey, which first puts us into a justified state; so it is that practical faith actually working Baxter, Catholick Theology, 2.86. WCF 11.1. 45 Baxter, Justifying Righteousness, 163. 43 44

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

312

Richard Baxter

by love, and the actual performance of our covenant, which by way of condition is necessary to our justification, as continued and as consummated by the sentence of judgment.”46 Second, Baxter relates the necessity of obedience to executive justification in the following extended quotation. Baxter puts all of the pieces of his theological puzzle together (the covenants of works and grace, justification, and obedience): The performance of the conditions of the new covenant, for justification and salvation (by faith, repentance, sincere obedience) are personal, evangelical righteousness (commonly called inherent); and therefore is it called our righteousness, because it is the performance of the gospel condition, (rather than from its relation to the law or covenant of works, which it violates by its imperfection) seeing whosoever believes and repents is non reus, not guilty of the non-performance of the condition of justification, and he that also sincerely obeys to the end, is not guilty of the non-performance of the conditions of sentential absolution in judgment. It is not that law (commonly called moral or of works) which faith, ‘obey perfectly, or else die,’ which judges me righteous because of my inherent qualifications, or imperfect obedience: but it is that law, which says, ‘He that repents and believes shall be forgiven, and he that sincerely obeys (both naturally moral, and supernatural precepts) and endures to the end, shall be saved.’ This law or covenant pronounces me righteous, upon my imperfect performances.47

Baxter’s views coalesce in this quotation (freedom from past sins, original sin, and constitutive justification), which then opens the door to a law of grace with laxer demands where a person offers sincere obedience until the end to secure his executive justification. If Baxter’s view of the law was parallel to Arminius’ view, then it should be no surprise that his doctrine of justification parallels the view of the controversial Dutchman. Arminius holds to an initial and final justification. Like Baxter, Arminius believes that justification is not completed until the final judgment. Arminius writes: “But the end and completion of justification will be near the close of life, when God will grant, to those who end their days in the faith of Christ, to find his mercy absolving them from all the sins which had been perpetrated through the whole of their lives. The declaration and manifestation of justification will be in the future general judgment.”48 And like Baxter, Arminius also believes that a person can lose his justification. Arminius holds that “it was Baxter, Justifying Righteousness, 7. Baxter, Confession of Faith, 296. 48 Arminius, Works, 2.407 (Disputationes, 401). 46 47

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ



313

possible for believers finally to decline or fall away from faith and salvation.”49 Once again, though Baxter rejects the Arminian label, it is difficult to evade the conclusion given the similarities between Baxter and Arminius on justification.

16.4 Union with Christ 16.4.1 Union as a relative benefit How does the doctrine of union with Christ factor into Baxter’s doctrines of justification and sanctification? Baxter explains that the grace of Christ first given to a person in faith and repentance through effectual calling gives the believer “a right to union with Christ as the church’s head (and so to his body) and with him a right to pardon of past sin, and to the Spirit to dwell and act in us for the future, and to the love of God, and life eternal, to be ours in possession, if we sincerely obey and persevere.”50 There are two observations to be made here. First, there is a parallel between the way that Baxter discusses constitutive justification and union with Christ. Both occur as a consequence of faith and repentance, and both give a person the right to their respective benefits—the pardon of former sins. A difference between constitutive justification and union with Christ is that the former is a declaration and the latter gives the promise of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Second, though the Holy Spirit indwells the believer, he must continue in faithful obedience not only to maintain his constitutive justification but also his union with Christ. Baxter explains his conception of the relationship between justification and union with Christ in thesis 54 from his Aphorismes: “Remission, justification and reconciliation do but restore the offender into the same state of freedom and favor that he fell from; but adoption and marriage-union with Christ do advance him far higher.”51 Evident from this statement is the idea that union with Christ does not undergird the whole of redemption, but is rather one of the whistle-stops on his ordo salutis.52 Baxter even acknowledges this: “Some may blame me for putting union among the relative graces, and not rather Arminius, Works, 1.741: “Fideles posse à fide et salute finaliter deficere” (Orationes, 136); cf. Charles M. Cameron, “Arminius-Hero or Heritic?” EQ 64/3 (1992): 225–27. 50 Baxter, Justifying Righteousness, 84. 51 Baxter, Aphorismes, 133. 52 Contra LC q. 70: “The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.” 49

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

314

Richard Baxter

among those that make a real physical change upon us, as sanctification and glorification.”53 Baxter wants to maintain the distinctness of Christ and the believer and avoid the “blasphemy” of deifying man and turning Christ and man into one person. But this was not Baxter’s only concern.

16.4.2 Union and imputation Baxter constructs his doctrine of union with Christ in such a manner as to prevent the imputation of Christ’s active obedience. Baxter is aware of the argument that some, such as John Owen, bring forward, namely, believers and Christ are one person through mystical union and therefore the active and passive obedience of Christ belong to believers.54 To the objection that, “By mystical union Christ and the faithful are one,” Baxter replies that believers and Christ do not become one Christ, mediator, king, head of the church, God incarnate who was born of a virgin, perfectly obedient, crucified, resurrected, glorified, and who intercedes at the right hand of the Father on behalf of man because of their union with Christ. Rather, argues Baxter: “Our union with Christ is political, relative, with a real participation in the same Holy Spirit.”55

16.4.3 Political union In his treatise, Of the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness, Baxter elaborates his rejection of the imputation-union connection: “A natural head being but a part of a person, what it does the person does. But seeing a contracted head, and all the members of his body contracted or politic, are everyone a distinct person, it follows not that each person did really or reputatively what the head did.”56 Elsewhere, Baxter again argues: “To say that Adam’s Law meant, ‘Do Baxter, Aphorismes, 133. Cf. Boersma, Hot Pepper Corn, 106–08; Allison, Rise of Moralism, 175–77; Trueman, Claims of Truth, 219–20. 55 Baxter, Methodus, 3.27.3 (pp. 308–09): “At ex unione mystica Christus et fideles, unum sunt. At non fiunt una person, non, unus Christus, non unus Mediator, unus Rex, unum caput Ecclesiae, unus Deus incarnates, unus ex Virgine nature, perfecte obdiens, crucifixus, resuscitatus, glorificatus, prohominibus interdedens, qui regnum Patri tradet, quando mortuos resuscitabit et judicabit, etc. Ideoque nec unum suppositum justitiae individuae subjectum: Sed unio nostra cum Christo est Politica, Relativa, cum ejusdem Spiritus sancti reali participatione.” Also see Boersma, Hot Pepper Corn, 235 n. 264. 56 Richard Baxter, Of The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness to Believers (London: 1676), 55; also Boersma, Hot Pepper Corn, 235 n. 264. 53 54

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ



315

this by thyself or by Christ, and you shall live,’ is a human fiction, not found in Scripture, confounding the law of innocency with the Gospel; and to say that the New Covenant makes us one person with Christ, and then the law of Adam does justify us, is a double error. We are not reputed one person with Christ, nor does the first covenant justify any but the person that performs it.”57 What lies behind Baxter’s notion of a political union is the nature of Christ’s satisfaction and his representative role for the redeemed sinner. Briefly, theologians historically distinguish between the reatus poena (liability to punishment) and reatus culpae (liability to guilt), or more succinctly, punishment and guilt. Medieval scholastics distinguish between guilt and punishment on the assumption that Christ’s obedience only removes the guilt of sin, and redeemed man has to make temporal satisfaction for the penalty due him. Reformed scholastics, such as Owen, refuse to separate guilt and punishment in this manner. Rather, they argue for a single liability (reatus) for sin as a result of the fall, a liability of both guilt and sin.58 Hans Boersma notes that Baxter opposes the common Reformed position. He demonstrates that Baxter believes that Christ only suffered for the sinner’s reatus poena (punishment), not his reatus culpae (guilt). In Baxter’s mind, if a person was relieved of all guilt, then what need for the forgiveness of sins would there be?59 Baxter intently cuts off the path to the imputation of Christ’s active obedience.60 Why was Baxter so intent on limiting the nature of the believer’s union with Christ to a political union? Why does he not conceive of union with Christ undergirding the whole of redemption? Baxter feared antinomianism. In a series of points in his Confession, Baxter enumerates telltale signs of antinomianism, among which he includes the improper coordination of union with Christ and faith as well as placing justification at the head of the ordo salutis. The former is quite common, as it appears in the Westminster Larger Catechism, but the latter is affirmed by the likes of some such as Tobias Crisp (1600–43), labeled an antinomian for his work Christ Alone Exalted, and William Twisse (1578–1646), the first moderator of the Westminster Assembly.61 He labels the following position as antinomian: “Union with Christ, and consequently justification, go before faith: for the Spirit is given us before faith: else how could we believe: and the Spirit flows from Christ as our head to us as his members: and therefore we Baxter, Catholick Theology, 2.42. DGLTT, 258, q. v. reatus poenae. See, e.g., John Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in The Works of John Owen, 23 vol., ed. William H. Goold (1850–53; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1998), 10.140–479. 59 Boersma, Hot Pepper Corn, 236; also Baxter, Of Imputation, 77–78, 122–26. 60 Boersma, Hot Pepper Corn, 234–36, esp. 235 n. 266. 61 LC q. 69; Tobias Crisip, Christ Alone Exalted (London: 1645); see Boersma, Hot Peppercorn, 61–87. 57

58

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

316

Richard Baxter

are members of Christ, and united to him, and justified before we believe.”62 In its place, Baxter offers the following as the correct way to coordinate faith and union with Christ: The Scripture never mentions any union with Christ, or justification before faith: but the contrary. That degree of the Spirit, which is promised frequently to them that believe, flows from Christ as head to his members: but that degree of the Spirit which is only to work faith, is given by God who elected us, and is called his drawing us to Christ: and it is the engrafting us into Christ, and bringing us to him for union, and giving the grace, which is the condition on which Christ is given to us in union: and not a consequent of union with him. The Spirit for union flows from electing grace before union and justification.63

For Baxter what lies at the heart of antinomianism is the passivity and inactivity of the believer, hence union with Christ cannot precede faith. Rather, faith is a distinct work of the Spirit that first enables a person to believe so that a person can then be united to Christ. This construction, in Baxter’s mind, removes the potential pitfall of antinomianism.

16.5 Conclusion There is an old cliché, Do the circumstances of life reveal or create a person’s identity and beliefs? In the case of Baxter and his doctrines of justification, sanctification, and union with Christ, Packer is correct to say, “Antinomianism was the midwife which finally brought Baxter’s system to birth.”64 Packer persuasively argues that Baxter’s “soteriology was a reformulation of the covenant theology of the Westminster Confession.”65 However, Baxter’s departure from the Reformed tradition was not restricted to the theology of his own day. Rather, he sees the roots of antinomianism in the earliest days of the Reformation. Baxter, for example, notes the dangers that Luther introduced in his response to the abuses of indulgences: Luther finding the church in his dangerous and woeful state, where he lived, did labor to reduce men’s minds and trust, from human fopperies and merits, and indulgences, Baxter, Confession, 158–59. Baxter, Confession, 158–59. 64 Packer, Redemption and Restoration, 202. 65 Packer, Redemption and Restoration, 213. 62 63

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Conclusion



317

to Christ, and to help them to the knowledge of true righteousness: but according to his temper in the heat of his spirit, he sometimes let fall some words which seemed plainly to make Christ’s own personal righteousness in itself to be every believer’s own by imputation, and our sins to be verily Christ’s own sins in themselves by imputation.66

Baxter does not believe Luther is alone in his use of dangerous language, but also argues Calvin is guilty of the same. Baxter writes of Calvin and the question of the imputed righteousness of Christ: I think also that he writes so moderately oft of this very point, that I think his judgment was in sense, in the main, the same with mine. Yet I think his apprehensions of the doctrines now in dispute, and his expressions of them, were not so clear, distinct and orderly, but that some that come after may see further, and redress those oversights, which have occasioned quarrels since.67

Baxter generally agrees with Calvin, but thinks he lacks clarity on key points. Baxter believes that subsequent theologians distort Calvin’s theology: “I think few of his nearer followers saw so much as he; but most depraved his doctrine by out-going him, while they thought they did but imitate or vindicate him.”68 Baxter is willing to depart from the tradition, though he maintains that he was being loyal to it. Given what we have seen from this survey of Baxter’s views, it is difficult to say that he remains within the bounds of Reformed Orthodoxy as it was formally defined by its confessions and catechisms. Baxter’s departure from confessional norms surface in his restructured doctrines of the covenants of works and grace. Moreover, unlike his Reformed contemporaries, Baxter does not prioritize the doctrine of justification—it is no longer a definitive act based solely upon the imputed righteousness (active and passive) of Christ. Rather, justification is a lifelong defectible process that hinges upon the believer’s sanctification, which is only completed at the final judgment. Baxter’s constructions also lead him to restructure the common understanding of the doctrine of union with Christ—it no longer undergirds the whole of redemption, but is merely a political union, one of the relative graces of redemption.

Baxter, Of Imputation, 15; also Packer, Restoration and Redemption, 242. Baxter, “Reply to Mr. Cartwright,” in Justifying Righteousness, 227; also Packer, Restoration and Redemption, 243. 68 Baxter, “Reply to Mr. Cartwright,” in Justifying Righteousness, 227. 66 67

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

17. Francis Turretin

17.1 Introduction In the last one hundred years Reformed Orthodoxy of the seventeenth-century has taken a beating on a number of different theological issues. The abbreviated version of the general argument has been that Reformed Orthodox theologians, such as Francis Turretin (1623–87), the successor of Calvin at the Academy of Geneva, were more indebted to Aristotelianism than to biblical Christianity and with such a commitment, distorted the biblically minded theology of Calvin.1 Scholars such as Richard Muller and others have ably refuted this line of historical argumentation with ample primary source evidence.2 However, despite See, e.g., Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969); Alan C. Clifford, Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology 1640–1790 (Oxford: OUP, 1990). For biographical information about Turretin, see Eugène Guillaume and Théodore de Budé, Vie de François Turrettini, théologien Genevois 1623–87 (Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1871); Gerrit Keizer, François Turrettini: Sa Vie et Ses Oeuvres et le Consensus (Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1900). See also the funeral oration of Benedict Pictet (1655–1724), trans. David Lillegard, in Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vol., ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1992–97), 3.659–76. What little published secondary literature on Turretin exists deals largely with his scholastic method or the doctrine of revelation and related doctrines. See James T. Dennison, “The Twilight of Scholasticism: Francis Turretin at the Dawn of the Enlightenment,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. Carl R. Trueman / R. Scott Clark (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999); Martin I. Klauber, Between Reformed Scholasticism and Pan-Protestantism: JeanAlphonse Turretin (1671–1737) and Enlightened Orthodoxy at the Academy of Geneva (Selinsgrove: Susquehanna UP, 1994); idem, “Francis Turretin on Biblical Accommodation: Loyal Calvinist or Reformed Scholastic?” WTJ 55 (1993): 73–86; Richard A. Muller, “Scholasticism Protestant and Catholic: Francis Turretin on the Object and Principles of Theology,” CH 55 (1986): 193–205; Sebastian Rehnman, “Francis Turretin on Reason,” CTJ 37 (2002): 255–69. Though, there are four studies on Turretin’s doctrine of the covenants, which cover elements of Turretin’s soteriology: Peter J. Wallace, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in the Elenctic Theology of Francis Turretin,” MAJT 13 (2002): 143–79; J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007); James J. Cassidy, “Francis Turretin and Barthianism: The Covenant of Works in Historical Perspective,” TCP 5 (2009): 199–213; R. Spencer, “Francis Turretin’s Concept of the Covenant of Nature,” in Later Calvinism: International Perspectives, ed. W. Fred Graham (Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994). 2 Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: OUP, 2003); Carl R. Trueman / R. Scott Clark, ed., Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999); Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998); Paul Helm, Calvin Against the Calvinists (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982). 1

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Introduction

319

the status of the disproven Calvin vs. the Calvinists thesis, there are those who still persist in bringing forth a version of this argument. One such example comes from the recent work of William Evans. The thrust of Evans’ critique against Reformed Orthodoxy is that it departed from Calvin’s understanding of union with Christ. According to Evans, later Reformed Orthodox theologians embraced the doctrine of the ordo salutis, a logical and temporal sequence of events. This formulation is in contrast to the views of Calvin, as he did not hold to the ordo salutis (or sequence). When Reformed Orthodox theologians infected the doctrine of union with Christ with the ordo salutis, there were significant detrimental consequences. Evans contends that Reformed Orthodox theologians tended to discuss union with Christ in a least two different senses—a legal (or federal) and a spiritual (or vital) union. Evans writes: “In essence, the Reformed conception of union with Christ was bifurcated along the line of division between the forensic or legal benefits of salvation (i.e., justification) and the transforming benefits (i.e., sanctification). The price paid for this, of course, was that the principle of binding justification and sanctification together, so crucial to Calvin, became purely formal.”3 The specific nature of Evans’ contention is that when Calvin formulated his doctrines of union, justification, and sanctification, he insisted that personal communion with Christ was necessary to receive the benefits of redemption. Though, according to Evans, Calvin never explained how the forensic and realistic categories of union related to one another.4 Even though Calvin supposedly never explained how the benefits of redemption related to one another, one thing Evans does maintain is that the Genevan never argued that the Christian was justified merely “on the basis of ” the work of Christ in an abstract manner; rather, justification concretely rests in Christ and the only way a person can obtain this benefit is through personal union with him.5 There are three main points that characterize Evans’ critique of the soteriology of Reformed Orthodoxy. First, the introduction of the ordo salutis (or sequence) compromises Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ. Second, Reformed Orthodox theologians in effect do not have a doctrine of union with Christ but instead talk about separate and abstract benefits of the work of Christ, justification and sanctification. Third, the ordo salutis turns the benefits of redemption previously united in Christ into a series of disconnected steps: “On Calvin’s view, salvation is an organic unity communicated in toto through spiritual union with Chirst. 3 William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation: Union with Christ in American Reformed Theology, 2008), 54–55. 4 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 56. 5 Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 57.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

320

Francis Turretin

On the ordo salutis model, however, salvation is bestowed through a series of successive and discrete acts.”6 This chapter disproves Evans’ argument by demonstrating that Reformed Orthodox theologian, primarily Turretin in this chapter, does not fit the paradigm. This chapter proves that Reformed Orthodox theologians, such as Turretin, do hold to a doctrine of union with Christ, and that their doctrine of union is compatible with the ordo salutis (or sequence), properly understood. Additionally, we will see that Turretin does argue, as does Calvin, that one cannot receive the benefits of redemption apart from personal union with Christ. However, this does not mean that Turretin believes that the benefits of union with Christ have no prioritization or order. Rather, Turretin argues that justification takes priority over sanctification. In other words, a person can say, “I am sanctified because I am justified, but I am not justified because I am sanctified.” Such a statement seeks to preserve the legal ground of justification, the righteousness of Christ alone. This chapter will proceed first by noting some methodological issues in Evans’ arguments and then exposit Turretin’s understanding of union with Christ, justification, and sanctification.

17.2 Methodological issues 17.2.1 Calvin vs. the Calvinists redivivus One of the first things that must be addressed are matters of methodology. The first such issue involves Evans’ placement of Calvin within the broader Reformed tradition. One of the chief contentions in Evans’ study is that he is tracing trajectories of thought. In other words, Evans argues that his study is not one intended to pit Calvin against the Calvinists.7 Yet, despite such claims, Evans still presents the relationship between Calvin and Reformed Orthodoxy as Calvin vs. the Calvinists. Evans’ study, for example, does not begin with an exposition of the views of a number of Reformed figures but with the views of Calvin alone. He then immediately proceeds to an examination of Reformed Orthodoxy. The impression with which one is left is that Calvin is the paradigm and all subsequent formulations are judged according to this standard. There is little to no effort at situating the discussion in the broader context of the Reformation as a whole. 6 7

Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 81. Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 3.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Methodological issues



321

17.2.2 Absence of primary sources A second problem with Evans’ claims concerns his treatment of Reformed Orthodoxy on the questions under consideration. In chapter two of his study, “Reformed Orthodoxy and Union with Christ,” and in particular, the subsection on “Reformed Orthodoxy and the Ordo Salutis,” Evans makes a number of claims about the Reformed Orthodox understanding of union with Christ, justification, sanctification, and the ordo salutis. The problem is, the bulk of his claims are supported from secondary sources. In the key six-page section where Evans describes Reformed Orthodox views he does not cite a single primary source to corroborate his chief contentions about union with Christ. Rather, the closest thing to a primary source is reference to Heinrich Schmid’s Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, a compendium of primary source quotes.8 A third problem with Evans’ claims is that he does not examine a wideenough doctrinal cross-section to substantiate his thesis. For example, Evans does not consider the all-important doctrine of the pactum salutis. The pactum is a key doctrine vis-à-vis union with Christ and justification.

17.2.3 Moving forward For these three reasons, this chapter will proceed in the following manner. First, Calvin’s views will not be examined, as no Reformed Orthodox theologian was bound to Calvin’s understanding. This is not to concede that Evans has properly interpreted Calvin but rather to reject his methodology. The views of Turretin have as much historical right to the adjective Reformed as those as Calvin.9 Second, this chapter will establish the views of one Reformed Orthodox theologian from primary sources, not secondary source analysis. And third, this chapter begins with Turretin’s doctrine of the pactum and then examine his doctrines of justification and sanctification and how they relate to his doctrine of union with Christ. One key question will be addressed as well, namely the question of whether Turretin’s doctrine of the pactum necessarily leads him to affirm a doctrine of eternal justification. The chapter will then close with some general observations about Turretin’s doctrines of union, justification, and sanctification.

Evans, Imputation and Impartation, 55 nn. 43–44. See, e.g., Willem J. van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011) 8, 200–01. 8 9

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

322

Francis Turretin

17.3 The pactum salutis 17.3.1 Election In order to understand Turretin’s doctrine of union with Christ and the relationships between union, justification, and sanctification, one should begin by examining what Turretin has to say on the doctrine of election. Going back to the earliest days of the Reformation, for example with the theology of first generation Reformer Heinrich Bullinger, Reformed theologians were accustomed to arguing that believers were predestined “in Christ.”10 Constituting the believer in Christ before the foundation of the world is the first instance where the believer is in some sense united to Christ. Turretin certainly follows this pattern but with a twist. That is, Turretin affirms the election of the believer in Christ, but does so in conjunction with the affirmation of the pactum salutis, or the pre-temporal covenantal agreement among the members of the trinity to redeem fallen sinners.11 Some have argued that the development of the doctrine of the pactum salutis is a novel innovation in the theology of High Orthodox Reformed scholasticism but others, such as Muller, rightly argue that pactum arose organically from the gradual sharpening of exegesis and refinement of theological expression from the patristic period.12 Questions regarding the origins of the pactum aside, it is necessary to understand how Turretin employs the concept in relation to the doctrines of union with Christ, justification, and sanctification.

See Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, 2 vol. (1849–52; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 4.4 (3.186); cf. Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986). 11 For an explicit confessional expressions of the pactum salutis, see Martin I. Klauber, “The Helvetic Formula Consensus (1675): An Introduction and Translation,” TrinJ 11 (1990), 103–23, canon. 4. Another instance exists in the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order: The Confession of Faith of the Congregational-Independents (1658) (London: Evangelical Press, 1971), 8.1; cf. similar statements in the Canons of Dordt (1618–19), “The First Main Point of Doctrine Concerning Divine Predestination,” art. 7, in Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss, ed., Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 3 vol. (Yale: Yale UP, 2003), 2.572. 12 Richard A. Muller, “Towards the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept,” MAJT 18(2007): 11–65. For expositions of the pactum see, e.g., Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, 2 vol., trans. William Crookshank (1822; Escondido: The den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990), 2.2.1–16; Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, Or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (1655; New Lenox: Puritan Publications, 2005), §§ 34–37 (pp. 413–74); Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant Opened; or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Redemption Between God and Christ, as the Foundation to the Covenant of Grace (London: 1677). 10

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The pactum salutis



323

17.3.2 Covenant Contrary to the criticisms of some that the pactum salutis is a sub-trinitarian or tritheistic doctrine because it supposedly only involves a covenant between the Father and the Son, Turretin argues that redemption is the common and undivided work of the whole trinity.13 However, though redemption is the undivided work of the whole trinity, this does not mean that each person of the godhead has the same role in the economy of redemption. As it pertains specifically to the pactum, Turretin argues that the covenant between the Father and the Son involves the Father identifying his Son as redeemer and head of his mystical body. Correlatively, the Son willingly takes upon himself the role as sponsio, or covenant surety—that the Son would redeem the members of his body.14 For Turretin, the core element of the covenant between the Father and the Son is the Son’s obedience: For thus the Scriptures represent to us the Father in the economy of salvation as stipulating the obedience of his Son even unto death, and for it promising in return a name above every name that he might be the head of the elect in glory; the Son as offering himself to do the Father’s will, promising a faithful and constant performance of the duty required of him and restipulating the kingdom and glory promised to him.15

Turretin invokes a number of scriptural passages in support of his contention, and chief among them is Luke 22.29: κἀγὼ διατίθεμαι ὑμ ν καθὼς διέθετό μοι ὁ πατήρ μου βασιλείαν (“And I covenant to you a kingdom just as my Father covenanted to me”). Another key text for Turretin is John 17.4: “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.”16 There are two important consequent results concerning the means by which the triune God executes the redemption of those who are united to Christ in the decree of election. First the triune God agrees to enter into a covenant with fallen man, the covenant of grace, which is contrasted with the covenant originally entered into with man at the creation, the covenant of works. In the covenant of works man Turretin, Institutes, 12.2.7; cf. Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology In Historical Context (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2010), 236–37. 14 Turretin, Institutes, 12.2.13. Note all original language quotations from Turretin’s Institutes come from idem, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, 3 vol. (Edinburgh: John D. Lowe, 1847). Cf. DGLTT, q. v. sponsio. 15 Turretin, Institutes, 12.2.13. 16 Turretin, Institutes, 12.2.13. 13

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

324

Francis Turretin

was required to perform perfect obedience in order to secure the blessing of an indefectible eschatological state; given that man would fall from his initial created state, this necessitated a second covenant, a covenant of grace. In the covenant of grace, Turretin argues that Christ is the foundation.17 More specifically, the covenant of grace is entered “in Christ” (note the union language), and this covenant is between God, who is the one offended because of man’s breach of the covenant of works, and the offending sinner. In this covenant, God promises to fallen man the forgiveness of his sins on account of Christ (propter Christum) and in reliance upon the divine grace of this covenant man promises faith and obedience.18 In a sermon on Psalm 33.12, Turretin expresses these truths in the following manner: I mean to highlight for us the covenant of grace which God from the beginning willed to contract with his Church in his Son, to deliver her from her misery and to raise her to the possession of eternal bliss. Having then entered into a holy confederation with his faithful, in place of the sad separation which sin had made between him and them, he willed to unite them to himself and to give himself to them, not only in the position of Creator as in nature, or of Legislator as under the law, but as Redeemer and Father, that after he had delivered them from their sin and misery, he would not forbear to bring them to the enjoyment of his glory.19

Important to note at this point is that union with Christ is cast in terms of a covenant bond between God and Christ as the one to whom sinners have been united.

Turretin, Institutes, 12.2.4. Turretin, Institutes, 12.2.5. 19 Quotations from this sermon are taken from Francis Turretin, “The Happiness of the People of God or A Sermon on Psalm 33 verse 12,” trans. and ed. Riley Fraas, International Center for Reformation of Faith and Life; idem, Sermons sur Divers Passages de l’Ecriture Sainte par Francois Turrettin Ministre de Saint Evangile et Professeur en Theologie (Geneve: 1676), 12: “Je veux dire pour nous marquer l’Alliance de la Grace, quo Die a voulu contracter dez le commencment avec son Eglise en son Fils, pour la delivrer sa misere, et pour l’élever à la possession de l’éternelle felicité. Car c’est alors qu’étant entré dans une sainte confederation avec ses fideles, au lieu de la triste separation que le peché avoit fait entre luy et nous, il les a voulu unir a soy meme, et se donner à eux, non pas seulement en qualité de Createur, comme dans la Nature, ou de Legislateur, comme sous la Loy; mais de Redempteur et de Pere, qui après les avoir delivrez de leurs pechez, et de leurs miseres, ne manuera pas de les amener à la jouïssance de sa glorie. 17 18

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The pactum salutis



325

17.3.3 Incarational union But second, there is another needed element to bring about the execution of the pactum salutis, namely the incarnation. It was necessary, argues Turretin, for Christ to be willing to take upon himself a human nature in order to accomplish redemption.20 For Turretin, not only is there a union posited between the believer and Christ in terms both of the pactum and the covenant of grace (an outworking of the pactum) but there is also a generic union between Christ and all mankind in Christ’s assumption of a human nature. In terms of the execution of redemption, Turretin carefully stipulates that there is a twofold union, one natural and the other mystical. According the Turretin the natural union that Christ shares with mankind is the communion of nature; in other words, there is a sense in which Christ is united to all people by virtue of a commonly shared human nature.21 Turretin in no way advocates anything unique, as this natural union was something that other Reformed theologians embraced, including Calvin, Vermigli, and Zanchi.22 The mystical union, on the other hand, is “the communion of grace by mediation.” By virtue of the fact that Christ was constituted covenant surety on behalf of those united to him, the mystical union is the means by which he communicates his righteousness and all his benefits to them.23

17.3.4 Christ as covenant surety Key to comprehending the nature of Christ’s mediatorial work is recognizing what it means for him to be constituted as surety (sponsio) and head of the elect within the terms of the pactum salutis. As covenant surety, Christ is responsible to take away the guilt of sin by making payment for it on behalf of the elect; as Turretin, Institutes, 12.2.15. Turretin, Institutes, 16.3.5. 22 See Peter Martyr Vermigli, “Vermigli to Beza,” in Common Places, trans. Anthony Marten (London: 1583), 105–06; idem, Loci Communes (London: 1583), 1108. Note, a modern translation of this letter also appears in idem, Life, Letters, and Sermons, The Peter Martyr Library, vol. 5, trans. and ed., John Patrick Donnelly (Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson UP, 1999), 134–37. See also idem, “Martyr to Calvin,” in Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears During the Time of the Reformation in England and the Times Immediately Succeeding: 1533–88, ed. and trans. George C. Gorham (London: Bell and Daldy, 1857), 342. This letter is found in Vermigli’s Loci Communes, 1094–96. Girolamo Zanchi, De religione Christiana Fides – Confession of Christian Religion, 2 vol., ed. Luca Baschera / Christian Moser (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 12.4 (1.232–33). 23 Turretin, Institutes, 16.3.5. 20 21

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

326

Francis Turretin

head of the elect he takes away the power and corruption of sin by the efficacy of the Spirit. How does Christ accomplish this twofold work? Turretin argues that the removal of the guilt of sin occurs through the justification of the elect, and the removal of the power and corruption of sin is the principle of sanctification. Important to note, as this is something that will be examined in greater detail below, is that for Turretin, God justifies the sinner because of the righteousness of the surety, Jesus Christ, and the imputation of that righteousness to the sinner, not because of any inherent or infused righteousness within the sinner: “For on this account, God justifies us because the righteousness of our surety, Christ, is imputed to us. And on this account we are renewed because we derive the Spirit from our head, Christ, who renews us after the image of Christ and bestows upon us inherent righteousness.”24 In other words, for Turretin, the forensic dimension of Christ’s work on behalf of the elect sinner is the foundation of the transformative work of Christ; the headship of Christ is construed in a covenantal fashion and rests upon his role as covenant surety. There is one last item to note regarding the pactum and what Christ accomplishes as covenant surety. As covenant surety, Turretin explains that Christ accomplishes the removal of the guilt of sin, but beyond this, Turretin also believes that Christ secures the right to eternal life on behalf of those united to him both mystically and covenantally: Christ having been destined and given of God to us as a surety and head, in virtue of this union it happens that whatever was done by him (or endured for the perfect fulfillment of the law as to its precepts as well as to its penal sanction) is reckoned ours, as done in our place, and is imputed to us by God as if it had been performed by ourselves. From this imputation of his most perfect righteousness flow two benefits—both remission of sins and the bestowal of a right to life or adoption (in which two the whole of justification is contained.25

According to the terms of the pactum, Christ not only secures the removal of sin, but also the right to eternal life, which as we will see below is why Turretin argues that adoption is not a separate benefit but part of one’s justification.

24 25

Turretin, Institutes, 16.3.5. Turretin, Institutes, 16.4.5.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The context of union with Christ



327

17.3.5 Summary At this point Turretin advocates a threefold union within the context of the pactum salutis: the covenantal appointment of Christ as surety and head of his mystical body, which may be termed a predestinarian union; the natural union that exists between Christ and all people by virtue of the incarnation; and the mystical union between Christ and his body by which all of the benefits of redemption are conveyed to elect sinners.

17.4 Justification in the context of union with Christ When we turn to examine what Turretin has to say about justification, one should not lose sight of what Turretin has argued regarding the pactum and that the mystical union between Christ and the believer finds its genesis in the pactum. This is an important element to factor especially when one considers the application of redemption and the relationship between justification and sanctification. Contrary to the assertions of some, such as Evans, Turretin does not conceive of two separate unions, one forensic, and the other transformative, the results of a bi-polar covenant theology. Rather, the benefits of redemption are situated in Christ in the pactum, but this does not therefore mean that the benefits of justification and sanctification are indistinguishable.

17.4.1 Effectual calling True to his stated position regarding the nature of the pactum, Turretin argues that in a person’s effectual calling, the alpha point of the application of redemption, his sin-condemned state in Adam ends and he is united to Christ and receives the salvation that can only be found in him.26 The state terminus a quo (“from which”) a person is delivered in his effectual calling is one of sin, condemnation, and darkness. The state terminus ad quem (“to which”) a person is brought is union with Christ, holiness, light, the kingdom of God, eternal glory in Christ, and eternal life.27 However, though the person is immediately united to Christ in his effectual calling, this does not mean that 26 27

Turretin, Institutes, 15.1.2. Turretin, Institutes, 15.1.2.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

328

Francis Turretin

calling is divorced from the other necessary benefits of redemption or that Turretin does not assign a theological priority to those variegated benefits. Turretin stipulates, for example, that the first effect of effectual calling is faith in Christ alone, as faith is the means by which the believer apprehends Christ and through which Christ indwells the believer. Turretin writes that faith is the “bond of our union with Christ” and is the “condition of the covenant of grace under which salvation is promised to us, the fruit of election (Tit 1.1), the instrument of justification (Rom 5.1), the principle of sanctification (Acts 15.9) and the infallible means of salvation (Jn 3.16).”28 And in conformity with the typical Reformed definition of faith, Turretin argues that faith consists of notitia, assensus, and fiduca.29

17.4.2 Justification From here Turretin goes on to discuss the next element of the catena salutis (“chain of salvation”), which is justification.30 Turretin appeals to the maxim popularly but erroneously attributed to Martin Luther that justification is article by which the church stands or falls and that if justification is “adulterated or subverted, it is impossible to retain purity of doctrine in other places.”31 In line with previous Reformed explanations of justification, Turretin argues that it is a forensic law-court term employed by the Old Testament in legal settings.32 However, Turretin readily acknowledges that even Roman Catholic theologians, such as Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), have recognized that iustificare (“to justify”) or iustificatio (“justification”) are forensic terms in some contexts. The specific issue of debate between the Reformed, represented by Turretin, and Roman Catholics, represented by Bellarmine, is that whether in the context of the doctrine of justification the term denotes a legal declaration or the physical transformation; Aquinas, for example, argues for the latter position.33 Turretin, Institutes, 15.7.2. Turretin, Institutes, 15.7.4, also 15.8.3. 30 Turretin, Institutes, 16.1.1. 31 Turretin, Institutes, 16.1.1. The specific phrase actually originated with Early Orthodox Reformed theologian Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588–1638), though similar words do occur in Luther’s writings (see Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Third Ed. [1986; Cambridge: CUP, 2005], vii n. 1). 32 Turretin, Institutes, 16.1.4. 33 Turretin, Institutes, 16.1.5; cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Allen: Christian Classics, 1948), Ia IIae q. 113 art. 1. 28 29

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The context of union with Christ



329

Theologically, the consequence of properly defining the term entails the preservation of the forensic nature of justification; in other words, in Turretin’s judgment, if the forensic nature of the term is lost, then justification and sanctification are confused.34 Why is the preservation of the forensic nature of justification so important? According to Turretin, Scripture identifies the merit (or obedience) of Christ as the “meritorious and instrumental cause of our absolution with God.” Turretin refers to Isa 53.11 in support of his contention, a text that he also cites in support of the pactum salutis.35 In other words, the legal declaration that a person is righteous has one of two foundations, the declaration is based either upon the righteousness of Christ or that of the believer; these two options are mutually exclusive. Under the stipulations of the covenant of works, man was supposed to render his perfect obedience to God and thereby be declared righteous on the basis of his own obedience. Turretin locates the works principle in the aphorism of Lev 18.5, “Do this and live.” But when man fell, he rendered himself incapable of offering the perfect obedience that the law demands and therefore the covenant of grace holds out the justification of the sinner through faith in Christ and the reception of his imputed righteousness.36 Christ is the foundation of the covenant of grace, as it is his merit that secures a person’s just status in the presence of God.37

17.4.3 Adoption Turretin believes that justification therefore secures a person’s right to eternal life and hence he includes the benefit of adoption under the rubric of justification. Turretin argues that two benefits flow from the imputation of Christ’s righteousness: the remission of sins and the bestowal of a right to eternal life, or the believer’s adoption.38 There is a direct link between imputation and securing eternal life. This construct is different than Roman Catholic soteriology where eternal life, and ultimately salvation, hinges upon a person’s sanctification. Turretin rigorously guards the role of the imputed righteousness of Christ in justification and adoption by employing some distinctions; he maintains that a person’s justification is objectively extrinsic, as the imputation of righteousness is formally external to a person. But on the other hand, Turretin also maintains Turretin, Institutes, 16.1.8. Turretin, Institutes, 16.1.10. 36 Turretin, Institutes, 16.2.2. 37 Turretin, Institutes, 12.2.4. 38 Turretin, Institutes, 16.4.5. 34 35

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

330

Francis Turretin

that the imputed righteousness of Christ terminatively belongs to the believer. That is, just as our sins become Christ’s through imputation, so his righteousness becomes ours.39

17.4.5 Union and forensic justification At this point one might conclude that Turretin posits two separate unions, one forensic and the other transformative, as Evans for example, maintains. This, however, is a hasty conclusion. Turretin carefully stipulates that all of the benefits of salvation flow from the believer’s union with Christ. Turretin maintains that adoption should not be confounded with union, but that union is the cause and foundation of all of Christ’s benefits: justification, sanctification, and glory. In fact, Turretin argues that adoption stands related to union with Christ as an effect to its cause. But just because Turretin places all of the benefits of redemption within mystical union with Christ does not mean that those benefits are confused and confounded one with the other, the forensic with the transformative. Turretin explains that the righteousness of Christ becomes the believer’s possession in union with him through faith by imputation, that is, by a forensic, not a physical, action. In other words, justification does not lose its forensic character.40 On compromising the forensic nature of justification, Turretin writes: “Since justification is described in the Scriptures by remission of sins and the imputation of righteousness, it cannot be called a motion from sin to righteousness, such as occurs in illumination and calefaction. And this is the fundamental error of our opponents, who convert a forensic and judicial action (which takes place before God) into a physical or moral action (which takes place in us).”41

17.4.6 Six ways Turretin prioritizes justification Turretin carefully guards the forensic character of justification but also gives it priority over sanctification to ensure that merit of Christ is given its proper function in his doctrine of salvation. Turretin accomplishes this in a number of ways. First, Turretin protects the priority of divine over human agency in salvation. He insists that the covenant of grace requires the response of man Turretin, Institutes, 16.4.29. Turretin, Institutes, 16.6.8. 41 Turretin, Institutes, 16.2.24. 39 40

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The context of union with Christ



331

with faith and obedience, but nevertheless indicates that faith is the effect of effectual calling.42 In other words, apart from the antecedent work of the Spirit in regeneration and the gift of faith, man is incapable of responding to the call of the gospel. Second, when Turretin answers the challenging question of the relationship between James and Paul and the adjective sola in sola fide, he explains that when James writes that faith without works is dead that the apostle does not indicate that the causality of works lies a priori to faith but rather a posteriori; that is, works are declarative, not constitutive, of a living faith.43 In this regard, when it comes to the law and gospel, one does the law and believes the gospel. That is, in a person’s justification, faith and works are mutually exclusive. For Turretin, works are the consequent fruit of faith.44 One of the issues that lie behind Turretin’s position is the historic rejection of the Roman Catholic understanding that fides formata charitate.45 Turretin dismisses the accusation that Reformed theologians reject the idea of the infusion of inherent righteousness; on the contrary, he believes that believers partake of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1.4) through their union with Christ and receive the infusion of inherent righteousness and obtain a true and real holiness. The specific question, however, is not whether believers receive infused holiness but whether that inherent righteousness is factored in their justification. Turretin denies that inherent righteousness, that is sanctification, is in any way a meritorious cause or foundation of the divine sentence of absolution and right to eternal life.46 A third way Turretin expresses the priority of justification over sanctification is by stating: “Works of believers are effects which follow justification, not the causes which precede it.”47 Elsewhere Turretin writes: “For although he that is justified does not remain wicked, but is renewed by the grace of Christ, he cannot be said to be justified by that renovation (which is the effect following justification, not the cause which precedes it.”48 A fourth way Turretin gives priority to justification over sanctification is by recognizing the imperfect nature of the believer’s sanctification and the perfect nature of his justification.49 Turretin, Institutes, 12.2.5; 15.7.1. Turretin, Institutes, 15.13.4; cf. 16.2.2. cf. idem, “De Concordia Pauli et Jacob in Articulo Justifications,” in Francisci Turrettini Opera: Disputationes, vol. 4 (New York: Robert Carter, 1848), 731–52. 44 Turretin, Institutes, 15.14.6. 45 Turretin, Institutes, 15.13.1–3; cf. Peter Lombard, The Sentences, 4 vol., trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007–10), 3.23.3. 46 Turretin, Institutes, 16.2.4. 47 Turretin, Institutes, 16.2.12. 48 Turretin, Institutes, 16.3.20. 49 Turretin, Institutes, 16.5.5. 42

43

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

332

Francis Turretin

One of the ways Turretin supports this claim is by appeal to Roman Catholic theologian Gasparo Contarini (1483–1542). Contarini holds that believers reach a twofold righteousness by faith: one inherent in the believer through participation in the divine nature and another through imputation, which is received “since we are planted in Christ and put on Christ.” But Turretin zeroes in on Contarini because the Roman Catholic theologian locates the specific question, namely, On what basis is a person justified before God, that is reckoned holy and righteous? Contarini writes: I truly think it to be said piously and religiously that we ought to rest as upon a stable thing, which can certainly sustain us, upon the righteousness of Christ bestowed upon us, and not upon the holiness and grace inherent in us. For this our righteousness is inchoate and imperfect which cannot keep us from offending and from constantly sinning in many things. Therefore we cannot in the sight of God on account of this our righteousness be esteemed righteous and good, as it becomes the sons of God to be good and holy. But the righteousness of Christ given to us is a true and perfect righteousness. It is altogether pleasing in the sight of God. In it there is nothing that offends him; that does not in the highest degree please him. We must therefore rest upon this alone (sure and stable) and on account of it alone we must believe that we are justified before God, that is, considered righteous and called righteous.50

Note that Contarini locates both inherent and imputed righteousness in union with Christ, but he, like Turretin, distinguishes between legal and physical categories. And Contarini also locates the ground of the believer’s justification upon Christ’s imputed righteousness. A fifth way that Turretin prioritizes justification over sanctification is by arguing that imputation is the lens through which the believer’s good works are always beheld. Turretin explains, for example, that a believer’s good works are truly good because “the person is rather pleasing to God and is reconciled

50 Turretin, Institutes, 16.2.18. Turretin cites Gasparo Contarini, “De Justificatione,” in Casparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera (Paris: 1571), 592: “Ego prorsus existimo pie et christiane dici, quod debeamus niti, niti inquam tanquam re stabili; quae certo nos sustentat, iustitia Christi nobis donata, non autem sanctitate et gratia nobis inhaerente. Haec etenim nostra iustitia est inchoata et imperfecta, quae tuer nos non potest, quin in multis offendamus, quin affidue peccemus, ac propterea indigeamus oratione, qua quotidie petamus dimitti nobis debita nostra. Iccirco in conspectum Deu non possumus ob hanc iustitiam nostram haberis iusti et boni, quemadmodum deceret fios Dei esse bonos et sanctos, sed iustitia Christi nobis donata est vera et perfecta iustitia, que omnino placet oculis Dei, in qua nihil est quod Deu offendat, quod Deo non summopere placeat. Hac ergo sola certa, et stabili nobis nitendum est, et ob eam solam credere, nos iustificari coram Deo, id is, iustos haberi et dici iustos.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

The pactum salutis



333

to him by the Mediator.”51 In other words, a person’s union with Christ is what makes him and his works acceptable to God. However, more specifically, Turretin states that a believer’s works are considered worthy and acceptable before God not because of their own internal worth but because of the divine estimation of them. They are deemed worthy “by reason of the white robe of Christ’s righteousness, with which they are clad (Gal. 3.27), and of the divine adoption, not by reason of inherent righteousness, which is perfect in no one in this life.”52 A sixth and final way that Turretin prioritizes justification over sanctification is in his rejection of the Roman Catholic double justification: an initial justification by faith and final justification by works. Turretin has in view the positions of Bellarmine and Aquinas, though if the surrounding context from Bellarmine is any indication, Turretin also has the Council of Trent (1543), session 6, chapter 7, in view as well.53 Turretin instead argues: “The sentence to be pronounced by the supreme Judge will not be so much a new justification, as the solemn and public declaration of a sentence once passed and its execution by the assignment of the life promised with respect to an innocent person from the preceding justification.”54 Turretin, therefore, maintains that justification is a single act and that its judicial ground is the imputed righteousness of Christ, not the believer’s works. If works are brought forward at the final judgment, Turretin stipulates: “They are not adduced as the foundation of a new justification to be obtained then, but as signs, marks, and effects of our true faith and of our justification solely by it.”55

Turretin, Institutes, 17.4.11. Turretin, Institutes, 17.5.28. 53 Turretin, Institutes, 16.1.5; cf. Robert Bellarmine, “Justificatione, Qui est de Fide Justificante,” in Opera Omnia, 6 vol. (Naples: Josephum Giuliano, 1856–62), 2.6 (4.516). Note, the Dennison edition fails to give this reference and the Edinburgh Latin edition gives an incorrect reference. Also see Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IaIIae q. 113 art 1; “Dogmatic Decrees of Trent,” sess. 6, chp. 7, in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss (Yale: Yale UP, 2003), 2.829–30. 54 Turretin, Institutes, 16.10.8 55 Turretin, Institutes, 16.10.8. 51 52

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

334

Francis Turretin

17.5 Sanctification 17.5.1 Inseparability of justification and sanctification At this point some might think that Turretin over emphasizes justification to the exclusion of sanctification given the priority he assigns the former over the latter. Turretin does not over emphasize justification and does have a proper emphasis upon sanctification. There are a number of indicators to this effect such as in Turretin’s repeated emphasis upon the inseparability of justification and sanctification.56 Not only does he affirm the inseparability of these two chief benefits but he reiterates that both are part of the believer’s union with Christ: “As Christ was made to us of God righteousness and sanctification (1 Cor. 1.30)—not dividedly, but conjointly; not confusedly, but distinctly—so the benefit of sanctification immediately follows justification as inseparably connected with it, but yet really distinct from it.”57 The inseparability of the benefits of union come to the fore in Turretin’s preaching. Again, quoting from a sermon on Psa 33.12, Turretin states: There is nothing in God which is not ours. Everything that he is in his nature and in his incomprehensible attributes belongs to us. We enjoy all his goods, and he does not make use of any wonder in nature or in grace which does not contribute to our happiness. And if you want to consider what you have just heard more distinctly, reflect on these three incomparable advantages which are here presented to us, union with God, the communion of his graces, and conformity to his character. For if he is our God we must not doubt that he wishes to unite himself to us, to make us take part in all of his graces, and to make us conformable to himself. I say first of all that this promise necessarily includes our union and our reconciliation with God.58

Turretin, Institutes, 16.2.13; 16.3.9, 20; 17.1.1, 11, 15. Turretin, Institutes, 17.1.1. 58 Turretin, Sermons, 13: “Il n’y a rien en Dieu qui ne soit à nous; tout ce qu’il est dans sa nature et dans ses incomprehensibles vertus nous appartient; nous jouïssons de tous ses biens; et il ne dèploye aucune merveille dans la nature, ou dans la grace, qui ne contribuë à nôtre Bonheur. Et si vous voulez en considerer plus distinctement l’étenduë, faites reflexion sur ces trios incomparables avantages, qui nous y sont representez, l’Union avec Dieu, la Communion à ses graces, et la Conformitè à ses vertus; Car s’il est nôtre Dieu, nous ne devons pas douter qu’il ne veuille s’unir à nous, pour nous faire part de toutes ses graces, et pour nous render semblables à luy. Le dis premieremet que cette promesse emporte necessairement nôtre Union et nôtre reconciliation avec Dieu.” 56 57

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Sanctification



335

Turretin links both benefits to union with Christ but in his Institutes he especially labors the point that though justification and sanctification are distinct, they should not be separated. In other words, contra Evans, Turretin can and does affirm both union with Christ and the ordo salutis (or sequence).

17.5.2 The unbreakable chain Another way that Turretin emphasizes the necessity of sanctification is the unbreakable nature of the ordo salutis, or catena salutis. Turretin explains that though the apostle Paul does not specifically mention sanctification in the catena salutis, that sanctification should not be included under justification. Rather, he argues that it should either be included under effectual calling, which he notes is technically the alpha-point of a person’s sanctification, or under glorification, which is the omega-point of a person’s sanctification.59 One should note here that Turretin is willing to acknowledge that there is a sense in which sanctification precedes justification vis-à-vis effectual calling. However, this does not contradict the fact that Turretin subordinates sanctification (as it pertains to a person’s works) to justification. This point is especially evident when in his locus on sanctification Turretin characterizes the relationship between justification and sanctification as “the means to an end.”60

17.5.3 Necessity of good works Beyond these arguments Turretin offers another way by which he discusses the necessity of sanctification and good works in the believer. Turretin affirms the proposition that good works are necessary for salvation; note Turretin does not affirm that works are necessary for one’s justification. Turretin carefully dissects the manner in which good works are necessary for salvation. He notes that they are not necessary out of a need of personal merit or causality or efficiency, that is, that the believer’s good works somehow effect salvation or secure the right to salvation. To affirm these points would contradict what he has already affirmed about the work of Christ as the sole sufficient ground of a person’s justification and adoption (or right to eternal life). Instead, works are necessary to salvation as “the necessity of means, of presence and of connection 59 60

Turretin, Institutes, 17.1.11. Turretin, Institutes, 17.2.19

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

336

Francis Turretin

or order.” Or another way to state this is works are “required as the means and way” of possessing salvation. One way to illustrate this point is the road upon which a traveler must walk in order to arrive at his destination. The road is a necessary means and way by which the goal is achieved. The necessity of means is in contrast to the necessity of precept, that is, a quid pro quo of obedience to a command to secure a reward.61 Turretin goes on to explain this point in much greater detail when he explains the way in which works relate to justification, sanctification, and glorification. Regarding justification, good works do not relate to it antecedently, efficiently, or meritoriously. Denying these roles to works in justification protects sola fide and solus Christus. Instead, good works are related to justification consequently and declaratively. Good works are related to sanctification constitutively, because they are the substance of sanctification—a person is supposed to produce them. Lastly, good works are related to glorification antecedently and ordinatively because they are the means to an end.62

17.6 Justification from eternity? One question that likely surfaces is, Are Turretin’s views on justification driven by his doctrine of the pactum salutis? In other words, does the fact that Turretin locates the double-imputation of sin and righteousness in the eternal covenant of redemption render the believer justified before he even believes? To be sure, there were those during Turretin’s day that held precisely to such a view. For all intents and purposes, because sinners had been justified according to the terms of the pactum, they were in foro Dei (“the court of God”) justified. But in foro conscientiae (“the court of conscience”), believers were not yet justified. When the believer exercised faith, he was not justified at that moment, rather he discovered for the first time that he was already justified.63 In more techni61 Turretin, Institutes, 17.3.3. Cf. Stephen Hampton, Anti-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I (Oxford: OUP, 2008), 95 n. 103, 124–25 nn. 241–42; Beach, Christ and the Covenant, 189. 62 Turretin, Institutes, 17.3.14. 63 Perhaps one of the better-known advocates of eternal justification was English theologian Tobias Crisp, whom Curt Daniels identifies as the one who popularized the in foro Dei / conscientiae distinction (Curt Daniels, “Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill,” [Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983], 309). Cf. Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, vol. 1 (London: John Bennett, 1832), 323–24. This distinction was employed by others, such as William Pemble (1591–1623), Vindiciae Gratiae A Plea for Grace More Especially the Grace of Faith, 2nd ed. (London: 1629), 21–22; cf. Hans Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of justification in its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2004), 71–72.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Justification from eternity?

337

cal terminology, for some theologians justification was not a transient but an immanent trinitarian act.64

17.6.1 The decree Turretin acknowledges that opinions on this subject do vary, though he does not specifically identify anyone by name.65 Nevertheless he rejects the idea that believers are justified from eternity. Turretin readily admits that the sinner’s 64 Richard Baxter identifies justification as an immanent act of the Trinity as a pillar of antinomianism (see Confession of His Faith [London: 1654], 151–52). But like Turretin, Baxter does not in this work identify a specific proponent of the position. 65 There are a number of possibilities, such as William Twisse (1578–1646), the moderator of the Westminster Assembly, who argued for a form of eternal justification. Turretin does briefly and critically mention Twisse in his discussion on the nature of vindicative justice and the nature of God (Institutes, 3.19.9). Moreover, Baxter notes that Twisse was questioned by the Westminster Assembly regarding his views on eternal justification (Boersma, Hot Pepper Corn, 80). For Twisse’s views on justification from eternity, e.g., see William Twisee, Vindicia Gratiae Potestatis ac Providentiae Dei (Amsterdam, John Jansonius, 1632), 1.2.25 (p. 197). Within the context of the middle late seventeenth century, Baxter accused John Owen of holding to a form of eternal justification, and hence antinomian view. For analysis of the issues, see Carl R. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 113–118 cf. idem, The Claims of Truth, 207–09. Other possible candidates are those mentioned by eighteenth-century Particular Baptist theologian, John Gill (1697–1771). Gill, for example, did hold to eternal justification and the idea that justification is an immanent act of the Trinity (John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity (1839; Paris: The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc., 2007), 2.5 (pp. 201–09). In fact, Gill specifically engages Turretin’s objections on this point (Body of Divinity, 2.5 [pp. 206–09]). However, Gill mentions several others that purportedly support his view, including Thomas Goodwin, William Ames, Herman Witsius, and Johannes Maccovius. Gill is correct in one sense, as Ames, for example, places justification in the divine decree: “This judgment [adoption] progresses in the same steps as justification. It was first in God’s predestination . . . Afterward it was in Christ . . . And then it was in the faithful themselves” (William Ames, The Marrow of Theology ed. John D. Eusden [1968; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997], 1.28.3). However, at the same time, Ames argues that a person is not justified until he exercises faith (Marrow of Theology, 1.27.16–17). A similar pattern unfolds in the views of Goodwin, as he embraces the tria momenta (“three moments”) of justification like Ames (Thomas Goodwin, Justifying Faith, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, vol. 8 [1863; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985], 134–39). However, recent analysis has challenged the commonly held assumption that Goodwin embraced eternal justification in an unqualified manner (Mark Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of the Puritan Reformed Orthodox theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600–80) [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010], 232–38; cf. Trueman, Claims of Truth, 28). Others, such as Maccovius, though identified as one who held to eternal justification, nevertheless expressly embraces the distinction between justification and its decree in eternity: “Certe, si Christus, quatenus ille Mediator est, et quatenus causa meritoria, justifications solus author est, ab aeterno no fuit, sed ut effet popositum: pariratione, non eramus justificati ab aeterno, etiamsi decretum fuisset apud Deum ab aeterno, de nobis iustificandis in tempore” (Johannes Maccovius, Loci Communes [Franequerae: 1650], 676). The same distinction appears in Edward Fisher’s The Marrow of Modern Divinity. Fisher writes, “In respect of God’s decree, he was justified from eternity; and he was justified meritoriously in the death and resurrection of Christ; but yet he was not justified actually, till he did actually believe in Christ . . .

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

338

Francis Turretin

justification is decreed from eternity, but this does not mean that justification is therefore eternal. There is a distinction between the decree and the execution of the decree; to decree to justify a person is one thing and to justify a person is another.66 Turretin makes this type of point in his sermon on Psa 33.12: For God choose his people in these two ways: by his election of them from before all ages, and by the calling with which he visits them in time. One is the cause and the other is the effect. One marks the counsel of God and the other represents its execution. By that one he resolved to separate us from the world, and by the other he separates us in effect.67

Turretin also draws on several other important points to prove that justification is not eternal.

17.6.2 Execution of the decree First, he notes that when Paul gives the catena salutis, which elaborates the order of benefits that flow to the elect by the love of God, he notes that effectual calling occurs before a person’s justification. Turretin argues that Paul could not have placed these benefits in this order if justification was eternal given for neither does Christ justify without faith, neither does faith, except it be in Christ” (Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity [New York: Westminster Publishing House, n. d.], 156–57). Note, as in Ames and Goodwin, Fisher also employs the tria momenta structure of justification. 66 Turretin, Institutes, 16.9.3. On this point Turretin reflects the majority report within the Reformed tradition; see, e.g., J. H. Heidegger, Corpus Theologiae Christianae, 2 vol. (Zurich: J. H. Bodmer, 1732), 22.79 (2.303): “Neque illa proprie ab aeterno peragitur, quia Deus decretum justificandi aeternum non ante fidem exequitur, sed in tempore;” Petrus van Mastricht, Theoretico-practica theologia (Utrecht and Amsterdam, 1715), 6.6.18 (p. 707); Samuel Maresius, Collegium Theologicum sive Systema Breve Universae Theologiae, 6th ed. (Geneva: 1662), 11.58 (pp. 255–56). Leonard Riissen, Summa Theologiae Didactico-Elencticae (Berne: 1703), 14.9 (p. 474); Peter Bulkeley, The Gospel Covenant or The Covenant of Grace Opened (London: Matthew Simmons, 1651), 4.6 (pp. 358–59); Herman Witsius, Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions, trans. Thomas Bell (Glasgow: W. Lang, 1807), 5.4–5 (pp. 62–63); Savoy Declaration, 11.4: “God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit does in due time actually apply Christ unto them.” Cf. the Westminster Confession 11.4: “God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them” (Westminster Confession of Faith [1646; Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1995]). 67 Turretin, Sermons, 28: “Car c’est en ces deux manieres que Dieu choisit son people; par l’Election qu’il en fait dez devant les siecles; et par la Vocation qu’il leur adresse dans le tems; L’une est la cause, et l’autre l’effect; L’une marquee le conseil de Dieu, et l’autre nous represente son execution; Par celle-là il a resolu de nous separer du monde, et par celle-cy il nous en separe en effet.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Conclusion



339

that a person is effectually called in time.68 Second, justification involves being delivered from the obligation to punishment for one’s sins, and a person cannot be free from this obligation apart from faith and repentance. Hence, a person’s justification must wait until a person actually believes and repents. Turretin cites 1 John 3.14, 3.8, and Gal 5.21 to prove that the person who has not yet been converted still remains under a state of death, a child of wrath, and in a state of condemnation.69 Third, and finally, Turretin objects to the idea that justification is an immanent act of the trinity. Because justification is a blessing of God and is something that is passed on to the believer, it must be a transient act of the trinity, an act that occurs in time. Turretin again invokes the idea that though the grace of redemption is decreed from eternity, this does not mean that it is therefore bestowed upon sinners from eternity.70

17.7 Conclusion In this survey of Turretin’s doctrines of union with Christ, justification, and sanctification, the evidence demonstrates that Evans’ portrait of Reformed Orthodoxy, at least as it comes from Turretin, does not apply. Turretin clearly affirms the necessity of the believer’s mystical union with Christ in order to receive the benefits of redemption. However, he affirms the necessity of union with Christ but at the same time holds to the ordo salutis (or sequence), acknowledging that justification has theological priority over sanctification. One of the key elements often missing in the analysis of the doctrines of union with Christ and justification, something Evans fails to consider, is the doctrine of the pactum. In particular, not only is the pactum an important element to consider, but so is Christ’s role as covenant surety. As covenant surety, Turretin secures the foundation of justification and the right to eternal life (adoption) firmly upon the merit of Christ. He does not do this, though, apart from the importance and necessity of sanctification (good works). Rather, Turretin carefully stipulates the inseparability of justification and sanctification, as they both come through union with Christ. We will continue our exploration of Reformed Orthodoxy in the next chapter with the views of Herman Witsius.

Turretin, Institutes, 16.9.4. Turretin, Institutes, 16.9.5. 70 Turretin, Institutes, 16.9.6. 68 69

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

18. Herman Witsius

18.1 Introduction In the theological climate of the late seventeenth century Herman Witsius (1636–1708) stands out as a giant among his peers. He was well known for his irenic spirit as well as his theological acumen. His reputation alone merits the investigation of his understanding of the relationship between union with Christ and justification. Ordinarily, one might explore Witsius’s main works, his Economy of the Covenants and his exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, for example, and set forth his views on the subjects. On the other hand, it is in the midst of theological conflict where a theologian clarifies, elaborates, and sharpens his views. Such is the case with a little-known work written by Witsius in an effort to resolve a debate between reputed neonomians and antinomians in England.1 What makes Witsius’s work an excellent window into his own For the sake of this chapter, the terms neonomian and antinomian will be employed as they were used in the so-called antinomian debate. These terms are used in a historical-theological sense, not as they might be employed biblically or theologically. Generally, neonomians were perceived as those who compromised the doctrine of justification and antinomians were viewed as those who compromised the doctrine of sanctification. As a historical phenomenon, however, the two terms took on different meanings depending on who employed them. In the so-called antinomian debates, those labeled with this term called the debate the “neonomian controversy” (Tim Cooper, Fear and Polemic in SeventeenthCentury England: Richard Baxter and Antinomianism [Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001], 2–3). Given the broad employment of the term antinomian, the term became quite flexible and was used indiscriminately (Cooper, Fear and Polemic, 36). Nevertheless, within the late seventeenth century with respect to antinomianism, there were a number of established characteristics that appear in the works of those accused of antinomianism: “1. A prime evidence of justification is the testimony of the Holy Spirit and not sanctification. 2. Faith is not a condition of justification but a consequence. 3. The sinner cannot prepare for salvation by good works, etc. No conditions prepare the way. 4. Increated grace—Christ does not simply renew the created human faculties in conversion but he overrides them so that all is of Christ. 5. God does not see any sin in his justified children. 6. Christians can live in sin. 7. The law of God is not necessary in leading to conversion, nor for living after conversion” (Barry Howson, Erroneous and Schismatical Opinions: The Question of Orthodoxy Regarding the Theology of Hanserd Knowllys (c. 1599–1691) [Leiden: Brill, 2001], 114). For coverage of the antecedent antinomian controversies of the early seventeenth century see Dewey D. Wallace, Jr., Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English Protestant Theology, 1525–1695 (1982; Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2004), 113–57; Cooper, Fear and Polemic, passim; T. D. Bozeman, “The Glory of the ‘Third Time’: John Eaton as Contra-Puritan,” JEH 47/4 (1996): 638–54; Curt Daniel, “John Gill and Calvinistic Antinomianism,” in The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697–1771) A Tercentennial Appreciation, ed. Michael A. G. Haykin (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 171–90; Theodore Dwight Bozeman, The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion and Antinomian Backlash in 1

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Introduction

341

views on union with Christ and justification is that Witsius addresses many specific issues related to questions surrounding the priority of justification to sanctification. In other words, in what way does Witsius account for good works (sanctification) in relationship to justification and union with Christ? Another interesting dimension of Witsius’s work is that it is part of a broader theological discussion that involves a veritable who’s who of the late seventeenth century. Many well-known theologians of the period were involved in the antinomian controversy of the 1690s. These other participants not only give interesting texture to the contours of this debate, but they also provide foils against which to compare the views of Witsius—to set his views in the historical-theological context of the seventeenth century. To demonstrate the thesis that Witsius accords justification priority over sanctification in his soteriology (“I am sanctified because I am justified, but I am not justified because I am sanctified”) this chapter first offers a brief historical overview of the circumstances surrounding the origins of the antinomian controversy.2 This historical section introduces not only the circumstances and occasion of the debate but also the key players. Second, the chapter proceeds to examine the subjects of union with Christ and the pactum salutis, justification, and sanctification. Third, the essay concludes with analysis of some of the trends that appear in the debate as well as locate Witsius’s views. Do his doctrines of union with Christ and justification have greater sympathies with the so-called neonomian or antinomian views? While offering an answer to this question is not simple and clear-cut, this chapter demonstrates that Witsius’s views have more in common with so-called antinomian positions. What unites Witsius and antinomian views is the theological priority the Dutchman assigns to justification over sanctification.

Puritanism to 1638 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004); David R. Como, Blown by the Spirit: Puritanism and the Emergence of an Antinomian Underground in Pre-Civil-War England (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004). 2 There is little English scholarship on this controversy; there are only two essays on the debate that also treat Witsius’s involvement (see D. Patrick Ramsey, “Meet Me in the Middle: Herman Witsius and the English Dissenters,” MAJT 19 [2008]: 143–64; Gert van den Brink, “Calvin, Witsius (1636– 1708), and the English Antinomians,” Church History and Religious Culture 1–2 [2011]: 229–40). The most exhaustive treatment comes from a Dutch scholar, Gert van den Brink, Herman Witsius en het antinomianisme: Met tekst en vertaling van de Animadversiones Irenicae (Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2008).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

342

Herman Witsius

18.2 Historical Background 18.2.1 The Happy Union of 1691 In the tumultuous context of late seventeenth-century England, persecution of nonconformists drew Presbyterians and Independents closer together in the face of their common enemy. Independents and Presbyterians had openly cooperated in a number of places throughout England. But by 1689 the situation was ripe for a formal union among nonconformists. The driving force behind the Happy Union of 1691 was the earlier work of Richard Baxter, and John Howe (1630–1705), who in tandem with John Faldo (1633–90), created six heads of doctrinal agreement to present to a group of six Congregationalists and six Presbyterians.3 The document that the group of ministers produced was called the Heads of Agreement Assented to by the United Ministers in and about London, formerly Called Presbyterian and Congregational.4 A number of ministers were instrumental in disseminating the agreement in England, such as John Flavel (1628–91), and in New England, such as Increase Mather (1639–1723). Some have argued that in many ways this agreement virtually undid the polity work of the Presbyterians of the Westminster Assembly that had met barely some fifty years before.5 This characterization is perhaps a bit hyperbolic, however, as Independent and Presbyterian congregations in the union could follow the Savoy Declaration (1658), the Westminster Standards (1646), or even portions of the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563).6

18.2.2 Debate participants The Happy Union did not last long, and though there are other factors, one of the chief reasons that led to the demise of the union was when John Howe and a number of other ministers endorsed the republication of Tobias Crisp’s

DNB, 18.168–69; 28.85–88. Robert Tudur Jones / Alan P. F. Sell / David William Bebbington, ed., Protestant Nonconformist Texts: 1550–1700 (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2007), 400. 5 Iain H. Murray, The Reformation of the Church: A Collection of Reformed and Puritan Documents on Church Issues (London: Banner of Truth, 1965), 299. 6 John Spurr, “Later Stuart Puritanism,” in John Coffey / Paul C. H. Lim, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge: CUP, 2008), 99. 3 4

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Historical Background



343

(1600–43) Christ Alone Exalted.7 Crisp’s work was notoriously controversial when it was first published in 1644; it was identified as an antinomian work and even elicited a formal complaint to the Westminster Assembly.8 When Crisp’s work was republished, the aged Richard Baxter and his colleague Daniel Williams (1643–1716) engaged those who republished the work in fierce theological debate. Baxter delivered a lecture at Pinners’ Hall and condemned Crisp’s views.9 But Baxter soon died and Williams became one of the chief participants. Another participant who sided with Baxter and Williams was John Locke (1632–1704), the famous philosopher and one of the first Enlightenment Empiricists. In his Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity (1697), which was a defense of his original, Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), Locke explains his own interest in this debate: “The beginning of the year in which it was published, the controversy that made so much noise and heat amongst the dissenters, coming one day accidentally into my mind, drew me, by degrees, into a stricter and more thorough enquiry into the question about justification.”10 On the other side of the controversy was Samuel Crisp (1669–1704), Tobias Crisp’s son, and Isaac Chauncy (1632–1712), one of the endorsers of Crisp’s republished work. Supporters of Chauncy include, among others, Robert Traill (1642–1716), Thomas Goodwin, Jr. (1650?-1716?), son of the well-known Westminster divine, Thomas Goodwin, Sr. (1600–80), as well as Particular Baptist theologian, Benjamin Keach (1640–1704).11 Another participant who engaged both sides of the debate was John Edwards (1637–1716). Edwards was a minister in the Church of England, a conformist.12

On the demise of the Happy Union and its historical context see Roger Thomas, C. G. Bolam, Jeremy Goring, and H. L. Short, The English Presbyterians: From Elizabethan Puritanism to Modern Unitarianism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), 101–08, 113–23; David L. Wykes, “After the Happy Union: Presbyterians and Independents in the Provinces,” in Unity and Diversity in the Church, ed. R. N. Swanson, Studies in Church History, vol. 32 (Oxford: Ecclesiastical History Society, 1996), 283–96 8 Chad B. Van Dixhoorn, “Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly 1643–1652,” 7 vol. (Ph.D diss., Cambridge University, 2004), 2.26–35; DNB 13.99. 9 Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity 1689–1765 (1967; Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 50; cf. Samuel Crisp, Christ Made Sin: 2 Cor 5.21 Evinc’t from Scripture Upon Occasion of An Exception Taken at Pinners-Hall 28 January, 1689, at Re-Printing the Sermons of Dr. Tobias Crisp (London: n. d.), 1–2. 10 John Locke, A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, in The Works of John Locke, vol. 7 (London: Thomas Tegg, 1823), 186; cf. Dewey D. Wallace, Jr., “Socinianism, Justification by Faith, and the Sources of John Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity,” JHI 45/1 (1984): 52. 11 DNB 22.150. 12 See Dewey D. Wallace, Jr., Shapers of English Calvinism, 1660–1714: Variety, Persistence, and Transformation (Oxford: OUP, 2011), 205–42. 7

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

344

Herman Witsius

Neonomians Richard Baxter Daniel Williams John Locke

Antinomians Tobias Crisp Samuel Crisp Isaac Chauncy John Flavel Robert Traill Thomas Goodwin, Jr. Benjamin Keach

Others John Edwards Herman Witsius

The participants in the debate exchanged a number of volleys in the form of books and pamphlets refuting one another’s positions and claims. In an effort to bring a resolution to the debate, participants reached out to Herman Witsius.13 In 1685, a few years prior to the outbreak of the debate, Witsius was appointed by the Dutch government as an official delegate to the coronation of James II (1633–1701). Witsius was also appointed to serve as chaplain to the Netherlands Embassy in London. During his time in London he established relationships with the archbishop of Canterbury and other leading theologians of the period.14 Witsius’s reputation, not only as a theologian but also as a peacemaker, commended him to the debate participants. Witsius, for example, had penned his Economy of the Covenants (1677) in an effort to settle theological disputes between the followers of Gisbert Voetius (1589–1676) and the Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669).15 In response to the invitation to help settle the debate Witsius penned Animadversiones Irenicae (1696).16 13 Willem J. Van Asselt, at al. Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 181. 14 Joel R. Beeke, “The Life and Theology of Herman Witsius (1636–1708),” in Puritan Reformed Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 335. On the broader context of the theological cross-currents between the Netherlands and England see, Johannes van den Berg, Religious Currents and Cross-Currents: Essays on Early Modern Protestantism and the Protestant Enlightenment, ed., Jan de Bruijn / Pieter Holtrop / Ernestine van der Wall (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 163–82. 15 Beeke, “Theology of Witsius,” 335, 339. On the context and substance of the debates between the Voetians and Cocceians see Willem Van Asselt, “Expromissio or Fideiussio? A Seventeenth-Century Theological Debate Between Voetians and Coccejans about the Nature of Christ’s Suretyship in Salvation History,” MAJT 14 (2003): 37–57; idem, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 32–33; idem, “Amicitia Dei as Ultimate Reality: An Outline of the Covenant Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669),” Ultimate Reality and Meaning 21 (1998): 39–40; Jonathan I. Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477–1806 (Oxford: OUP, 1995), 660–63, 931–32. 16 Herman Witsius, Animadversiones Irenicae (Utrecht: 1696); idem, Conciliatory, or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies agitated in Britain, under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians and Neonomians, trans. Thomas Bell (Glasgow: W. Lang, 1807). Subsequent quotations will be taken from this translation in consultation with the original Latin text. Cf. Joris van Eijnatten, “From Modesty to Mediocrity: Regulating Public Dispute, 1670–1840: The Case of Dutch Divines,” Common Knowledge 8/2 (1992): 311.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ and the pactum salutis



345

18.3 Union with Christ and the pactum salutis 18.3.1 Witsius In his Animadversions Witsius addresses the question of how the elect are united to Christ and whether they are united to him before or after they profess faith in him. Witsius admits that, without doubt, the elect are united to Christ but then offers a number of distinctions to explain the nature of the union. Witsius states that the elect are united to Christ in three different ways. First, there is the union of the eternal decree of God (in aeterno Dei decreto), but Witsius quickly points out that this union only includes the idea that the union will take place, not that the elect and Christ are actually united.17 In his Economy of the Covenants Witsius treats this aspect of union under his explanation of the covenant between the Father and the Son, or what is also known as the pactum salutis.18 Second is the union of eternal consent (unione confoederationis aeternae).19 In this union Christ is constituted by God the Father as the head of all those who are to be saved and thereby functions as their representative. Christ was to obey the commands of the Father, suffer for them, and then God would reckon Christ’s obedience and suffering to the elect. The third and final union is what Witsius calls a “true and real union” (vera et reali unione).20 Witsius divides this union in two, passive and active. According to the passive real union, the elect are united to Christ when the Holy Spirit Witsius, Animadversions 6.1 (p. 67). Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, 2 vol., trans. William Crookshank (1822; Phillipsburg: P & R, 1990), 2.2.1–2.3–34 (1.165–92); idem, Oeconomia Foederum Dei Cum Homnibus Libri Quatuor (Basileae: 1739). Subsequent quotations will be taken from this translation in consultation with the original Latin text. Witsius believed that the pactum salutis was no theological novelty (Economy of the Covenants, 2.2.16). Witsius cites Jacob Arminius, who defended this doctrine in a thesis in his doctoral defense, William Ames, Franciscus Gomarus, John Owen, and Johannes Cloppenburg (1592–1652) as well others who held to this doctrine (cf. Van Asselt, Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius, 228). Another theologian of the period who held the doctrine was Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635–1711). À Brakel was a student of Gisbert Voetius along with Witsius (Richard A. Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Orthodoxy: A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus À Brakel,” Calvin Theological Journal 29 [1994]: 80 n. 12). For à Brakel’s views see The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 4 vol., trans. Bartel Elshout (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992), §7 (1.251–63); idem, De Redelijke Godsdienst, 3rd ed., 3 vol. (Leiden: 1893). For a history of the development of the pactum salutis see Richard A. Muller, “Towards the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept,” MAJT 18 (2007): 11–65. And for an exposition of Witsius’s understanding of the pactum, see J. Mark Beach, “The Doctrine of the Pactum Salutis in the Covenant Theology of Herman Witsius,” MAJT 13 (2002): 101–42. 19 Witsius, Animadversions 6.2 (p. 67). 20 Witsius, Animadversions, 6.3 (p. 68). 17 18

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

346

Herman Witsius

first takes possession of them and infuses a principle of new life into them. Though Witsius does not employ the term, he has in view a person’s regeneration, as he makes clear that this real union precedes faith: “Further, since faith is an act flowing from the principle of spiritual life, it is plain, that in a sound sense, it may be said, an elect person is truly and really united to Christ before actual faith.” The active side of the union between Christ and the elect is what Witsius denominates the mutual union (mutua unio).21 Witsius explains that this side of the real union between the elect and Christ is “active and operative” (actuosa et operosa) because it is the means by which a person “draws near to Christ, joins itself to him, applies, and in becoming and proper manner closes with him without any distraction.” This drawing near to Christ is accomplished through “faith only.” Witsius argues that faith is followed by the other benefits of the covenant of grace: justification, peace, adoption, sealing, perseverance, and the like.22 By way of summary, thus far Witsius has set forth the following elements of his doctrine of union with Christ: union of the decree, of eternal consent, and the true and real union, both in its passive (regeneration) and active (mutual union or faith) dimensions. And to Witsius’s mind, he has stated nothing controversial, as he concludes his elaboration of union by stating: “I know not whether any controversy concerning this affair can remain among the brethren.”23 On this point, Witsius is partially correct, as there are some necessary qualifications.

18.3.2 Tobias Crisp Debate participants affirm both the doctrines of union with Christ and some version of the pactum salutis, which entails a union between Christ and the elect in the decree of election. The pactum salutis as a formal doctrine did not emerge until 1638 with David Dickson’s (1583–1663) address before the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland where he warned of the dangers of encroaching Arminianism. It was not until the mid-1640s that the nomenclature of the pactum salutis (aka covenant of peace, covenant of redemption) became commonplace in Britain and on the European continent.24 Crisp’s work, Christ Witsius, Animadversions, 6.4 (p. 68). Witsius, Animadversions, 6.4 (pp. 68–69). 23 Witsius, Animadversions, 6.4 (p. 69). 24 Carl R. Trueman, “The Harvest of Reformation Mythology? Patrick Gillespie and the Covenant of Redemption,” in Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, ed. Maarten Wisse / Marcel Sarot / Willemien Otten (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 198–99; DGLTT, s.v. pactum salutis. 21 22

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ and the pactum salutis



347

Alone Exalted, was not published until 1643, therefore one does not find explicit reference to the pactum salutis. Crisp, however, does speak of the elect being discharged of the guilt of sin from eternity. Crisp argues that God laid the sin of the elect upon Christ when he bound himself by obligation to redeem the elect. Crisp writes: “Before there could be any believing of this grace, God’s assent, by his determinate counsel, gave being to it.”25 Hence, though Crisp does not use the language of union with Christ, the elect are chosen “in Christ”.

18.3.3 Williams On the Baxterian side are those who affirm either pactum salutis or the substance of the doctrine. Daniel Williams, for example, expressly states that the debate was not over the covenant of redemption and whether Christ had been appointed the mediator so that in time he would save the elect.26 However, though Williams embraces the doctrine of the covenant of redemption he specifically states his disagreement with Crisp: “Whether the elect are actually united to Christ before they are born? This the Doctor affirms, and I deny. . . . Whether the elect are united to Christ till they are effectually called, and truly believe? This the Doctor affirms, and I deny.”27 Williams rejects the idea that the elect are united to Christ in any sense prior to effectual calling. For Williams, election in Christ is not the same thing as union with Christ through effectual calling. Williams writes: “Reader, weigh these things, and thou canst hardly conceive, what act of God a union before faith can be ascribed to. It’s not to the decree, for that only resolves it shall be in future.”28

18.3.4 Flavel, Keach, and Chauncy John Flavel argues that antinomians of an earlier generation, such as John Saltmarsh (d. 1647), confound the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace: “The confounding of distinct covenants, leads them into this error; we acknowledge there was a covenant properly made with Christ alone, which we Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, 354. Daniel Williams, Gospel-Truth Stated and Vindicated Wherein Some of Dr. Crisp’s Opinions are Considered and the Opposite Truths are Plainly Stated and Confirmed, 2nd ed. (London: John Dunton, 1692), 77. 27 Williams, Gospel-Truth, 78. 28 Williams, Gospel-Truth, 81. 25

26

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

348

Herman Witsius

call the covenant of redemption. This covenant indeed, though it were made for us, yet is was not made with us.” Flavel goes on to explain that the covenant of grace was made with Christ, “and with all believers in him: with him primarily as the head, with them as the members, who personally come into this covenant, when they come into union with him by faith.”29 On the other hand, Particular Baptist theologian, Benjamin Keach, believes that employing the distinction between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace is what leads to antinomianism.30 But Keach’s rejection of the pactum salutis does not mean a wholesale denial of its substance. In place of the pactum salutis Keach argues that what is necessary to the proper explanation of the truths offered in the pactum is not the positing of two covenants but in recognizing the two distinct parts of the one covenant of grace. One aspect of the covenant of grace refers to Christ as he is constituted as head of the elect and therefore in union with them from eternity. The second aspect of the covenant of grace refers to the application of the covenant when the elect are effectually called and have “actual union with Christ”.31 Attention to detail is extremely important when it comes to the position of antinomian Isaac Chauncy. Chauncy was accused of being an antinomian because he was one of the ministers who signed the prefatory letter to the republished edition of Crisp’s Christ Alone Exalted. In his work, A Plea for the Ancient Gospel, Chauncy asks whether the elect are united to Christ before they are born or when they are effectually called. To answer this question Chauncy invokes a number of distinctions and qualifications in order specifically to refute the arguments of Williams. Chauncy writes: “Whether the elect have not a union of federal relation in the covenant, as you call of Redemption, as being a seed in him, and covenant with in him, and he as a common person representing them.”32 At this point, there is a difference between the arguments of Williams and Chauncy—the former simply speaks of union with Christ in one sense, only “actual union,” which arises from effectual calling. The latter, John Flavel, Planelogia: A Succinct Discourse of the Occasions, Causes, Nature, Rise, Growth, and Remedies of Mental Errors (London: R. Roberts, 1691), 399–400. Flavel’s work entitled, The Fountain of Life: A Display of Christ in His Essential and Mediatorial Glory. In this work he has a sermon, “The Covenant of Redemption Between the Father and the Redeemer,” where he elaborates his understanding of the pactum (idem, The Works of John Flavel, 6 vol. [1820; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1968], 1.52–61). 30 Benjamin Keach, The Everlasting Covenant, A Sweet Cordial for a Drooping Soul: Or, The Excellent Nature of the Covenant of Grace Opened (London: 1693), 18. 31 Keach, Everlasting Covenant, 12, 15; cf. Tom J. Nettles, “Benjamin Keach (1640–1704),” in The British Particular Baptists 1638–1910, vol. 1, ed. Michael A. G. Haykin (Springfield: Particular Baptist Press, 1998), 101–02. 32 Isaac Chauncy, A Plea for the Ancient Gospel (London: 1697), 221. 29

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Union with Christ and the pactum salutis



349

on the other hand, adds the distinction of a federal union when speaking of the union between Christ and the elect in the pactum salutis. The absence and presence of theological distinctions is an important element of this debate, as Chauncy, and others such as Robert Traill, complained that Williams and other neonomians ignored important scholastic distinctions.33 The significance of distinctions becomes especially key in Chauncy’s exposition of the relationship between union with Christ and the pactum salutis. In Chauncy’s A Plea for the Ancient Gospel, the format is a dialogue between a neonomian, an antinomian, and Calvin as a fictional moderator. In the dialogue Chauncy has Calvin introduce the position of Samuel Rutherford (1600–61), which consists of a fourfold distinction: a natural, legal, federal, and mystical union. In the natural union, Christ is united to all mankind by virtue of the incarnation, but the incarnation has the specific goal of the redemption of the elect. The natural union presupposes the legal and federal unions—the legal union entails Christ (the surety) and the elect (the debtors) being made one in law. The federal union involves Christ being made covenant surety where he willingly undertook redemption—to bear the sin of the elect and to offer his obedience in their stead. The federal union, in Rutherford’s understanding, is part and parcel of the pactum salutis. The fourth and final distinction involves the mystical union between Christ and believers, which requires faith in Christ and hence effectual calling.34 In the dialogue, the antinomian responds to Rutherford’s position with agreement: “You [Williams] say a man is not united to Christ before effectual calling, thereby I understand you, that he is not united to Christ in any sense, whereas I affirm he is united to Christ before effectual calling in the senses which Mr. Rutherford does assert before mentioned.”35 Moreover, not only does Chauncy embrace Rutherford’s fourfold understanding of union with Christ, but he also accepts the timing of this union. Rutherford distinguishes between the decree and its execution in terms of the application of the satisfaction of Christ.36 Chauncy agrees with Rutherford and rejects the charge that his understanding of union with Christ requires justification from eternity. Chauncy clearly states: “A man cannot be said to be justified before he has being.”37 Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 268; Robert Traill, Justification Vindicated (1692; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002), 50. 34 Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 223; cf. Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened (1654; New Lenox: Puritan Publications, 2005), §25 (pp. 303–04), §§34–35 (pp. 413–36). 35 Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 224. 36 Rutherford, Covenant of Life, §25 (p. 303). 37 Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 230. 33

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

350

Herman Witsius

On the broad question of the relationship between the decree (or more specifically the pactum) and union with Christ, debate participants agree on the existence of the pactum but do not agree on some of the particulars. Witsius’s views align more closely with the antinomians (Keach, Chauncy, and Flavel) than they do with the position of Williams. It should be noted, however, that some, such as Baxter and Locke, in effect, have no doctrine of union with Christ. The absence of union with Christ in Baxter’s and Locke’s soteriology will be treated in greater detail below.

18.4 Justification 18.4.1 Witsius The doctrine of justification features prominently in this debate because one of the key issues is not whether a person is justified by faith, but whether a person is justified by faith alone. Peering into the debate and offering his own understanding, Witsius argues for a common Reformation position on justification. Echoing Reformation patterns, Witsius contends in his Economy of the Covenants: “The doctrine of justification diffuses itself through the whole body of divinity, and if the foundation here is well laid, the whole building will be the more solid and grand; whereas a bad foundation or superstructure threatens a dreadful ruin.”38 Witsius then goes on to define justification as: “A judicial, but gracious act of God, whereby the elect and believing sinner, is absolved from the guilt of his sins, and has a right to eternal life adjudged to him, on account of the obedience of Christ, received by faith.”39 In his Animadversions, Witsius continues to work from of this earlier definition and applies its implications to the debate. For example, Witsius maintains that a person is justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ. Just as Adam’s sin is imputed to mankind for their condemnation, so Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the elect for their justification.40 In this regard, Witsius holds that the whole of Christ’s righteousness is imputed to every believer, which not only frees believers from all condemnation but also gives them the hope of eternal salvation. Hence, past, present, and future sins are pardoned through the believer’s justification because the satisfaction of Christ has perfectly expiated Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 3.8.1. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 3.8.27. 40 Witsius, Animadversions, 6.5 (p. 70). 38 39

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



351

the believer’s guilt.41 This means that, for Witsius, there is no place for good works or sanctification in a person’s justification. Witsius explains the priority of justification in a number of different ways. Witsius explains that, according to Paul, “works contribute nothing to justification” and do not “procure a man’s title to salvation.”42 Faith can be reckoned as a cause of justification so long as it is denominated an instrumental cause by which a person apprehends Christ and his righteousness. Faith cannot, according to Witsius, be a condition of justification if the intention is to replace the perfect obedience of Christ.43 Witsius is also content to say that good works are evidences of justification.44 However, Witsius also writes: “Since the learned men confess that sanctification is a consequence and an effect of justification, and such an effect indeed, which is inseparable from a consciousness of justification, it is strange why they deny that it is a certain sign of justification. Cannot therefore the cause be known from its proper effects? From one of two inseparable benefits, cannot the other be inferred?”45 Though Witsius discusses the relationship between justification and sanctification as cause and effect, this does not mean that he leaves union with Christ by the wayside. In other words, justification is not generative of sanctification, nor is justification, and hence imputation, a stand-alone imputative act. Recall that Witsius’s different phases of union with Christ include the union of the decree, of eternal consent, and the true and real union, both in its passive and active dimensions. For Witsius, union with Christ never drops out of focus. Witsius maintains that when a person’s election is executed in time, she is effectually called and born again and at this point she is “actually united to Christ.”46 In other words, at the alpha-point of a person’s salvation, she is immediately in union with Christ. Witsius elaborates upon this matter: The order of this internal and truly saving application, arising from its first beginning by many steps to perfect happiness in the adult, of whom only we now speak, is generally represented to us in this manner by the Scriptures. As soon as comes the hour of gracious visitation, prefixed in the unchangeable purpose of God, for every one of the elect, all of a sudden, into the elect person living under the administration of the gospel,

Witsius, Animadversions, 13.2 (p. 130). Witsius, Animadversions, 8.16 (p. 98). 43 Witsius, Animadversions, 10.8 (p. 112). 44 Witsius, Animadversions, 16.11 (p. 168). 45 Witsius, Animadversions, 16.16 (pp. 171–72). 46 Witsius, Animadversions, 5.4 (pp. 62–63). 41 42

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

352

Herman Witsius

there is infused a principle of spiritual life, by the application or influence of the Spirit of Christ, mystically uniting the soul to himself.47

Union with Christ undergirds the whole of redemption in all its several parts, but this does not mean that Witsius is indifferent regarding the role that each of the benefits of Christ play. Witsius argues that faith in Christ is necessary, and that when a person believes in him, only then can the person claim Christ, not simply by right, but by possession.48 In accepting Christ, the believer takes possession of Christ’s righteousness and she is thereby justified. This all takes place by virtue of the “secret counsel of God” (arcano Dei consilio) and is applied to the believer’s account in the decree but becomes an actual possession and saving benefit only after it is received by faith.49 In fact, Witsius states that the elect, prior to regeneration, are like any other non-elect person—they are in a state of darkness, children of wrath, condemned to bondage through fear of death, subject to the curse of the law, without God, and without Christ in the world.50 For Witsius, then, there is a clear line of demarcation between the decree to justify the elect and the justification by faith of the elect in time; this line of distinction parallels the decretal union and the mystical union, the former is in the decree and the latter in its execution in time. Another way that Witsius maintains the integrity of justification is by keeping it separate from sanctification by use of a distinction that was common among theologians of the late seventeenth century, namely active and passive justification.51 In his Economy of the Covenants Witsius explains that though the Witsius, Animadversions, 5.5. (p. 63). The type of distinction between right and possession as a category by which to understand the extra nos of imputation goes back at least to Martin Luther. Luther distinguishes between proprietas (“property”) and possessio (“possession”) (see Martin Luther, The Freedom of the Christian, in LW, 31.333–77, esp. 352–54; idem, Tractatus De Libertate Christiana, in Werke, 1.7: 49–70, esp. 55–56). In context, Luther discusses union with Christ (or the “royal marriage” between Christ and the believer). Cf. Heiko A. Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought (1986; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 121; J. Todd Billings, “Luther and Calvin on Union with Christ: Their Retrieval and Development of a Biblical, Catholic, and Reformational Motif,” (Paper presented at the Calvin Studies Society Colloquium, April 7–9, 2011), 14–15. 49 Witsius, Animadversions, 5.8 (pp. 64–65). 50 Witsius, Animadversions, 5.2 (p. 61). 51 On the distinction between active and passive justification see Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., 3 vol. (Phillipsburg: P & R, 1992–97), 16.8.1; Leonard Rijssen, Compendium Theologiae Didactico-Elencticae (Amsterdam: 1695), 14 (pp. 145–46); Johannes Marckius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae Didactico-Elencticum (1716; Amsterdam: 1749), 22.23, 24.3; Bartholomaus Keckerman, Systema S. S. Theologiae (Hanau: 1602), 3.7.3; J. Heinrich Heidegger, Corpus Theologiae Christianae, 2 vol. (Zurich: 1732), 22.78; cf. Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources, trans. G. T. Thomson, ed. Ernst Bizer (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950), 555–59. 47

48

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



353

righteousness of Christ belonged to him, as it was wrought by him, it nevertheless belongs to the believer. In what sense does it belong to the believer? Even before a person believes or exercises faith the righteousness of Christ belongs to him by right (juris) becafuse of the decree of God. On the other hand it becomes the elect person’s possession (possessione) in the actual translation of a person from the state of wrath to the state of grace. Witsius embraces the distinction between active and passive justification to explain the difference between the right to and possession of Christ’s imputed righteousness. Active justification is “that sentence of God, by which he declares his having received satisfaction from Christ, and pronounces that all the elect are made free from guilt and obligation to punishment, even before their faith, so far as never to exact of them any payment.” Passive justification, on the other hand, “is the acknowledgement and sense of that most sweet sentence, intimated to the conscience by the Holy Spirit, and fiducially apprehended by each of the elect.” Active justification precedes faith and passive justification follows it.52 Witsius adds still yet another layer of distinctions with his ideas of general and particular justification. Witsius maintains that, though justification is a forensic act, there are nonetheless “various articles” (variis articulus) of justification. The first article is the absolution, or justification, of “all the elect in general collected in to one mystical body” and the second is the justification of each person individually or particularly. With respect to the general sentence, the first article of this justification occurred immediately upon the fall. Witsius writes that this general justification “is the first effect of Christ’s suretiship, the declaration of that counsel of God, by which he had purposed to justify the ungodly; and not to impute sin to those who are interested as heirs in the testament.”53 The second article of this general justification is connected to the “time in which God declared that full satisfaction was made to his justice by a dying Christ” (2 Cor. 5.19). Witsius contends that God “at once reconciled to himself the whole world of his elect; and declared that he would not impute their trespasses to any of them, on account of the perfect satisfaction of Christ.” Witsius continues, “For, when he raised Christ from the dead, he gave him a discharge, in testimony that the payment was made; and when he rent the veil of the temple, he also tore the hand writing consisting in ordinances, which, till that time, loudly proclaimed that payment was not yet made.”54 Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 2.7.16. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 3.8.57. 54 Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 3.8.58. Witsius was not alone in such a distinction; it was also employed by Westminster divine Thomas Goodwin (see Thomas Goodwin, The Objects and Acts of Justifying Faith, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, vol. 8 [1864; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 52 53

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

354

Herman Witsius

Witsius then proceeds to explain that justification is not confined to the two articles of general justification, the promise to the elect put into effect immediately after the fall and the actual discharge of the debt of sin upon the resurrection of Christ. Rather, justification must be applied particularly to each individual. Particular justification only occurs when a person is regenerated and united to Christ by faith, when she is actually translated from a state of condemnation to a state of grace. Once a person is received by faith in Christ, or in union with him, “God declares in the court of heaven (in foro coeli), that he is no longer under wrath, but under grace.” This is the first article of particular justification. But Witsius stipulates that a person might be justified but still be ignorant of the heavenly verdict passed upon him. Hence, the second article of particular justification is when the declaration of justification is “intimated, and insinuated to the conscience by the Holy Spirit; so that the believer knows, feels, and experiences, that his sins are forgiven.”55 The third article of particular justification is after a person is actively and passively justified when she is “admitted to familiar converse with God, and to the mutual participation of the most delightful friendship.”56

18.4.2 Tobias Crisp Baxter and Williams accused Tobias Crisp of maintaining a doctrine of justification from eternity. In fact, Baxter argues that justification from eternity (i.e., that a person is justified before he exists) is the chief pillar of antinomianism.57 However, upon closer examination of Crisp’s views, there is a degree of nuance that is often missed.58 Technically speaking, Crisp does not hold to justification 1985], 138–39). Recent research has also drawn attention to the modifications of the Westminster Confession (1646) on this point in the Congregationalist version of the Savoy Declaration (1658). The Savoy Declaration states: “God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit does in due time actually apply Christ unto them” (11.4, emphasis added). The Savoy Declaration, likely with guidance by Goodwin, adds the word personally to distinguish between the decree of justification for all by which all are justified in their head, Christ, and the personal application of justification to each individual by faith (see Mark Jones and Gert van den Brink, “Thomas Goodwin and Johannes Maccovius on Justification from Eternity,” in Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books], forthcoming). 55 Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 3.8.59–60. 56 Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 3.8.61. 57 Richard Baxter, Aphorismes of Justification (Hauge: 1655), 60; idem, Confession of His Faith (London: 1654), 150–58. 58 Cf. Carl Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 114.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



355

from eternity. Rather, Crisp argues that God’s self-imposed obligation to justify the elect transpired in eternity past. However, the actual justification of the elect occurs in time. When specifically are the elect justified in time? Crisp writes: But, when did the Lord do this? From eternity, in respect of obligation; but in respect of execution, when Christ was upon the cross; in respect of applying of it to particular persons, while children are in the womb, before ever they have done good or evil. There is great diversity or judgment about this: God applies pardon of sin, say some, at the time of conversion, and persons remain in a state of wrath until then. Others arise higher; God applies pardon of sin in baptism, say they; but, beloved, the Lord loves his people with everlasting love, and with everlasting kindness, there is not a moment of time in which iniquity is transacted back again from Christ, and remains upon a particular person.59

Hence, Crisp argues that the elect are not justified until Christ’s crucifixion.60 But even then, Crisp still has another important distinction he places atop the timing of justification as it relates to Christ’s crucifixion. Namely, the elect are not all immediately justified upon the crucifixion of Christ. Instead, Crisp argues: “God applies or appropriates, unto his elect, his grace of discharge from all iniquity, and his love, at the very instant that such a person has a being in the world.”61 In other words, the elect are not justified until they are born. Hence, Crisp’s views do not actually fall into the category of justification from eternity. A more accurate description of Crisp’s views is that a person is justified before faith.

18.4.3 Chauncy Chauncy, like Witsius, argues for a very nuanced understanding of the various stages of justification. In Chancy’s dialogue, the neonomian specifically charges the antinomian with the view that justification is from eternity; the antinomian rejects this statement as a “false charge”.62 Chauncy counters that a person cannot be justified until he actually exists. Chauncy then elaborates upon the different stages of justification. “Justification is first in its provision,” writes Chauncy, fully procured and provided; and it’s first in grant, gift and application, applied unto us before we make application of it by an act of faith, whereby we do not bring it into Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, 3 vol. (London: Marshall, 1690), 2.374–75. Van den Brink, Herman Witsius en het antinomianisme, 77. 61 Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, 357. 62 Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 230. 59 60

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

356

Herman Witsius

the heart, but the grace of God does, which we see, behold, and improve there by faith manifesting and declaring our justified estate, whereby our consciences are freed from guilt and condemnation.63

Chauncy embraces, like Witsius, the distinction between justification in foro conscientiae and in foro Dei. Chauncy again cites Rutherford, who writes in an anti-antinomian work of a “justification in the mind of God eternal, and a justification in time terminated in the conscience of a believer.”64 Chauncy then argues against the idea that believers are justified merely by a singular promise in the court of conscience, that is, merely and only by faith apart from any consideration of God’s decree. Chauncy then quotes Daniel Chamier (1564–1621), William Perkins, and William Ames in support of his contention. Chauncy cites Chamier’s Contractus to the effect that Christians are persuaded that their sins are forgiven before they believe, otherwise, what about infants who belong to the covenant but have not yet made a profession of faith?65 Chauncy appeals to Perkins and his commentary on Galatians where, commenting on Gal 3.16, Perkins writes: “We learn to acknowledge the communion that is between Christ and us. Christ as mediator, is first of all elected, and we in him: Christ is first justified, that is, acquit of our sins, and we justified in him.”66 Chauncy lastly cites Ames to make the following point: The agreement between God and Christ was a kind of advance application of our redemption and deliverance of us to our surety and our surety to us. Upon that latter redemption, to be completed in us, it has the effect of a kind of an efficacious example; the former is a representation of the latter and the latter is brought into being by the former.67

Chauncy appeals to Ames to make the case that justification was decreed and then subsequently applied. Chauncy approvingly cites the distinctions that grow from Ames’s understanding of the decree and its execution when he stipulates four stages of justification:

Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 230. Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 230. 65 Daniel Chamier, Chamierus contractus, sive panstratiae Catholicae Danielis Chamieri theologi summi epitome in qua corpus controversiarum super religione adversus pontificios (Geneva: Sumptibus Iacobi Chouët, 1642), 935. 66 William Perkins, A Commentarie or Exposition, Upon the Five First Chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians (Cambridge: John Legat, 1604), 210. 67 William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden (1968; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 1.24.3 (p. 149). 63 64

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



357

1. It was in the mind of God, as it were conceived by him by his decree of justifying (Gal 3.8). 2. It was in Christ our head, pronounced when he rose from the dead (2 Cor 5.19). 3. Virtually pronounced in that first relation which arises from faith ingenerated in the heart (Rom 8.1). 4. Expressly pronounced by the Spirit witnessing with our spirits our reconciliation with God (Rom 5.5).68

Chauncy brings these theologians and their testimony forward to press the point that justification (in a qualified sense) before faith is not an error. Beyond these four stages, borrowed from Ames, and like Witsius, Chauncy also embraces several other distinctions regarding both union with Christ and justification. Chief among the contentions between the two parties was the question of whether faith was a condition of one’s justification. All sides agreed upon the necessity of faith, but not all were agreed as to how and in what way faith was a condition of one’s justification. For example, Chauncy willingly affirms that union with Christ is prior to the act of faith. To support this claim Chauncy cites the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, questions 29–30: Q. 29. How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ? A. By the effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit. Q. 30. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ? A. By working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.

Chauncy argues that the Holy Spirit comes as the bond of the union between Christ and the sinner and works faith in her in order to bring about the union. The sinner at this point, however, is passive, as she must be made a new creature, be born again, and receive spiritual life. Once this has occurred, the regenerated sinner is active, and puts forth lively acts, and lays hold of Christ and the grace of the gospel. Chauncy writes: “If the confessions say we are united to Christ by his Spirit, and by faith, as you acknowledge, then there is a union by the Spirit, which is effective of that which is by faith.”69 Hence, Chauncy insists upon the use of the active and passive dimensions of the believer’s union with Christ to delineate the work of Christ in the Spirit from the actions of the believer, and to give priority to the former. 68 69

Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 231; cf. Ames, Marrow, 1.27.9 (p. 161). Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 226.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

358

Herman Witsius

The same active-passive distinction is employed in Chauncy’s understanding of justification. Chauncy uses the metaphor of light and the human eye—the only way a person can see is if light is present. Hence, according to Chauncy, justification must exist prior to a person’s belief. Chauncy explains: “We are materially and objectively justified by the righteousness of Christ, and by that alone; and this I say is before a sinner believes efficiently, because the object just be before the act of the recipient organ.” Hence, Chauncy reasons: “Justification in regard of application must be before believing; the first application in ordine naturae salutem, is to an ungodly man, eo nomine, that he may believe, who is thereby made to believe that he may be justified, for in justification we are both passive and active; as Maccovius says.”70 Here Chauncy appeals to Johannes Maccovius’s (1588–1644) Distinctiones et Regulae Theologicae ac Philosophicae, where he elaborates upon key theological and philosophical distinctions thought to be essential to proper theology. In his treatment of the distinctions related to justification, Maccovius explains the differences between active and passive justification. This distinction, for Maccovius, is based upon the simple observation that “God justifies and we are justified.” Maccovius then writes: “Passive justification follows after passive faith, because it is through faith that we receive the remission of sins” (Acts 26.18). On the other hand, the triune God and good works justify in different ways: “God justifies us by in no way imputing sins and by imputing the righteousness of Christ. Christ justifies by acquiring merit, the Holy Spirit by application, good works by declaration, and faith by accepting. Theologians usually express the last two by saying that faith justifies effectively and good works declaratively.”71 The active and passive dimensions of justification rest squarely upon the active and passive dimensions of the sinner’s union with Christ.

18.4.4 Flavel, Traill, and Edwards Other so-called antinomian works from the period do not go into the detail that one finds in Chauncy, as they were of much shorter length. However, Traill affirms the basic points that one finds in Chauncy’s position. In response to Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 227. Johannes Maccovius, Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules, ed. and trans. Willem J. van Asselt / Michael D. Bell / Gert van den Brink / Rein Ferwerda (Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009), 13.1–3 (p. 231); cf. Willem Van Asselt, “The Theologian’s Took Kit: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) and the Development of Reformed Theological Distinctions,” Westminster Theological Journal 68 (2006): 23–40. 70

71

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



359

the charge that people are actually justified before they are united to Christ, Traill states: That there is a decreed justification from eternity, particular and fixed as to all the elect, and a virtual, perfect justification of all the redeemed, in and by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Isa 53.11; Rom 4.25; Heb 9.26, 28 and 10.14) is not yet called in question by any amongst us; and more is not craved, but we affirm that a sinner, for his actual justification, must lay hold on and plead this redemption in Christ’s blood by faith.72

Hence, like Witsius and Chauncy, Traill affirms a decretal, virtual, and actual justification.73 Similarly, Flavel believed that justification could be considered under a twofold distinction, either according to the decree or its execution in time. According to the decree, justification is given to the elect in Christ before the world began (2 Tim 1.9). But according to its execution in time, justification should be considered either in its impetration by Christ or its application to sinners. Flavel’s three categories (decreed justification, justification in its acquisition by Christ, and the application of justification) mirror the threefold scheme of Traill and Chauncy. But like both of these theologians, Flavel clearly demarcates between the impetration of Christ, or the obtaining of justification, and its application: “It must be considered in its application to us, which application is made in this life at the time of our effectual calling. When an elect sinner is united to Christ by faith, and so passes from death to life, from a state of condemnation, into a state of absolution and favor; this is our actual justification (Rom 5.1; Acts 13.39; John 5.24).”74 Conformist theologian John Edwards embraces the same type of distinction for comprehending the relationship between the decree and justification. Edwards writes: “We must distinguish then between the act of God from eternity, his decreeing to pardon sin and the act of God in time, or God’s applying the decree.” For Edwards there is “justification in sentence and decree,” which is “pronouncing of persons just and innocent from all eternity. There is also “justification in execution,” which is when “persons are actually pardoned and Traill, Justification Vindicated, 44–45. Note, the use of the term virtual must be understood in its seventeenth-century context, not the twenty-first century. In computing, for example, the term means that something does not physically exist but appears to do so via computer software from the vantage point of the end user. In the mid-seventeenth century the term is used interchangeably for representative or federal. See Oxford English Dictionary, second ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), s.v. virtual. 74 Flavel, Planelogia, 329–30. 72 73

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

360

Herman Witsius

discharged.” Edwards believed that justification in execution only occurred after a person placed her faith in Christ.75

18.4.5 Williams On the other side of the debate, Williams affirms many of the broader points raised by Witsius, Chauncy, Traill, and Flavel. He agrees that justification is a forensic act, one that brings about a relative change in the person, a change from a state of guilty to pardoned, from non-accepted to accepted. Williams distinguishes justification from the other parts of redemption: effectual calling, sanctification, and perseverance.76 He goes on to explain that to be made righteous by Christ’s obedience is to be free from condemnation and to be entitled to acceptance with God and eternal glory.77 Christ’s perfect obedience was the performed condition of the reward that was promised to him as part of the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis).78 And once a person exercises faith in Christ, she receives the imputed righteousness of Christ and thus become righteous.79 And to be sure, according to Williams, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness includes his active and passive obedience as the δικαίωμα, “or the performance of the legal conditions of life and pardon.”80 However, Williams does not include Christ’s holiness in the imputation of his righteousness to the elect.81 Williams argues, “Though Christ be perfectly holy, yet his holiness is not so imputed to us, as that we are therefore perfectly holy.” Williams then gives three main reasons for making this assertion. First, holiness is connected to sanctification, not to justification. Second, holiness

John Edwards, Crispianism Unmask’d; or A Discovery of the Several Erroneous Assertions and Pernicious Doctrines Maintain’d in Dr. Crisp’s Sermons Occasion’d by the Reprinting of those Discourses (London: 1693), 51. 76 Daniel Williams, Man Made Righteous by Christ’s Obedience (London: J. Dunton, 1694), 51. 77 Williams, Man Made Righteous, 52. 78 Williams, Man Made Righteous, 62. 79 Williams, Man Made Righteous, 75. 80 Williams, Man Made Righteous, 79. 81 Cf., e.g., Heidelberg Catechism q. 60: “How are you righteous before God? A. Only by true faith in Jesus Christ.” It specifies that the sinner, apart from any personal merit and by God’s pure grace, “Grants me the benefits of the perfect expiation of Christ, imputing to me his righteousness and holiness as if I had never committed a single sin or had ever been sinful, having fulfilled myself all the obedience which Christ has carried out for me, if only I accept such a favor with a trusting heart” (emphais added; cited from Jaroslav Pelkian / Valerie Hotchkiss, ed., Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 3 vol. (New Haven: Yale UP, 2003). 75

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



361

is the conformity to the law, as it describes transgression and obligation. And third, no person can be absolutely perfect with regard to his holiness.82 Williams makes a key diversion from the regularly trodden path regarding the nature and role of holiness in a person’s justification. The difference surfaces in Williams’s exegesis of Phil 3.9, which states: “And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (KJV). Williams explains: His [Christ’s] righteousness imputed, is the cause for which we are justified and saved, when we do answer the Gospel-Rule. And I exclude not this righteousness, when I affirm that the righteousness of God (Phil. 3.9) principally intends the gospel-holiness of a person justified by Christ’s righteousness; both which, by faith in Christ, all his members shall be perfect in.83

As Williams explores Phil 3.9 in greater detail, he argues that Paul did not intend to exclude the believer’s holiness by this text. Williams explains: “I own the imputed righteousness of Christ for our justification, yet I think to ground it on this place is a damage to the truth.”84 Williams argues that gospel holiness, or righteousness, is not here intended by Paul’s characterization of his works as dung (σκύβαλα). What does Paul reject? He rejects the Jewish privileges but not gospel-holiness.85 So, then, how does Williams specifically understand Phil 3.8–9? He writes: If I may apprehend that for which I am apprehended of Christ, i.e., be as holy and happy as he designed to make me, when he seized me in my first conversion, reaching forth unto those things that are before; that cannot be imputed righteousness, for this he had in his first justification; but it’s that perfect holiness and glory, which he expected in Christ hereafter.86

Key in this statement is that Williams writes of a first justification. More will be said about Williams’s use of this term below. Nevertheless, Williams believes that Paul could not be writing of imputed righteousness alone in this passage. Williams contends that because Paul writes of “winning Christ” (v. 14), he speaks of something in the future, therefore: “But I hope none can think that his winning Williams, Gospel-Truth, 38. Williams, Gospel-Truth, to the reader. 84 Williams, Gospel-Truth, 173–74. 85 Williams, Gospel-Truth, 174. 86 Williams, Gospel-Truth, 176. 82 83

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

362

Herman Witsius

Christ is either a first interest in Christ, or the imputation of his righteousness for justification.” Rather, Williams believes that Paul writes of the “righteousness, which is of God by faith, is that eminent holiness he waited for, and if he could be found in Christ by an abiding union he knew he should arrive at.”87 Williams’s exegesis and subsequent explanation drew considerable criticism from the so-called antinomians. Samuel Crisp in his Christ Alone Exalted zeroes in on this specific explanation and accuses him of offering a “Romish gloss”.88 Crisp then cites the opinions and exegesis of Perkins, Francicus Gomarus (1563– 1641), Zanchi, Thomas Goodwin, Sr., and even Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) as counter-evidence that Williams erroneously exegetes the text.89 Likewise, Benjamin Keach cites the same passage from Williams’s Gospel-Truth and holds his explanation alongside of Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) as evidence that he misunderstands the passage. Furthermore, Keach cites the explanations of Martin Chemnitz (1522–86), Luther, and George Downame (1560–1634) as counter-witnesses against Williams.90 While it appears that Williams was able to hold his exegesis of Phil 3.8–9 together with a common Reformed doctrine of justification, doubts likely arose when Williams invoked a term associated with Baxter’s doctrine of justification. When Williams explains the role and function of Christ’s imputed righteousness, he holds that believers are judicially sentenced as they are in Christ and made partakers of his righteousness. And by this action they are pardoned, adopted, and given right to impunity, favor, and glory.91 However, he goes on to write: “Indeed, if the charge be, that these are not believers, then God acquits them another way, of which hereafter. This is sentential justification, which is virtual now, and will be solemnized at the great day.”92 Williams employs a term, namely sentential justification, associated with Baxter’s theology. Baxter holds a three-staged view of justification that includes constitutive justification, which is a “right to impunity, and to life or glory”. Constitutive justification gives pardon to all past sins at the moment of a person’s conversion.93 The second stage is sentential justification, or justification by sentence. This form of justification “is done by Christ as judge, and so is an act of his kingly office.”94 Williams, Gospel-Truth, 177. Samuel Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted in Dr. Crisp’s Sermons (London: 1693), 2. 89 Crisp, Christ Alone, 4. 90 Benjamin Keach, The Marrow of True Justification Without Works (London: 1692), 28–29. 91 Williams, Man Made Righteous, 82–83. 92 Williams, Made Righteous, 84. 93 Richard Baxter, Catholick Theology: Plain, Pure, Peaceable for Pacification of the Dogmatical WordWarriors, 3 vol. (London: 1675), 2.85. 94 Baxter, Catholick Theology, 2.85–86. 87 88

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



363

The third and final stage of justification is another form of sentential justification, but is nevertheless denominated executive justification. This form of justification is the “public sentence and execution at the day of judgment.” Baxter explains: In this sense to sanctify a man, is to justify him executively, and so sententially. For executive justification and pardon is the actual impunity, removing of deserved punishment, and actual giving possession of life and salvation, which constitutive justification gave us right to. And as our privation of the Spirit and holiness, and to be left in sin, is a great punishment; so to have the Spirit and holiness given us, is executive pardon and justification; and so will glorification much more.95

A person’s justification begins at his conversion with constitutive justification and concludes at the final judgment with his executive justification. The former is virtual and defectible and the latter is actual and indefectible. Though Williams does not cite or invoke the name of Baxter, that he speaks of a first and sentential justification that “is virtual now,” echoes this Baxterian formula.96 What Baxter’s critics, such as John Owen, found problematic about his view was that he confounds faith and works in justification, so it should be no surprise that Williams’s critics level the same charge.97 In a later response to Chauncy, Williams later clarified his views on justification and repeatedly affirmed his belief in sola fide.98 He also stated his whole-hearted agreement with the expressions of Chemnitz, Davenant, Ames, Downame, and the Synod of Dort (1618–19) and its rejection of Arminian views on justification.99 For example, Williams poses the question: “Do you think that we are justified by our Good Works at the last day, as if they were the righteousness by which we shall be saved at the last day?” Williams answers: “No, I would tremble at such a thought, and declare it’s Christ’s Righteousness alone, tha umixed, that I hope to be saved for and by.”100 Where Williams draws the most criticism is the way in which he discusses the conditions of the covenant of grace, particularly as it relates to justification. Williams writes, for example: Baxter, Catholick Theology, 2.86. Wallace, “Socinianism, Justification by Faith,” 58; cf. Cooper, Fear and Polemic, 183. 97 John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William Goold, 24 vol. (Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1850–53), 5.284–85. 98 Daniel Williams, A Defence of Gospel-Truth. Being a Reply to Mr. Chancy’s First Part and As an Explanation of the Points in Debate, may serve for a Reply to all other Answeres (London: John Duntun, 1693), 13–16. I am grateful to Mark Jones for drawing my attention to this passage. 99 Williams, Defence, 16–17. 100 Williams, Defence, 15. 95 96

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

364

Herman Witsius

1. Whether faith and repentance be indispensably required of us, that we may be justified for the sake of Christ’s righteousness. This I affirm, and the doctor [Crisp] denies . . . 2. Whether holiness, and sincere obedience and perseverance are the way to heaven, and are required of the elect as the conditions of their obtaining salvation; or is heaven promised to them, if they persevere in holiness, and sincere obedience, and the loss of heaven threatened, in case they continue wicked and disobedient; or after grace turn apostates. This the doctor denies and I affirm.101

Common theological distinctions of the period are missing from Williams’s affirmations about the indispensability of faith and repentance for justification and the necessity of sincere obedience to obtain salvation. True, Williams appeals to the highly regarded Westminster Standards (1647) to support his claim for the necessity of faith and repentance for justification: This runs throughout the Assemblies Confession and Catechisms. As when they say, faith is required by the covenant, as a condition to interest us in Christ large Catechism, q. 32. And they say, q. 153 that we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, God requires of us, repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus, and the diligent use of outward means, whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation. You have the same in the lesser Catechism; and they oft tell us of promises made to graces, etc. by which, and much more, its place that conditions are required of men.102

But Williams’s appeal to the Westminster Standards ignores important qualifications. The Confession, for example, states that God justifies sinners “by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone” (11.1).103 The Confession also states that the “principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification” (14.2). And though repentance is necessary in believers, it is not “to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof ” (15.3). Instead of employing these types of carefully crafted qualifications, something Chauncy notes as a deficiency, Williams makes general statements that leave room for misunderstanding: “By this gospel-constitution, persevering holiness, sincere Williams, Gospel-Truth, 107. Williams, Ancient Gospel, 13. 103 Citations taken from Westminster Confession of Faith (1646; Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1995). 101 102

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



365

obedience, or good works, are necessary to salvation. He that made faith necessary to justification, has made obedience necessary to salvation.”104 In another place, Williams writes: “Salvation is promised to perseverance, true holiness, sincere obedience, or good works: and the accomplishment of these promises to these, is called an act of righteousness.”105 Statements such as these, combined with others where Williams affirms over and against Crisp that a believer who yields himself to the dominion of sin would be damned, brought criticism and rejection from the antinomians.106 Samuel Crisp, for example, argues that Williams is unstable, because, “No sooner has Mr. Williams writ clear gospel, that nothing but true uniting faith kept a man from being cast out; but the next clause brings in persevering holiness, with the train of all spiritual duties, to give admittance to the wise virgins; so that one while we are justified by faith, another while by persevering in holiness.”107 Keach affirms the necessity of personal holiness and obedience for salvation, but he also quickly qualifies his remarks: “But we must exclude all inherent holiness or works of obedience done by us, in point of justification.”108 Chauncy employs a twofold distinction to explain the way in which conditions feature in justification. Chauncy argues for federal and connection or dependent conditions. “Federal conditions,” argues Chauncy, “are terms agreed on in covenant-contract between parties covenanting; whereupon the promises made become due by reward and debt: and this supposes, that the terms proposed be accepted before it become a covenant.” Chauncy believes that to make faith or obedience a federal, or covenant, condition moves a person into the Arminian position of free will whereby man has the natural power to provide for his salvation by performing the conditions of the covenant.109 Chauncy explains, “No, not the gift of the Spirit that works Williams, Gospel-Truth, 117; cf. Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 148. Williams, Gospel-Truth, 118. 106 Williams, Gospel-Truth, 157. Williams would later attempt to explain in greater detail the nature of the conditions required by the Gospel. Williams, for example, explains that evangelical conditions are not the same as legal conditions, i.e., the difference is between the conditions of the covenants of works and grace (Defence, 26). Williams explains: “The use and interest of GospelConditions is not from the conformity of them to the perceptive part of the Law, (though in a degree there be that) but from their conformity, to the Rule of the Grace of the Promise, the promise of Pardon through Christ being to the penitent Believers, and no other. Repentance and Faith become necessary and useful Conditions of this Pardon, by the order of God in the gracious Promise, but by the Covenant of Works, the mere Work gave an Interest in the Reward, as it was obedience to the Precept, by a Sanction that had goodness, but no such Grace in it” (Defence, 5). 107 Crisp, Christ Alone, 35. 108 Keach, True Marrow of Justification, 14. 109 Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 116. 104 105

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

366

Herman Witsius

faith, not our union to Christ, no gifts that accompany salvation, are federal conditions.” Instead, “Christ in the exercise of his mediator’s office in his humiliation and exaltation, is the only federal condition wherein all entitling conditions particularly mentioned in the gospel are lodged and treasured up, and are freely by Christ bestowed on us.”110 Conditions of connection, on the other hand, are those things that occur, one upon another—they occur “by way of order and dependence.”111 Hence, if a person believes and has faith in Christ, her faith “is a condition of connection to salvation.” In other words, a person has faith because of the promise of God, not because she has somehow personally met the stated federal conditions of the covenant: In this sense the covenant of promise contains all the conditions of order and dependence in the exhibition and performance: the hearing of the word is the condition of faith, but hearing the Word is not a federal condition: so the giving the Spirit is the condition of union to Christ and faith, faith the condition of receiving pardon and living in holiness. And the giving of pardon the condition of receiving it, holiness the condition of seeing God and eternal happiness: But these kind of conditions are not federal entitling to the promise, but are contained in the promise, and denote only the connection and dependence of one promised benefit upon another.112

Hence, on the basis of this twofold distinction between federal and conditions of connection, Chauncy excludes sanctification as a federal condition of salvation.113 The only federal condition is Christ and whatever is given by the grace of Christ in the promise of the gospel cannot be a federal condition.114 On this particular point in the debate, Witsius sides with the so-called antinomians, though he is willing to allow for a charitable reading of Williams provided certain matters were addressed. Witsius asks how faith is reckoned a cause of justification, whether it is a condition or an instrument. Witsius answers that if faith is introduced as a condition, it renders justification a “new law” and corrupts the gospel of Christ.115 Witsius then cites Williams’s explanation of the relationship of faith to the gospel and concludes:

Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 116–17. Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 117. 112 Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 117–18. 113 Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 138. 114 Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 138–39. 115 Witsius, Animadversions, 10.8 (p. 112). 110 111

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Justification



367

Mean while he rather inclines to call faith the condition of remission, than the instrument: because he thinks that under the notion of an instrument, more causality than just, is ascribed unto faith; yet so, that he easily excuses them who choose to use that word, since he believes they understand nothing else but a moral instrument, which is equivalent to a condition: hence the orthodox are wont to use these words promiscuously.116

Witsius prefers to call faith an instrument of justification rather than a condition, but is willing to allow diversity of expression because Scripture calls faith neither a condition nor instrument. Witsius does not want to impeach the orthodoxy of someone for calling faith a condition of justification so long as the person acknowledges that Christ’s righteousness alone is the only ground for a sinner’s justification and that this justification is received by faith, not by any worthiness or causality of faith.117 Further evidence of Witsius’s sympathies with the so-called antinomians enters with his use of theological distinctions to explain the nature of conditions of the covenant. Witsius appeals to distinctions employed by Chamier in his refutation of Bellarmine’s understanding of justification. Witsius offers “to subjoin the most excellent Chamier’s opinion on this controversy.”118 Witsius appeals to Chamier’s understanding of “conditions in contracts,” (conditiones in contractibus) of which there are two, antecedent and consequent (praecedentes, alias consequentes). Antecedent conditions are those things that give rise to the creation of the contract, which can be illustrated by the phrase, “I give to you in order that you may give to others.” A consequent condition, on the other hand, is something that is added to the antecedent condition and follows from it. Witsius explains that the law of works requires fulfillment as an antecedent condition apart from which a person cannot attain eternal life. But the law of faith does not admit works as a condition in the same sense.119 Witsius’s commendation of Chamier’s distinctions parallel those distinctions employed by Chauncy.

18.4.6 Locke Other neonomian participants in the debate, such as John Locke, more clearly articulate their understanding of the relationship between faith and works in justification. Locke argues that devils (e.g. James 2.19) can never be saved by Witsius, Animadversions, 10.11 (p. 116). Witsius, Animadversions, 10.1 (p. 108). 118 Witsius, Animadversions, 14.10 (p. 149). 119 Witsius, Animadversions, 14.10 (pp. 150–51). 116 117

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

368

Herman Witsius

the covenant of grace even though they “believe”. Why can they not be saved? Locke contends that devils cannot be saved because they do not perform the other required condition of the covenant, namely repentance. “Repentance,” according to Locke, “is as absolute a condition of the covenant of grace as faith; and as necessary to be performed as that.”120 Locke therefore concludes that “faith and repentance, i.e., believing Jesus to be the Messiah, and a good life, are the indispensable conditions of the new covenant, to be performed by all those who would obtain eternal life.”121 Important to note in Locke’s preceding statement is the conflation of faith and repentance, something that Reformed theologians had sought to maintain as necessary but distinct categories. That Locke conflates faith and works is evident in his description of how people are saved: God therefore, out of his mercy to mankind, and for the erecting of the kingdom of his Son, and furnishing it with subjects out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; proposed to the children of men, that as many of them as would believe Jesus his Son . . . to be the Messiah, the promised Deliverer; and would receive him for their King and Ruler; should have all their past sins, disobedience, and rebellion forgiven them: and if for the future, they lived in a sincere obedience to his law, to the utmost of their power, the sins of human frailty for the time to come, as well as all those of their past lives, should, for his Son’s sake, because they gave themselves up to him, to be his subjects, be forgiven them: and so their faith, which made them be baptized into his name . . . should be accounted to them for righteousness; i.e., should supply the defects of a scanty obedience in the sight of God; who counting faith to them for righteousness, or complete obedience, did thus justify, or make them just, and thereby capable of eternal life.122

Locke contends that people must have faith in Christ but must also be obedient in order to be saved. Moreover, Locke argues that faith is accounted as righteousness rather than maintaining the historic Reformation distinction that faith does not justify but rather the imputed righteousness of Christ justifies.123 On the necessity of both faith and works for justification, Locke is explicit: “St. Paul tells the Galatians, That which avails is faith; but ‘faith working by love.’ Locke, Reasonableness of Christianity, 103. Locke, Reasonableness of Christianity, 105. 122 Locke, Reasonableness of Christianity, 110–11. 123 Cf. the Westminster Confession, e.g., “Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies . . . nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them” (11.1). 120 121

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Sanctification



369

And that faith without works, i.e., the works of sincere obedience to the law and will of Christ, is not sufficient for our justification.”124 Locke not only affirms this position in his initial volley in his Reasonableness of Christianity but even in the face of criticism maintains the same view in his Vindication when he distinguishes between faith, which is “a bare assent to any proposition,” and evangelical faith, which is “more than a bare simple assent” but is “an active principle of life, a faith working by love and obedience.”125

18.5 Sanctification 18.5.1 Witsius Depending on one’s vantage point, the antinomian controversy turns on the primary question of the doctrinal integrity of justification (for the antinomians) or the integrity and necessity of sanctification (for the neonomians). However, this is not to say that both parties ignore their respective secondary concerns. In the articulation of the relationship between union with Christ and justification theologians also must account for the relationship with sanctification. So for example, Witsius insists upon protecting the integrity of justification by precluding the believer’s good works from consideration. Witsius writes quite pointedly that when Paul testifies in Phil 3.8 that he has considered all things a loss for the sake of Christ, “By these words he excludes, as to justification before God, all works, whether previous to faith, or following it, as is excellently observed by Beza.”126 Witsius’s exegesis is the polar opposite of Williams’s exegesis. Witsius, therefore, affirms: “Learned men confess that sanctification is a consequence and an effect of justification.”127 However, this does not mean that Witsius marginalizes the necessity and importance of sanctification. Witsius explains that the covenant of works is characterized by Lev 18.5, “Do Locke, Reasonableness of Christianity, 112. Locke, Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, 285–86; Wallace, “Socinianism, Justification by Faith,” 55. 126 Witsius, Animadversions, 13.8 (p. 157). 127 Witsius, Animadversions, 16.16 (p. 171). Witsius was not alone in the use of this type of language, as one of his contemporaries and peers, à Brakel, for example, states: “Justification is the fountain of sanctification . . . Since justification is the fountain, it therefore defines the proper manifestation of sanctification and its true essence” (Reasonable Service, 2.405; “De rechtvaardigmaking is de fontein van de heiligmaking . . . gelijk die de fontein is, zo geeft ze ook de heiligmaking den rechte vorm en het ware wezen” [De Redelijke Godsdienst, 34.78]). But at the same time, like Witsius, à Brakel does not slight the importance of union with Christ: “The soul receives the very first principle of life simultaneously with the first act of faith. In a chronological sense, faith and spiritual life begin simultaneously, but in 124 125

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

370

Herman Witsius

this and live,” whereas the covenant of grace is marked by life in Christ whereby a person lives in Christ, which is evidenced by her holy activity, or good works.128 One must recall that Witsius affirms the various aspects of union with Christ including the believer’s actual union with Christ. In other words, Witsius holds that all of the benefits of Christ, both justification and sanctification, come through union with Christ. In his Economy of the Covenants, Witius explains: Sanctification does not consist only in the amendment of the actions, according to the Socinians and the favorers of Pelagianism, who do not sincerely acknowledge the corruption of our nature; but in the conferring of new habits, which succeed to the old ones, which gradually give way. Thus Peter, among these precious promises which we obtain, mentions the communication of a divine nature.129

He therefore tells believers that no sin can overturn their justification, but he does warn them of the seriousness and pestilential power of sin and the temporal judgments that can fall upon them.130 Witsius also exhorts his readers to exemplify holiness, as God delights in that which is like him; Witsius cites Stephen Charnock (1628–80) on the importance and necessity of holiness.131

18.5.2 Tobias and Samuel Crisp Among the so-called antinomians none of the participants ever deny the necessity of sanctification. Even though he was accused by John Edwards of separating them, the infamously reputed antinomian Tobias Crisp, for example, affirms the inseparability of justification and sanctification: “Sanctification of life is an inseparable companion, with the justification of a person by the free grace of Christ.”132 Crisp insists that justification takes away the curse of the law but not the necessity of a believer’s obedience: “We have our justification, our peace, our salvation, only by the righteousness Christ has done for us: but this does not take away our obedience, nor our services, in respect of those ends for which the order of grace faith precedes as being the origin of life. There is no spiritual life apart from union with Christ, who is the life of the soul. Faith is the means whereby union with Christ comes about” (Reasonable Service, 2.245; De Redelijke Godsdienst 31.12). 128 Witsius, Animadversions, 13.4 (p. 155). 129 Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 3.12.46. 130 Witsius, Animadversions, 13.16 (p. 140). 131 Witsius, Animadversions, 16.21 (p. 177). 132 Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, 48–49; Edwards, Crispianism Unmask’d, 3.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Sanctification



371

such are now required of believers.”133 Crisp, moreover, grounds the believer’s ability to do good works in her union with Christ.134 Samuel Crisp affirms that good works spring from faith; but he is also concerned with connecting good works to a person’s sanctification and union with Christ.135 He writes: Here must be conformity to gospel rule, before we have any benefit by Christ, which consists in repentance, faith, etc. to all the rest, and now this is pressed, and the main of our ministry consists in this, because God was in Christ, and when upon the cross, reconciling the world to himself, when by one offering he forever perfected the work and cried out, it is finished; and then after union, after engrafting into Christ; after being in a blessed state of salvation, secured so as never to fall away, then the apostles presses to walk worthy of this gospel, of his free salvation by Jesus Christ.136

For Samuel Crisp, the placement of good works is key—if they are placed before a person’s union with Christ, then the gospel is lost, but if they are placed after a person’s union with Christ, and hence her justification secured solely by Christ, then the gospel is preserved.

18.5.3 Flavel and Keach Debate participants are concerned not only to protect justification but also the importance of sanctification. In his Planelogia, for example, Flavel spends the vast majority of his work correcting antinomian errors. Among the many errors he lists, he criticizes antinomians for teaching that Christians are not required to confess sin or pray for the forgiveness of sin.137 Keach, on the other hand, spends the majority of his treatise on correcting neonomian errors but nevertheless concludes his treatise by emphasizing the importance of sanctification properly understood. Keach explains the proper place of the law and coordinates it with the elements of sanctification and union with Christ: “We are for the law as Paul was, and for holiness and sincere obedience, as any men in the world; but we would have men act from right principles, and to a right end: We would have men act in holiness, from a principle of faith, from a principle Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, 134. Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, 134–35; cf. Cooper, Fear and Polemic, 34. 135 S. Crisp, Christ Alone, 31. 136 Crisp, Christ Alone, 38. 137 Flavel, Planelogia, 320. 133 134

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

372

Herman Witsius

of spiritual life, be first married to Christ that they may bring forth the fruit of God (Rom. 7.4).”138 Keach aphoristically states his point in this manner: “You must first have union with him, before you can bring forth fruit to God; you must act from life, and not for life.”139

18.5.4 Chauncy and Traill Chauncy likewise affirms the importance of good works through union with Christ. He argues that Christ merited both the ends and the means, which means that Christians can be exhorted to persist in faith and hope, the fruit of the grace of God they have received and the foundation for their Christian duty.140 Similarly, Traill contends that believers derive their holiness from Christ and faith in him and that it can arise from no other source.141 Moreover, Traill commends Walter Marshall’s (1628–80) The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification as an important book that speaks directly to the controversy.142 Marshall’s work is a series of sermons that grounds the believer’s sanctification in her vital union with Christ. Marshall writes: “Another great mystery in the way of sanctification, is, the glorious manner of our fellowship with Christ, in receiving a holy frame of heart from him. It is by our being in Christ, and having Christ himself in us; and that no merely by his universal preference as he is God, but by such a union, as that we are one spirit and one flesh with him.”143

18.5.5 Williams On the other side of the aisle, there is a more variegated employment of the doctrine of union with Christ as it relates to sanctification. Williams embraces the necessity of union with Christ for a person’s redemption. He contrasts life before the fall and what was lost versus life after redemption and notes that believers have greater benefits than Adam such as union with Christ, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and perseverance.144 However, in response to criticisms leveled Keach, True Marrow of Justification, 35. Keach, True Marrow of Justification, 37. 140 Chauncy, Ancient Gospel, 282. 141 Traill, Justification Vindicated, 48. 142 Traill, Justification Vindicated, 65; Walter Marshall, The Gospel-Mystery of Sanctification (London: 1692). 143 Marshall, Gospel Mystery, 42–43. 144 Williams, Man Made Righteous, 86. 138 139

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Sanctification



373

by Increase Mather, Williams argues against the idea that believers are bound in a legal union with Christ. Williams objects to the common idea that Christ came as covenant surety to fulfill the terms of the broken covenant of works. Williams believes that if the legal union between the believer and Christ is only based upon the original covenant of works, then Christ’s remedy of fulfilling the broken covenant is ultimately insufficient. In other words, Christ can only repair the covenant according to its original terms. And in its original form, Adam’s relationship is merely legal. Hence according to Williams the remedy of Christ can only be legal.145 How does Williams propose to resolve this apparent dilemma? Williams turns to union with Christ: “I find after all, that this equality of righteousness between Christ and us, is not so much from legal union, or judicial imputation, but from a coalescence of believers into one mystical person with Christ by vital union.”146 This move is in contrast to historic Reformed expressions. The Westminster Confession, for example, states that a person is justified “not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone . . . by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them” (11.1). Historic Reformed expressions distinguish between the forensic and transformative categories, or the different aspects of the believer’s union with Christ, whereas it appears that Williams conflates the two together. Edwards, for example, in his refutation of Crisp, concludes that Crisp’s exclusion of sanctification from justification is correct: “We are not accounted righteous before God, and have our sins pardoned for our holiness, sincerity, and simplicity of heart, but for the alone righteousness and merits of Christ Jesus.”147 Williams’s formulation bears upon sanctification in the following manner. Williams argues that believers are one person with Christ, hence: “For we are Christified with Christ, not in name, or on account of his undertaking, or his being the head of the church as his mystical body: but as being one mystical person, opposed to a legal person.” Just as Williams dispenses with distinctions in his understanding of union with Christ and the conditions of the covenant, he also does the same with the distinctions between the legal and transformative aspects of union with Christ. Such an understanding of union with Christ contributes to the imprecision in Williams’s understanding of the relationship between union with Christ, justification, and sanctification. Williams’s view of justification and sanctification as both are grounded in the believer’s mystical Williams, Man Made Righteous, 188–92. Williams, Man Made Righteous, 192. 147 Edwards, Crispianism Unmask’d, 24. 145 146

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

374

Herman Witsius

(or vital) union with Christ. Hence, the believer is sanctified because of union with Christ; but it also appears that Williams believes that sinners are justified because of Christ’s work in them, though it is also possible that Williams is imprecise at this point given his later clarifications presented in his Defence of Gospel-Truth.148

18.5.6 Locke Locke, on the other hand, virtually eliminates the doctrine of union with Christ altogether. Theologians of the period, as surveyed above, repeatedly make reference to union with Christ and the necessity of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit to sanctify a person. Locke instead comments: “If we do what we can, he will give us his Spirit to help us to do what, and how we should.” Locke believes, therefore, that a person first has to approach God in her own effort. But when pressed as to how a person might seek God or how the Spirit assists a person in her sanctification, Locke responds: “It will be idle for us, who know not how our own spirits move and act us, to ask in what manner the Spirit of God shall work upon us.”149 Though there are a number of likely avenues where Locke may have derived his views, scholars surmise that he may have been influenced by Baxter or possibly John Tillotson (1630–94), who was the archbishop of Canterbury from 1691–94. Baxter, for example, relegates union with Christ to one of the relative benefits of salvation rather than the underlying foundation for all of them.150 Additionally, Baxter also reduces union with Christ to a political union, namely the bond between a king and his subjects.151 This is an idea that Edward Polhill (1622–94), a theologian of the period, specifically rejects: “The union between Christ and believers is not merely a political one, such as is between a king and his subjects.”152 Theologians of the period believe that union with Christ does Williams, Defence of Gospel-Truth, 15–16. Locke, Reasonableness of Christianity, 151; Wallace, “Socinianism, Justification by Faith,” 55. 150 Baxter, Aphorismes of Justification, 133; cf. LC q. 90: “The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.” 151 Hans Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its SeventeenthCentury Context of Controversy (1993; Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2004), 235; Richard Baxter, Methodus Theologiae Christiane, 1 Naturae rerum, 2 Sacrae Scripturae, 3 Praxi (London: 1681), 3.27.3 (pp. 308–09). 152 Edward Polhill, Christus in Corde: or, The Mystical Union Between Christ and Believers Considered in its Resemblances, Bonds, Seals, Privileges and Marks (London: 1680), 116. 148 149

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Conclusion



375

have a political dimension, but that Scripture represents the union in terms of divine inhabitation through the work of the Holy Spirit.153 However, despite such protestations against the idea of disconnecting union with Christ from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, Baxter’s union-less views gained momentum. Tillotson reduces union with Christ to belief in him, becoming a disciple, and following his commandments.154 Tillotson objects to the common theological language of union with Christ: “Let any man show me where justifying faith is any where in Scripture described by resting, and relying, and leaning upon Christ, by apprehending, and laying hold, and applying of him.”155 Hence, not all those associated with the neonomian party embrace the doctrine of union with Christ. Rather, those such as Baxter and Tillotson likely influence others such as Locke who eliminates the doctrine altogether.

18.6 Conclusion There are two main observations that arise from the antinomian controversy: the priority of justification and the disuse of theological terminology. First, concerning the priority of justification, this whole debate showcases the lengths to which Witsius and the so-called antinomian theologians go to assign justification theological priority over sanctification. The debate participants embrace the doctrine of union with Christ and understand that it is the underlying foundation for the variegated benefits of redemption, chiefly justification and sanctification. Two exceptions to this trend are Baxter, who reduces union to a political one, and Locke who all but abandons the doctrine. Hence, the doctrine of union with Christ is not an issue of contention—all parties agree to its importance and fundamental role in soteriology. Debate centers on where good works fit in the relationship between justification and sanctification. Witsius and the antinomians argue that the execution of the decree of election in conjunction with the pactum salutis establishes Christ as covenant surety and therefore secures the justification of the elect believer in some sense. None of the surveyed antinomians embrace the doctrine of justification from eternity. Even the notorious Tobias Crisp argues that believers are Polhill, Christus in Corde, 116–25; see also Owen, Works, 5.209. Wallace, Puritans and Predestination, 184. 155 John Tillotson, The Works of Dr. John Tillotson Late Archbishop of Canterbury, 10 vol. (London: Richard Priestley, High Holborn, 1820), 9.324; cf. Julius J. Kim, “The Rise of Moralism in SeventeenthCentury Anglican Preaching: A Case Study,” in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California, ed. R. Scott Clark (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2007), 384. 153 154

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

376

Herman Witsius

justified in time, both in terms of the actual crucifixion of Christ as well as the application of their justification at the moment of their birth. But even then, none of the antinomians embrace Crisp’s views on justification and a number of them explicitly reject them. Robert Traill, for example, writes: “We also justly complain that, in their opposing of true Antinomian errors, and particularly the alleged tenets of Dr. Crisp, they hint that there is a party of ministers and professors that defend them; whereas we can defy them to name one minister, in London at least, that does so.”156 Second, the so-called antinomian theologians employ a number of terminological distinctions to protect the integrity of justification and ensure that no contagion of human effort enters the redemptive picture. This inventory of terms includes those associated with union with Christ employed by Witsius and Chauncy (citing Rutherford), which stand in stark contrast to Williams’s absence of distinctions: Witsius Union of the decree Union of eternal consent True and real union Passive Active

Chauncy (Rutherford) Legal union Federal union Natural union Mystical union

Williams Actual union

In the defense of the doctrine of justification the views of Witsius, Chauncy (citing Ames and Maccovius), Traill, and Flavel again stand in contrast to Williams: Witsius Active Passive General Particular

Chauncy In the decree In Christ Virtual By the Holy Spirit Active - Passive

Traill Decretal Virtual Actual

Flavel In the decree Application

Wiliams Actual justification

The same trend appears in the discussion of what constitutes a condition of the covenant of grace, namely either a federal and connection (or dependent) conditions, or the difference between a condition and instrument, and anteced156 Traill, Justification Vindicated, 49. One should also note Edwards’s Crispianism Unmask’d, a treatise devoted exclusively to refuting Crisp.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Conclusion

377

ent or consequent conditions. By contrast Locke dispenses with all distinctions whether in their discussions of union with Christ, justification, or the conditions of the covenant, and Williams, at first, did not employ many distinctions. Only under withering criticism did he go to great lengths to qualify his views. The absence of distinctions paves the way for Locke’s own views; some have thought Locke did more than any other to pave the way for the rise of Socinianism in eighteenth-century in England.157 Baxter’s influence not only in matters related to justification but also in ecclesiology, such as the efforts to see dissenters reunited with the Church of England, play a major role in doctrinal decline among Presbyterians of the time.158 Two likely reasons explain this trend regarding the use or disuse of theological distinctions. The first reason arises from the dislike of scholastic distinctions. Baxter, for example, is not averse to theological distinctions, as evident from his threefold understanding of justification.159 Baxter employed these distinctions to make room for good works in justification. Nevertheless, there is a growing trend of moving away from the use of scholastic distinctions. John Edwards complains that the reputed Socinians in his day, such as Locke, are no longer interested in theological distinctions because they want to appeal to the “vulgar capacities” and the judgment of the “multitude”.160 Moreover, Locke “laughed” at “orthodoxy” and cried down “systems and creeds”.161 In a sense, one might say that there is an attempt to turn back the clock on the theological discussions related to justification, but too much water has passed under the bridge. Reformed theologians are too concerned to preserve the gains of the Reformation as well as defend the truth, as they understand it, against the inroads of Arminianism and Socinianism. While written hundreds of years after the debate, the words of Karl Barth would likely resonate with the so-called antinomians: “Fear of scholasticism is the mark of a false prophet. The true prophet will be ready to submit his message to this test too.”162 In a word, the growing dislike for scholastic distinctions contributed to their disuse. 157 Thomas, Daniel Williams, 17, 23. This was certainly the opinion of some during Locke’s time, evidenced in John Edwards’s direct refutation of Locke’s works on the subject in his Socinianism Unmask’d: A Discourse Shewing the Unreasonableness of a Late Writer’s Opinion Concerning the Necessity of Only One Article of Christian Faith; And of His other Assertions in his late Book Entitled, The Reasonableness of Christianity as deliver’d in the Scriptures, and in his Vindication of it (London: 1696). 158 Spurr, “From Puritanism to Dissent,” 245–46. 159 Dewey D. Wallace, “Puritan polemical divinity and doctrinal controversy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism, ed. John Coffey / Paul C. H. Lim (Cambridge: CUP, 2008), 211. 160 Edwards, Socinianism Unmask’d, 29–30. 161 Edwards, Socinianism Unmask’d, 101–02, also 104; cf. Wallace, Shapers of English Calvinism, 209–10. 162 CD, 1.1:279.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

378

Herman Witsius

A second reason for the disuse of scholastic distinctions has to do with the degree to which a theologian reads and employs other sources. One of the noticeable differences between Williams and Locke, on the one hand, and Chauncy, Goodwin, Flavel, Witsius, and Keach, on the other, is the number of authorities they cite.163 Williams only initially cited the Westminster Standards and John Owen, which is likely both a theological and political move.164 No one questioned the orthodoxy of either of these sources.165 But such selective and strategic appeal did not go unnoticed. Robert Traill, for example, takes note of the absence of other key theologians in neonomian literature: “But as for Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Twisse, Ames, Perkins and divines of their spirit and stamp, they are generally neglected and despised.”166 One of the driving political and theological forces behind the neglect of earlier Reformed writers was the push to exaggerate the home-grown character of the English Reformation so it could free the Church of England to pursue its own path, one divorced from the influence of continental Reformed churches.167 Nevertheless, the overall impact of this trend is that as theologians ignore the work of earlier Reformed luminaries, as well as the distinctions they employ, their theological expressions take on a different character. In this case, the absence of distinctions invited a biblicism, especially in the case of Locke, and allowed for the conflation of justification and sanctification. If one applies the terms neonomian (one who compromises the integrity of justification) and antinomian (one who compromises the integrity of sanctification) as they were substantively employed in this debate, then one can render a judgment regarding its outcome. In other words, while the label of antinomian might not fit for the likes of Chauncy and others, the neonomian label does seem to be an accurate description for Baxter and Locke. Williams, on the other hand, is more likely guilty of imprecision rather than neonomianism. The neonomians fail to maintain the theological priority of justification over sanctification and for this reason drew the polemical and theological ire of their so-called antinomian counterparts. And while Witsius was irenic, he nevertheless maintains a Nettles, “Benjamin Keach,” 107. Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, 72, 163, 172. 165 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, 183. 166 Traill, Justification Vindicated, 51. A contemporary of Traill and fellow debate participant, William Lorimer (1640–1722), similarly complained that the neonomians despised and neglected Luther, Calvin, Zanchi, Twisse, Ames, and Perkins (William Lorimer, An Apology for the Ministers Who Subscribed only unto the Stating of the Truths and Errours in Mr. William’s Book Shewing, That the Gospel Which They Preach, Is the Old Everlasting Gospel of Christ, and Vindicating Them from the Calumnies [London: 1694], 202; cf. Van den Brink, “Calvin, Witsius, and the English Antinomians,” 234 n. 24). 167 Wallace, Shapers of English Calvinism, 232. 163 164

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Conclusion



379

position substantively closer to the so-called antinomians; his position is also formally closer to the antinomians than it is to Williams given the latter’s lack of the use of distinctions.168 He accords justification priority over sanctification, the dual benefits received in union with Christ.

168

Pace Ramsey, “Meet Me In the Middle,” 161.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

19. Conclusion

19.1 Summary This essay began with the goal of proving four key points. The first key argument is that Calvin’s formulations of union with Christ are in no way normative for the Reformed tradition. While this essay only took glancing looks at Calvin’s understanding of union and justification, something that might surprise some is the absence of Calvin’s name in the early modern Reformed literature. Calvin’s name only appears as supporting cast, though the one place where he is cited prominently appears in the works of Faustus Socinus. But even then, Calvin’s views are taken in a very different direction. Instead, the evidence demonstrates that Calvin is one among a host of other Reformed theologians. These theologians invoke the names of others in sourcing their doctrines of union with Christ, such as Augustine, Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, or St. Hillary. In Vermigli’s correspondence with Calvin on the doctrine of union with Christ, without explanation, introduction, or connection to previous sources, Vermigli writes of incarnational, mystical, and spiritual unions and Calvin gives his hearty assent. Other factors that further mitigate the claims that Calvin has fountainhead status within the Reformed tradition is the appearance of references to Luther and Melanchthon. Luther and Melanchthon both antedate Calvin by a considerably wide margin. It should be no surprise, therefore, that first generation Reformers, such as Valdès and Bullinger were convinced of Protestant teaching through reading their works. Moreover, a number of theologians embrace Lutheran expressions and positions on justification. Most notably, the inclusion of a number of Lutheran confessions in Beza’s Harmonia Confessionum, indicates that the early modern Reformed tradition was quite comfortable with the Lutheran understanding of justification. If Calvin led a break against the Lutheran tradition, no one seems to have noticed. This essay has proven that Calvin is in no way normative for the tradition. This is not a conclusion based on personal preference but rather upon his absence as an identifiable source of influence in the works of other early modern Reformed theologians. Second, this essay set out to prove that there is no one doctrine of union with Christ and no one ordo salutis. If Calvin was truly normative for the tradition,

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Summary

381

then one might expect to find his doctrines reproduced in the works of other theologians. Expressions about union with Christ before Calvin, such as those from Luther, Melanchthon, Valdès, or Bullinger, lack precision. They write of believer’s being predestined “in Christ,” and being united to him. Vermigli writes of his threefold understanding of union (incarnational, mystical, and spiritual), and received Calvin’s approval. However, Zanchi writes of predestinarian, mystical, and eschatological unions. Later theologians such as Turretin and Witsius, conceive of the predestinarian union in terms of the pactum salutis. Even then, Witsius has a doctrine of union with many different layers, a union of the decree, of eternal consent, a true and real union, which also has active and passive aspects. Others, such as Rutherford, have a fourfold union—legal, federal, natural, and mystical. All of the surveyed theologians, including those deemed heterodox, such as Socinus and Arminius, have a doctrine of union. They generally agree on the principal but are variegated in the way they account for the reality. This pattern is also true of the ordo salutis, or the sequential nature by which theologians explain the various benefits of redemption. Turretin, like Bullinger before him, annexes adoption to justification. Others treat adoption as a separate benefit. Edward Leigh, for example, argues that adoption precedes justification in his explanation of the benefits of redemption. In a word, there is no one ordo salutis but rather there are a number of ordos. The early modern Reformed tradition is not a monolith when it comes to the doctrines of union with Christ and the ordo salutis, or the golden chain. The third thing this essay has proven is that union with Christ and the ordo salutis are not incompatible categories in early modern Reformed theology. Virtually all of the surveyed theologians affirm union with Christ, with the exception of Baxter and Locke. This is an important point to grasp, namely that all of the surveyed theologians, regardless of the period or theological persuasion, hold to the doctrine of union with Christ: Augustine, Bernard, Aquinas, Gerson, Staupitz, Luther, Melanchthon, Valdès, Bullinger, Vermigli, Zanchi, Socinus, Arminius, Perkins, Owen, Turretin, and Witsius. Union with Christ is not unique to the Reformed tradition let alone an idea that originates with Calvin. However, not one of the surveyed theologians shows the slightest discomfort with the idea of the ordo salutis. All of the surveyed theologians prioritize the benefits of redemption to one degree or another. The fourth argument of this essay has been proven, namely the hallmark of an early modern Reformed doctrine of union with Christ is assigning justification priority over sanctification. The priority is not temporal or chronological but logical, or theological. Protestant theologians, whether Lutheran or Reformed,

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

382

Conclusion

exclude good works and hence sanctification from the believer’s justification. They prioritize justification in a number of different ways: by saying that sanctification is an effect of justification, by making justification the first of the twofold benefit of union with Christ, by saying that the believer’s good works, being imperfect, are always covered by the righteousness of Christ, by rejecting a second justification based upon the believer’s good works, by saying that justification secures the right to eternal life, by arguing that justification is a once-for-all verdict in contrast to Rome’s, Arminius’, or Baxter’s process of justification, by assigning the imputed righteousness of Christ to the believer in the pactum salutis, or by placing justification before sanctification in the golden chain, or ordo salutis. Just because a theologian gives justification priority over sanctification, however, does not mean that he somehow slights union with Christ. Except for Arminius, Baxter, or Locke, for example, all of the surveyed theologians acknowledge that justification and sanctification are a dual-benefit of union with Christ. However, that both benefits come in union with Christ does not therefore mean the theologian is indifferent as to their order. The ordering of the benefits is simply the attempt to preserve the biblically defined nature of these categories, i.e., preserving and maintaining justification as a legal declaration, a verdict not made on the basis of pre-existing condition within the believer, and sanctification as an ongoing moral transformation. For the Reformed, justification is based upon Christ’s work for us but not his work in us. When theologians, such as Socinus, Baxter, Arminius, or Locke disturbed or removed the priority of justification to sanctification, they drew the ire of their contemporaries. So, while Reformed theologians may disagree over the structure of union with Christ in its various distinctions or in their understanding of the order of the golden chain, they all fundamentally agree on giving justification priority over sanctification. Hence, one may say that for early modern Reformed theology, union with Christ brings the dual benefits of justification and sanctification, but that the former has priority over the latter. Correlatively, justification is the legal ground of the believer’s union with Christ. Such a conclusion is eminently clear in later formulations where theologians, such as Owen, Turretin, and Witsius, place the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in the pactum salutis, well before believers are ever actually united to Christ through effectual calling.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Contemporary relevance

383

19.2 Contemporary relevance Beyond the four proven arguments, this essay also offers some relevance for the church in our own day. It seems that few of the contemporary critics have taken the time to wade through the ocean of primary sources. There has been a great reliance upon secondary sources. Or the investigation of primary sources has been limited to Calvin and his works, or worse yet, simply his Institutes. Such a pattern can be detrimental to the life of the church as it is wanting methodologically and theologically. In the church’s effort to reconstruct the past, we must not peer down the well of history in an effort to find ourselves. We should be surprised if, removed by hundreds of years, we find an exact copy of our understanding of a doctrine. We certainly profess the same faith as our ancestors but to assume that there are no differences given the seismic philosophical changes will likely lead to dubious results. A case in point is when historians read about cause and effect language, and with Enlightenment assumptions, assume that this means the cause and effect can be rent asunder. This is the very point pre-critical theologians refute—in the early modern period (the sixteenth and seventeenth-centuries), there are no effects without causes. In this respect, Richard Muller has rightly commented that, as a group, systematic theologians do not read historical texts.1 Instead, they seem intent on imposing themselves and their ideas upon the past. Methodologically, such a pattern should be rejected. Writing good history requires humility. Rather than looking for an antecedent to “my view,” or seeking confirmation for a pet idea, one must listen to historical documents with the ears of the period. One must seek to immerse himself in the theology, nomenclature, and assumptions of the early modern period, not those of his own age. In so doing, the individual and the church can benefit from the past because they will have heard the voices of history correctly. Perhaps with such a method, the past can offer direction and counsel and reunite ideas that have been unnecessarily torn asunder, such as the supposed incompatibility between union with Christ and the golden chain. Theologically, the methodology of some historians is possibly detrimental to the life of the church because they take the formulations of one man and exalt them over all others. Such a move is antithetical to the Reformation’s understanding of how theology is done. To argue that Calvin is normative, for example, and those who do not conform to his understanding of union 1 Richard Muller, “Reflections on Persistent Whiggism and Its Antidotes in the Study of Sixteenthand Seventeenth-Century Intellectual History,” in Seeing Things Their Way: Intellectual History and the Return of Religion, ed., Alister Chapman / John Coffey / Brad S. Gregory (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 137.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

384

Conclusion

with Christ are less than Reformed, drives an unnecessary wedge of division into the life of the church. If no one person has ever been elevated to the level of fountainhead, but rather there are numerous theologians, confessions, and catechisms that comprise the Reformed tradition, then historians should take note of such a trend. It is one thing to have a favorite theologian and esteem his formulations over others, but it is entirely another to impose those formulations in a normative way, whether in historical or systematic theology. Instead, to listen to the tradition as a whole on any one subject is of the utmost of importance. As G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936) writes: “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who happen to be walking about.”2 In this respect, to survey the early modern Reformed tradition on union with Christ and justification is not to ask the opinion of one man, but rather to study these doctrines in a churchly and covenantal fashion. Only when we recognize that revelation, and hence the dogmatic reflection upon it, has been given to the church, not simply in our own day, but also throughout the ages, do we then begin to approach a churchly and communal understanding of doctrine. We can, as C. S. Lewis (1898–1963), once observed, have the fresh breeze of the centuries blow through our mind and inform us of truths of which our own age is ignorant. In a word, this essay has argued that there is a need to move beyond Calvin, not out of ire, disrespect, or prejudice, but out of an effort to listen to the early modern Reformed tradition on the doctrines of union with Christ and justification. This study has only scratched the surface, as there is much more work to be done. There is a host of other early modern Reformed theologians that have yet to be explored. Nevertheless, thus far, this essay offers an interim report that despite the differences and nuances in formulation, early modern Reformed theology affirms both union with Christ and the ordo salutis. It also affirms that justification and sanctification are dual benefits of union with Christ, but the former has priority to the latter. Early modern Reformed theologians do not accord justification this position because they impose ideas upon the text of Scripture but because they were convinced of two things: (1) Scripture teaches it; and (2) the desire to protect and defend Christ’s work for sinners in their justification, the article upon which the church stands or falls.

2

G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy: The Romance of Faith (1959; New York: Doubleday, 1990), 48.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

20. Bibliography

20.1 Primary Sources à Brakel, Wilhelmus. De Redelijke Godsdienst. Third edition. 3 volumes. Leiden: 1893. . The Christian’s Reasonable Service. 4 volumes. Translated by Bartel Elshout. Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992. Alsted, Johannes Heinrich. Synopsis Theologiae. N. p.: 1627. Ames, William. Medulla S. S. Theologia. London: 1630. . The Marrow of Theology. Translated by John Dykstra Eusden. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968. An Harmony of the Confessions of the Faith of the Christian and Reformed Churches. Cambridge: Thomas Thomas, 1586. Annesley, Samuel. The morning exercises at Cripplegate. Volume 5. 1652; London: Thomas Tegg, 1844. Anselm, St. Cur Deus Homo? Libri Duo. London: David Nat, 1903. . The Major Works. Edited by Brian Davies / G. R. Evans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Aquinas, Thomas. Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics. Translated by Richard J. Blackwell, et al. Notre Dame: Dumb Ox Books, 1999. . Summa Contra Gentiles. Translated by Vernon J. Bourke. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975. . Summa Theologia. Volume 31. Faith. Translated by T. C. O’Brien. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1974. . Summa Theologica. 5 volumes. Allen: Christian Classics: 1948. Aristotle. The Physics. 2 volumes. 1929; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970. Arrowsmith, John. Armilla catechetica. A chain of principles; or, An orderly concatenation of theological aphorismes and exercitations. Cambridge: Printed by John Field, 1659. Augustine, St. City of God. In Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers. Volume 10. Reprint: Grand Rapids: 1991. . Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. . Homilies on the Gospel of John. In Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers. Volume 7. Reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. . On the Trinity. In Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers. Volume 3. Reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. . To Simplician—On Various Questions. In Augustine: Earlier Writings. Edited by John Baillie / et al. Translated by John H. S. Burliegh. LCC. Volume 6. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1953.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

386

Bibliography

Barclay, William. An apology for the true Christian divinity, as the same is held forth, and preached by the people, called, in scorn, Quakers. Aberdeen: John Forbes, 1678. Bastingius, Jeremias. An Exposition or Commentarie upon the Catechisme of Christian Religion Which Is Taught in the Schooles and Churches both of the Lowe Countryes, and of the Dominions of the Countie Palatine. Cambridge: John Legatt, 1589. Baxter, Richard. A Christian Directory. The Practical Works of Richard Baxter. 4 volumes. Ligonier: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997. . A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness in Two Books. London: 1676. . Aphorismes of Justification With Their Explication Annexed. Wherein also is Opened the Nature of the Covenants, Satisfaction, Righteousness, Faith, Works, etc. Hague: 1655. . Catholick Theology: Plain, Pure, Peaceable for Pacification of the Dogmatical Word-Warriors. 3 volumes. London: 1675. . Confession of His Faith: Especially Concerning the Interest of Repentance and Sincere Obedience to Christ, in our Justification and Salvation. London: 1654. . Methodus Theologiae Christianae, 1. Naturae reurm, 2. Sacrae Scripturae, 3. Praxi. London: 1681. . Of The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness to Believers. London: 1676. . The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter with a Life of the Author and a Christian Examination of His Writings. Edited by William Orme. 23 volumes. London: Duncan, 1830. . The Reformed Pastor. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1981. . The Saints’ Everlasting Rest. Fearn: Christian Heritage, 2000. Becmani, Christiani. Exercitationes theologicae. Amsterdam: J. Janssonium, 1643. Bellarmine, Robert. Opera Omnia. 6 volumes. Naples: Josephum Giuliano, 1856–62. Beza, Theodore. A Brief Declaration of the Chiefe Poyntes of Christian Religion Set Forth in a Table. London: n. d. . Confessio Chrsitianae fidei, & eisdem collatio cum papisticis haeresibus. Geneva: Ioannis Crispini, 1570. . Summa totius Christianismi, sive descriptio et distributio causarum salutis electorum, & exitii reproborum, ex sacris literis collecta. Geneva: Iohannis Crispini, 1570. . The Christian Faith. Translated by James Clark. Lewes: Focus Christian Ministries Trust, 1992. Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb, et al. Corpus Reformatorum. Brunsvigae: Apud C. A. Schwetschke et Filium, 1834–1907. Bucanus, Guillaume. A Body of Divinity or Institutions of Christian Religion. London: 1659. . Institutiones theologicae, seu locorum communium Christianae religionis. Geneva: 1625. Bucer, Martin. Common Places of Martin Bucer. Translated and edited by D. F. Wright. 1555; Appleford: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1972. . Metaphrasis Et Enarratio In Epist. Ad Romanos. Basel: Apud Petrum Pernam, 1562. Bulkeley, Peter. The Gospel Covenant or The Covenant of Grace Opened. London: Matthew Simmons, 1651. Bullinger, Heinrich. Common Places of Christian Religion. London: 1572. . Compendium Christianae Religionis. Tiguri, 1556.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Primary Sources



387

. In divinum Iesu Christi domini nostri evangelium secundum Ioannem. Zurich: Apud Frosch, 1543. . Sermonem decades quinque, de potissimis Christianae religionis capitibus, in tres tomos digestae. London: Impensis Radulphi Newberii, et Hugonis Iaksoni, 1587. . The Decades of Henry Bullinger. 2 volumes. 1849–52; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004. Calvin, John. 1 Corinthians. CNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. . “Calvin to Martyr.” In Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears During the Time of the Reformation in England and the Times Immediately Succeeding: 1533–88. Edited and translated by George C. Gorham. London: Bell and Daldy, 1857: 349–52. . “Calvinus Vermilio.” In Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia. Volume 15. Edited by G. Baum / E. Cunitz / E. Reuss. In Corpus Reformatorum. Volume 43. Brunsvigae: C. A. Schwetschke et Filium, 1876: 724. . Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica. Volume 13. Geneva: Droz, 1999. . Commentarii in Pauli Epistolas. Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica. Volume 16. Edited by Helmut Feld. Geneva: Droz, 1992. . Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. CNTC. Edited by David W. Torrance / T. F. Torrance. 1965; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. . Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia. 59 volumes. Edited by Guilielmus Baum / Eduwardus Cunitz / Eduardus Reuss. Brunsvigiae: C. A. Schwetschke, 1863–1900. . In Evangelium Secundum Johannem Commentarius Pars Prior. Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica. Volume 12/2. Edited by Helmut Feld. Geneva: Droz, 1997. . Institutes of the Christian Religion. LCC. Volumes 20–21. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. . Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin 1539: Text and Concordance. 4 volumes. Edited by Richard F. Wevers. Grand Rapids: Meeter Center for Calvin Studies, 1988. . Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1541 French Edition. Translated by Elsie Anne McKee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. . Institutionum Christianae Religionis Libri Quatuor (1559). Amsterdam: Apud viduam Ioannis Iacobi Schipperi, 1671. . Johannis Calvini Opera Selecta. Edited by Peter Barth / William Niesel / Dora Scheuner. 5 volumes. Munich: Christian Kaiser, 1926–52. . Romans and Thessalonians. CNTC. Volume 8. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. . Tracts and Letters. 7 volumes. Edited and translated by Henry Beveridge. 1844; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2009. Catechismus ex Decreto Consilii Tridentini. Lipsiae: 1856. Catechism of the Council of Trent. Rockford: Tan Books, 1982. Chamier, Daniel. Chamierus contractus, sive panstratiae Catholicae Danielis Chamieri theologi summi epitome in qua corpus controversiarum super religione adversus pontificios. Geneva: Sumptibus Iacobi Chouët, 1642. Chauncy, Isaac. A Plea for the Ancient Gospel. London: 1697.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

388

Bibliography

Chemnitz, Martin. Loci Theologici. Translated by J. A. O. Preus. 2 volumes. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989. Clairvaux, Bernard. On the Song of Songs. 5 volumes. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1979. Contarini, Gasparo. Casparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera. Paris: 1571. Crisp, Samuel. Christ Made Sin: 2 Cor 5.21 Evinc’t from Scripture Upon Occasion of An Exception Taken at Pinners-Hall 28 January, 1689, at Re-Printing the Sermons of Dr. Tobias Crisp. London: n. d. Crisp, Tobias. Christ Alone Exalted. London: 1645. . Christ Alone Exalted. 3 volumes. London: Marshall, 1690. . Christ Alone Exalted. London: 1832. Crocius, Ludovicus. Antisocinismus contractus: hoc est errorum Socinianorum privatarum consequentiarum nebulis involutorum examen & brevis ostensio principiorum quibus illi XXVIII disputationibus refutantur & dogmata catholicae fidei defenduntur. N.p.: 1639. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John. Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. 2 volumes. Translated by P. E. Pusey and T. Randell. Oxford: James Parker & Co., 1874. Davenant, John. A Treatise on Justification or the Disputatio De Justitia Habituali et Actuali. 2 volumes. London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1844. Downame, John. The Christian Warfare. London: William Stansby, 1634. . The Summe of Sacred Divinitie. London: William Barret, n. d. Duns Scoti, Joannis. Quaestiones In Librum Tertium Sententiarum. In Opera Omnia. Volume 14 .Paris: 1894. Edwards, John. Crispianism Unmask’d; or A Discovery of the Several Erroneous Assertions and Pernicious Doctrines Maintain’d in Dr. Crisp’s Sermons Occasion’d by the Reprinting of those Discourses. London: 1693. . Socinianism Unmask’d: A Discourse Shewing the Unreasonableness of a Late Writer’s Opinion Concerning the Necessity of Only One Article of Christian Faith; And of His other Assertions in his late Book Entitled, The Reasonableness of Christianity as deliver’d in the Scriptures, and in his Vindication of it. London: 1696. Edwards, Thomas. The third part of Gangraena. Or, A new and higher discovery of the errors, heresies, blasphemies, and insolent proceedings of the sectaries of these times; with some animadversions by way of confutation upon many of the errors and heresies named. London: Ralph Smith, 1646. Flavel, John. Planelogia: A Succinct Discourse of the Occasions, Causes, Nature, Rise, Growth, and Remedies of Mental Errors. London: R. Roberts, 1691. . The Fountain of Life: A Display of Christ in His Essential and Mediatorial Glory. In The Works of John Flavel. Volume 6. 1820; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1968: 52–61. Fisher, Edward. The Marrow of Modern Divinity. London: 1645. Gerson, Jean. Selections from A Deo exivit, Contra curiositatem studentium, and, De Mystica theologia speculativa. Edited and translated by Steven E. Ozment. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Gill, John. A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity. 1839; Paris: The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc., 2007.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Primary Sources

389

Gillespie, Patrick. The Ark of the Covenant Opened; or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Redemption Between God and Christ, as the Foundation to the Covenant of Grace. London: 1677. Gomarus, Franciscus. Disputationes theologicae: habitae in variis academiis. Amsterdam: Joannis Janssonii, 1644. . Selectorum evangelii Iohannis locorum illustratio, in Opera theologica omnia. Amsterdam: Joannis Janssonii, 1644. Goodwin, Thomas. Justifying Faith. The Works of Thomas Goodwin. Volume 8. 1863; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985. Grotius, Hugo. Denfensio Fidei Catholicae de Satisfactione Christi Adversus Fastum Socinum Senensem. Leiden: Ioannes Patius, 1617. Hall, Peter, editor. The Harmony of Protestant Confessions: Exhibiting the Faith of the Churches of Christ, Reformed After the Pure and Holy Doctrine of the Gospel. London: John F. Shaw, 1842. Harmonia Confessionum Fidei. Geneva: 1581. Harmony of the Confessions of the Faith of the Christian and Reformed Churches, which purley profess the holy doctrine of the Gospel, in all the chief kingdoms, nations, and provinces of Europe. Cambridge: 1586. Heidegger, J. H. Corpus Theologiae Christianae. 2 volumes. Zurich: J. H. Bodmer, 1732. Hilary of Poitiers. The Trinity. The Fathers of the Church. Volume 25. Translated by Stephen McKenna. New York: Fathers of the Church, 1954. Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge. 1888; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Hunnius, Nicolaus. Diaskepsis Theologica: A Theological Examination of the Fundamental Difference between Evangelical Lutheran Doctrine and Calvinist or Reformed Teaching. Translated by Richard J. Dina and Elmer Hohle. 1626; Malone: Repristination Press, 1999. . Diaskepsis theological de fundamentali dissens doctrinae Evangelicae-Lutheranae, et Calvinianae, seu Reformatae. Wittenburg: 1626. Junius, Francis. Opuscula Theologica Selecta. Edited by Abraham Kuyper. Bibliotheca Reformata. Volume 1. Amsterdam: 1882. Keach, Benjamin. The Everlasting Covenant, A Sweet Cordial for a Drooping Soul: Or, The Excellent Nature of the Covenant of Grace Opened. London: 1693. . The Marrow of True Justification Without Works. London: 1692. Keckerman, Bartholomew. Systema S.S Theologiae. Hanau: Apud Guilielmum Antonium, 1602. Leigh, Edward. A treatise of divinity consisting of three bookes. London: William Lee, 1646. . Treatise of Religion and Learning and of Religious and Learned Men. London: 1656. Leydekker, Melchior. Melchioris Leydeckeri S.S. Theol. Doctoris & Professoris de veritate religionis reformatae seu evangelicae. Utrecht: Typis Rudolphi à Zyll, 1688. Locke, John. A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, in The Works of John Locke. Volume 7. London: Thomas Tegg, 1823. Lombard, Peter. Sentences. 4 volumes. Translated by Guilio Silano. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007–10. . Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae. 2 volumes. Grottaferrata: Collegii S. Bonaventurae Ad Claras Aquas, 1981.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

390

Bibliography

Lorimer, William. An Apology for the Ministers Who Subscribed only unto the Stating of the Truths and Errours in Mr. William’s Book Shewing, That the Gospel Which They Preach, Is the Old Everlasting Gospel of Christ, and Vindicating Them from the Calumnies. London: 1694. Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 65 vols. Weimar: Verlag Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1883–1966. . Luther’s Works. 55 volumes. St. Louis, Minneapolis: Concordia Publishing House, Fortress Press, 1957–86. Maccovius, Johannes. Distinctiones et regulae theologicae ac philosophicae. Oxford: Impensis Roberti Blagravii, 1656. . Johannes Maccovius Redivivus, seu Manuscripta eius Typis Exscripta. Franeker: 1647. . Loci Communes. Franequerae: 1650. . Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules. Edited by Willem J. van Asselt / Michael D. Bell / Gert van den Bring / Rein Ferwerda. Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009. Maresius, Samuel. Collegium Theologicum sive Systema Breve Universae Theologiae. 6th edition. Geneva: 1662. Marckius, Johannes. Compendium Theologiae Christianae Didactico-Elencticum. 1716; Amsterdam: 1749. Marlorat, Augustin. A Catholike and Ecclesiasticall Exposition of the Holy Gospell after S. John. Translated by Thomas Timme Minister. London: Thomas Marshe, 1575. . The Catholike Exposition of the Revelation of St. John. London: Henrie Binneman, 1574. Marshall, Walter. The Gospel-Mystery of Sanctification. London: 1692. Melanchthon, Philip. “Apologia Confessionis.” In Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelishlutherischen Kirche. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. . Commentary on Romans. Translated by Fred Kramer. St. Louis: Concordia, 1992. . “Confutation of Osiander (Sept 1555),” in Documents from the History of Lutheranism 1517–1750. Edited by Eric Lund. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002: 208–09. . Loci Communes 1543. Translated by J. A. O. Preus. St. Louis: Concordia, 1992. . Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine: Loci Communes 1555. Translated and edited by Clyde L. Manschreck. Grand Rapids: Baker: 1965. Musculus, Wolfgang. Common Places of Christian Religion. London: 1563. . Loci Communes Theologiae Sacrae. Basel: Per Sabastianum Henricpetri, 1599. Niemeyer, H. A., editor. Collectionis Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis Publicatarum. Lipsiae: 1840. Olevianus, Caspar. A Firm Foundation: An Aid to Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism. Translated and edited by Lyle D. Bierma. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. . An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed. Translated by Lyle D. Bierma. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009. . Expositio Symboli Apostolici, sive articulorum fidei. Frankfurt: Apud Andream Wechelum, 1576.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Primary Sources

391

Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Edited by William H. Goold. 24 volumes. 1850–53; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1993. . “Preface” to Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant Opened; or a Treatise of the Covenant of Redemption Between God and Christ as the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace. London: 1677. Pelikan, Jaroslav and Valerie Hotchkiss, editors. Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition. 3 volumes. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Pemble, William. Vindiciae fidei, or a treatise of justification by faith. Oxford: John Adams, Edw. And John Forrest, 1659. . Vindiciae Gratiae A Plea for Grace More Especially the Grace of Faith. Second edition. London: 1629. Perkins, William. A Cloud of Faithful Witnesses. 1607; London, 1618. . A Commentarie or Exposition, Upon the Five First Chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians. Cambridge: John Legat, 1604. . A Commentary on Galatians. Edited by Gerald T. Sheppard. 1617; New York: Pilgrim Press, 1989. . An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed. 1595; London: 1616. . Exposition upon the Epistle of Jude. In The Workes of that Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridge M. William Perkins. Volume 3. London: 1631. . Golden Chaine, or The Description of Theology. London: 1592. Polanus, Amandus. Partitiones Theologicae. London: n.d. . The Substance of Christian Religion. London: R. F., 1595. Polhill, Edward. Christus in Corde: or, The Mystical Union Between Christ and Believers Considered in its Resemblances, Bonds, Seals, Privileges and Marks. London: 1680. Polyander, Johannes, Andre Rivet, Antonius Thysius, and Antonius Walaeus. Synopsis Purioris Theologiae. Edited by Herman Bavinck. Leiden: 1881. Przypkowski, Samuel. The Life of that Incomparable Man Faustus Socinus of Siena (1636). In History of the Polish Reformation and Nine Related Documents. Translated and edited by George Hunston Williams. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995: 386–87. Ramus, Peter. The Logike. 1574; Leeds: The Scholar Press, 1966. Rees, Thomas, editor. The Racovian Catechism, With Notes and Illustrations. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1818. Rennecher, Herman. Aurea Salutis Catena. Lichae 1597. . The Golden Chayne of Salvation. London: 1604. Rijssen, Leonard. Compendium theologiae didactico-elencticae. Amsterdam: Apud Georgium Gallet, 1695. . Summa Theologiae Didactico-Elencticae. Berne: 1703. Roberts, Francis. Mysterium & Medulla bibliorum. The mysterie and marrow of the Bible: viz. God’s covenants with man, in the first Adam, before the fall: and in the last Adam Jesus Christ, after the fall; from the beginning to the end of the world; unfolded & illustrated in positive aphorisms & their explanations. London: George Calvert, 1657. Rollock, Robert. Analysis Dialectica . . . in Pauli Apolstoi Epistolam ad Romanos. Edinburgi: 1594.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

392

Bibliography



. Select Works of Robert Rollock. 2 volumes. Edited by William Gunn. Reprint; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008. Rutherford, Samuel. Christ Dying, and Drawing Sinners to Himself. Edinburgh: 1727. . The Covenant of Life Opened, Or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace. 1655; New Lenox: Puritan Publications, 2005. Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order: The Confession of Faith of the Congregational-Independents (1658). London: Evangelical Press, 1971. Schaff, Philip, editor. Creeds of Christendom. 3 volumes. 1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990. Scherzerus, Joannes Adamus. Collegii Anti-Sociniani. Leipzig: 1702. Schomann, George. “The Last Will and Testament Containing a Brief History of His Life as well as of sundry things done in the churches.” In History of the Polish Reformation and Nine Related Documents. Translated and edited by George Hunston Williams. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Sibbes, Richard. A Breathing After God. London: R. M., 1639. Socini, Fausti. Opera Omnia in Duos Tomos Distincta. In Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum quos Unitarios Vocant. Volumes 1 and 2. Amsterdam: 1656. Socinus, Laelius. Confession of Faith (1555). In Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan / Valerie Hotchkiss. 3 volumes. New Haven: Yale UP, 2003: 2.706–08. . “Four Letters from the Socinus-Calvin Correspondence 1549.” In Italian Reformation Studies in Honor of Laelius Socinus. Edited by John A. Tedeschi. Translated by Ralph Lazzaro. Firenze, Università Di Siena, 1965: 217–30. Stegmann, Josua. Photinianismus: hoc est, succincta refutatio errorum Photinianorum. 1623. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Edited by Robert Kolb / Timothy J. Wengert. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Tillotson, John. The Works of Dr. John Tillotson Late Archbishop of Canterbury, 10 volumes. London: Richard Priestley, High Holborn, 1820. Traill, Robert. Justification Vindicated. 1692; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002. Trelcatius, Lucas. A Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinity. London: 1610. . Scholastica, et methodica, locorum communium, s. theologiae institutio didactice, et elenctice in epitome explicata. London: 1604. Turretin, Francis. Francisci Turrettini Opera: Disputationes. Volume 4. New York: Robert Carter, 1848. . Institutes of Elenctic Theology. 3 volumes. Edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. Phillipsburg: P & R, 2002–07. . Institutio Theologiae Elencticae. 3 volumes. Edinburgh: John D. Lowe, 1847. . Sermons sur Divers Passages de l’Ecriture Sainte par Francois Turretin Ministre de Saint Evangile et Professeur en Theologie. Geneve: 1676. Turnbull, Richard. An exposition upon the canonicall epistle of Saint James. London: John Windet, 1606. Twisse, William. Vindicia Gratiae Potestatis ac Providentiae Dei. Amsterdam: 1632. Tyndale, William. Doctrinal treatises and introductions to different portions of the Holy Scriptures. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 1848. Ursinus, Zacharias. Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Phillipsburg: P & R, n. d. . Corpus doctrinae orthodoxae, sive Catecheticarum explicationum. Heidelberg: Impensis Ionae Rhodii, 1616.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Primary Sources

393

Valdés, Juán de. A Familiar and Comprehensive Commentary or Exposition of St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Church at Corinth. Venice: Juán Philadelpho, 1852. . Alfabeto Christiano. London: 1861. . Commentary Upon St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Translated by John T. Betts. London: Trübner & Co., 1883. . Divine Considerations. Cambridge: 1646. . La Epistola de San Pablo a Los Romanos, I La I. Corintios. Venezia: Juan Philadelpho, 1856. . Seventeen Opuscules. Translated and edited by John T. Betts. London: Trübner & Co., 1882. . and Don Benedetto. The Benefit of Christ: Living Justified Because of Christ’s Death. Edited by James M. Houston. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2003. van Mastricht, Petrus. Theoretico-practica theologia, qua, per singula captia theological, pars exegetica, dogmatica, elenchtica & practica, perpetua successione coniugantur. Utrecht: 1699. Vermigli, Peter Martyr. Commentary on Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics. Edited by Emidio Campi / Joseph C. McLelland. The Peter Martyr Library. Volume 9. Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2006. . Common Places. Translated by Anthony Marten. London: 1583. . In primum librum Mosis, qui vulgo Genesis dicitur. 1569; Zurich: Excudebat Christophorus Froschouerus, 1579. . In Selectissimam D. Pauli Apostoli Priorem Ad Corinthios Epistolam Commentarii. Zurich: 1579. . Life, Letters, and Sermons. The Peter Martyr Library. Volume 5. Translated and edited by John Patrick Donnelly. Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1999. . Loci Communes. London: 1576 . “Martyr to Calvin.” In Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears During the Time of the Reformation in England and the Times Immediately Succeeding: 1533–88. Edited and translated by George C. Gorham. London: Bell and Daldy, 1857: 340–45. . Predestination and Justification. Edited and translated by Frank A. James, III. The Peter Martyr Library. Volume 8. Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2003. . The Most Learned and Fruitful Commentaries of Dr. Peter Martyr Vermigli on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. London: 1558. . The Peter Martyr Reader. Edited by John Patrick Donnelly / Frank A. James III / Joseph C. McLelland. Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 1999. . “Vermigli to Beza, March 1555.” In Correspondance de Theodore de Beze. Volume 1 (1539–55). Edited by Fernand Aubert / Henri Meylan. Geneva: Droz, 1960: 153–55. Von Staupitz, Johann. “Eternal Predestination and Its Execution in Time.” In Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought. Edited by Heiko A. Oberman. Cambridge: James Clark, 1967. . Libellus de Executione eterne predestinationis. Fratris Ioannis de Staupitz. Christis et Augustinianae obseruantie serui. Nuremburg: 1517.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

394

Bibliography

Walker, George. Socinianisme in the fundamentall point of justification discovered, and confuted. London: John Bartlet, 1641. Watson, Thomas. A Body of Divinity: Contained in Sermons Upon the Westminster Assembly’s Catechism. 1692; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2008. Westminster Confession of Faith. 1646; Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1995. Whitaker, William. An answere to the ten reasons of Edmund Campian. London: Felix Kyngston, 1606. . Disputations on Holy Scripture. Translated by William Fitzgerald. 1849; Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria, 2005. Williams, Daniel. A Defence of Gospel-Truth. Being a Reply to Mr. Chancy’s First Part. And As an Explication of the Points in Debate, may serve for a Reply to all other Answers. London: John Dunton, 1693. . Gospel-Truth Stated and Vindicated Wherein Some of Dr. Crisp’s Opinions are Considered and the Opposite Truths are Plainly Stated and Confirmed, Second edition. London: John Dunton, 1692. . Man Made Righteous by Christ’s Obedience. London: J. Dunton, 1694. Witsius, Herman. Animadversiones Irenicae. Utrecht: 1696. . Conciliatory, or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies agitated in Britain, under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians and Neonomians. Translated by Thomas Bell. Glasgow: W. Lang, 1807. . Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity. 2 volumes. Translated by William Crookshank. 1822; Phillipsburg: P & R, 1990. . Oeconomia Foederum Dei Cum Homnibus Libri Quatuor. Basileae: 1739. Wollebius, Johannes. Christianae Theologia Compendium. Basil: 1633. . Compendium Theologiae Christianae. In Reformed Dogmatics. Edited and translated by John W. Beardslee. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. Zanchi, Girolamo. An Excellent and Learned Treatise of the Spiritual Marriage Between Christ and the Church. Cambridge: 1592. . Commentarius in Epistolam Sancti Pauli Ad Ephesos. 2 volumes. Edited by A. H. Hartog. Bibliotheca Reformata. Volume 5. Amsterdam: 1888. . Commentaium in Hoseam prophetam. In Opera Theologica. 8 volumes. Geneva: 1605: 5.1–207. . Compendium praecipuorum capitum Doctrinae Christianae. In Opera Theologica. 8 volumes. Geneva: 1605: 8.621–828. . De religione Christiana fides—Confession of Christian Religion. 2 volumes. Edited by Luca Baschera / Christian Moser. Leiden: Brill, 2007. . De tribus Elohim, aeterno Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, uno eodemque Iehova. Neustadt an der Weinstrasse: Typis Matthaei Harnisii, 1589.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Primary Sources

395

20.2 Secondary Sources Allison, C. Fitzsimons. The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter. 1966; Vancouver: Regent Publishing, 2003. Althaus, Paul. The Theology of Martin Luther. Translated by Robert C. Schultz. 1966; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Anderson, Marvin. “Peter Martyr, Reformed Theologian (1542–62): His Letters to Heinrich Bullinger and John Calvin.” SCJ 4/1 (1973): 41–64. Ariew, Roger. Descartes and the Last Scholastics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999. Armstrong, Brian G. Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. . “Duplex Cognitio Dei, Or? The Problem and Relation of Structure, Form, and Purpose in Calvin’s Theology,” in Probing the Reformed Tradition: Historical Studies in Honor of Edward A. Dowey, Jr. Edited by Elise Anne McKee / Brian G. Armstrong. Lousiville: Westminster John Knox, 1989: 135–53. Backus, Irena. Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse: Geneva: Zurich, and Wittenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Bagchi, D. V. N. “Sic et Non: Luther and Scholasticism.” In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Edited by R. Scott Clark / Carl R. Trueman. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999: 3–15. Bangs, Carl. Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1998. . “Arminius as a Reformed Theologian.” In The Heritage of John Calvin: Heritage Hall Lectures. Edited by John H. Bratt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973: 209–22. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. 14 Volumes. Edited by G. W. Bromiley / T. F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936–61. . The Theology of John Calvin. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 1922; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Baur, F. C. Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ. 1873; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003. Bavinck, Herman. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. 4 volumes. Kampen: Kok, 1911. . Reformed Dogmatics. 4 volumes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003–08. Beach, J. Mark. Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. . “The Doctrine of the Pactum Salutis in the Covenant Theology of Herman Witsius,” MAJT 13 (2002): 101–42. Beeke, Joel R. and Randall J. Pederson. Meet the Puritans: With a Guide to Modern Reprints. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006. . and Sinclair Fergusson, editors. Reformed Confessions Harmonized: With an Annotated Bibliography of Reformed Doctrinal Works. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Benedict, Philip. Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938. Berkouwer, G. C. Faith and Justification. Studies in Dogmatics. Translated by Lewis B. Smeades. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954. . Sin. Studies in Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

396

Bibliography

Bierma, Lyle D. German Calvinism in the Confessional Age: The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. . “What Hath Wittenberg to Do with Heidelberg? Philip Melanchthon and the Heidelberg Catechism.” In Melanchthon in Europe: His Work and Influence Beyond Wittenberg. Edited by Karin Maag. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999: 103–21. Billings, J. Todd. Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers In Union with Christ. Oxford: OUP, 2007. . “John Calvin’s Soteriology: on the Multifaceted ‘Sum’ of the Gospel.” IJST 11/4 (2009): 428–47. . “Luther and Calvin on Union with Christ: Their Retrieval and Development of a Biblical, Catholic, and Reformational Motif.” Paper presented at the Calvin Studies Society Colloquium, April 7–9, 2011. . “United to God through Christ: Assessing Calvin on the Question of Deification,” HTR 98/3 (2005): 315–34. Blacketer, Raymond A. “William Perkins (1558–1602).” In The Pietist Theologians: An Introduction to the Theology in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005: 38–51. Boersma, Hans. A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy. Vancouver: Regent Press, 2004. Borvan, Daniel. “Destroying Babylon’s Foundations: Continuity and Discontinuity in the Early Life and Thought of Faustus Socinus.” Masters Thesis, Westminster Seminary California, 2011. Bozeman, Theodore Dwight. “The Glory of the ‘Third Time’: John Eaton as ContraPuritan,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 47/4 (1996): 638–54. . The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion and Antinomian Backlash in Puritanism to 1638. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. Braaten, Carl E. and Robert W. Jenson, editors. Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Brandt, Caspar. The Life of Jacob Arminius. Translated by John Guthrie. London: Ward & Co., 1854. Bray, John S. Theodore Beza’s Doctrine of Predestination. Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1985. Bruggemann, Dale A. “Brevard Childs’ Canon Criticism: An Example of Post-Critical Naïveté.” JETS 32/3 (1989): 311–26. Burchill, Christopher J. “Girolamo Zanchi: Portrait of a Reformed Theologian and His Work.” SCJ 15/2 (1984): 1–26. Burrows, Mark S. “‘Christus intra nos Vivens’ The Peculiar Genius of Bullinger’s Doctrine of Sanctification.” ZTK 98/1 (1987): 48–69. Butterfield, Herbert. The Whig Interpretation of History. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1965. Canlis, Julie. “Calvin, Osiander and Participation in God,” IJST 6/2 (2004): 169–84. . Calvin’s Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Carpenter, Craig B. “A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification,” WTJ 64/2 (2002): 363–86. Cassidy, James J. “Francis Turretin and Barthianism: The Covenant of Works in Historical Perspective.” TCP 5 (2009): 199–213. Cameron, Charles M. “Arminius-Hero or Heritic?” EQ 64/3 (1992): 213–27.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Primary Sources

397

Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Clark, R. Scott. “Do This and Live: Christ’s Active Obedience as the Ground of Justification.” In Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California. Edited by R. Scott Clark. Phillipsburg: P & R, 2007: 229–66. . “Iustitia Imputata Christi: Alien or Proper to Luther’s Doctrine of Justification.” CTQ 70 (2006): 269–310. Clarke, F. Stuart. “Arminius’ Understanding of Calvin,” EQ 54 (1982): 25–35. Clifford, Alan C. Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology 1640–1790. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Como, David R. Blown by the Spirit: Puritanism and the Emergence of an Antinomian Underground in Pre-Civil-War England. Stanford: Stanford: University Press, 2004. Cooper, Tim. Fear and Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England: Richard Baxter and Antinomianism. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001. Copleston, Frederick. Aquinas. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1967. . History of Philosophy. 9 volumes. New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1958. Daniels, Curt. “Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1983. . “John Gill and Calvinistic Antinomianism.” In The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697–1771) A Tercentennial Appreciation. Edited by Michael A. G. Haykin. Leiden: Brill, 1997: 171–90. Daugirdas, Kestutis. “The Biblical Hermeneutics of Socinians and Remonstrants in the Seventeenth Century.” In Arminius, Arminianism, and Europe: Jacobus Arminius (1559/60–1609). Edited by Th. Marius Van Leeuwen / Keith D. Stanglin / Marijke Tolsma. Leiden: Brill, 2009: 89–114. Dekker, Eef. “Was Arminius a Molinist?” SCJ 27/2 (1996): 337–52. Deme, Dániel. The Christology of Anselm of Canterbury. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. Dennison, Jr., James T. “The Twilight of Scholasticism: Francis Turretin at the Dawn of the Enlightenment.” In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Edited by Carl R. Trueman / R. Scott Clark. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999: 244–55. ., editor. Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation. 3 volumes. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008 - . Dent, C. M. Protestant Reformers in Elizabethan Oxford. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Donnelly, John Patrick. Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s Doctrine of Man and Grace. Leiden: Brill, 1976. . “Italian Influences on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism.” SCJ 7/1 (1976): 81–101. Dowey, Edward. “Heinrich Bullinger as Theologian: Thematic, Comprehensive, and Schematic.” In Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–75. Edited by Bruce Gordon / Emidio Campi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004: 35–66. Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of the Apostle Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Evans, William B. “Déjà vu All Over Again? The Contemporary Reformed Soteriological Controversy in Historical Perspective.” WTJ 72 (2010): 135–51.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

398

Bibliography



. Imputation and Impartation. Studies in Christian History and Thought. Eugene: Paternoster and Wipf & Stock, 2008. Farthing, John L. “Christ and the Eschaton: The Reformed Eschatology of Jerome Zanchi.” In Later Calvinism: International Perspectives. Edited by W. Fred Graham. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994: 332–54. . “De coniugui spirituali: Jerome Zanchi on Ephesians 5.22–33.” SCJ 24/3 (1993): 621–52. . “Foedus Evangelicum: Jerome Zanchi on the Covenant.” CTJ 29 (1994): 149–67. . “Holy Harlotry: Jerome Zanchi and the Exegetical History of Gomer (Hosea 1–3).” In Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation. Edited by Richard A. Muller / John L. Thompson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996: 292–312. . “Patristics, Exegesis, and the Eucharistic Theology of Girolamo Zanchi.” In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Edited by R. Scott Clark / Carl R. Trueman. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999: 79–95. Fatio, O. “Prèsence de Calvin á l’epoque de l’Orthodoxie rèformée. Les abrégés de Calvin à la fin du 16e au 17e siècle.” In Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor. Edited by W. H. Neuser. Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok B. V., 1978: 171–208. Fesko, J. V. “A Tale of Two Calvins: A Review Article,” Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 98–104. . “Heinrich Bullinger on Union with Christ and Justification,” TCP 6 (2010): 3–10. . “Jacob Arminius on Union with Christ and Justification,” TrinJ 31NS (2010): 205–22. . “Jerome Zanchi on Union with Christ and Justification,” PRJ 2/2 (2010): 55–78. . “John Owen on Union with Christ and Justification,” Themelios 37.1 (2012): 7–19. . “Luther on Union with Christ and Justification,” SBET 28/2 (2010): 161–76. . “Metaphysics and Justification in Sixteenth- and Early Seventeenth-Century Reformed Theology,” CTJ 46/1 (2011): 29–47. . “Philip Melanchthon on Union with Christ and Justification.” Paper presented at the Far West Region of Evangelical Theological Society, Westminster Seminary California, Escondido, CA, 8 April 2011. . “Sanctification and Union with Christ: A Reformed Perspective,” EQ 82/3 (2010): 197–214. . “The Socinian Challenge to the Reformation (or Socinianism on Union with Christ).” Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, San Francisco, CA. 16–18 November, 2011. . “Vermigli on Union with Christ and Justification,” RTR 70 (2011): 37–57. . “William Perkins on Union with Christ and Justification,” MAJT 21 (2010): 21–34. Fergusson, Sinclair. John Owen on the Christian Life. 1987; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1995. . “Ordo Salutis.” In New Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Sinclair Ferguson / David Wright / J. I. Packer. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988: 480–81. Fisher, George. “The Theology of Richard Baxter,” Bibliotheca Sacra and American Biblical Repository 3 (1852): 135–69. . “The Writings of Richard Baxter,” Bibliotheca Sacra and American Biblical Repository 3 (1852): 300–28.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Primary Sources

399

Firpo, Massimo. “The Italian Reformation and Juán de Valdés,” SCJ 27/2 (1996): 353–64. Fraenkel, Peter. Testimonia Patrum: The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon. Geneva: Droz, 1961. Franks, Robert S. A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ in Its Ecclesiastical Development. 2 volumes. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1918. Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Gaffin, Jr., Richard B. “A Response to John Fesko’s Review.” Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 104–13. . “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards.” WTJ 65/2 (2003): 165–79. . By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006. . “Calvin’s Soteriology: The Structure of the Application of Redemption in Book Three of the Institutes,” Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 104–13. . “Justification and Union with Christ,” in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis. Edited by David W. Hall / Peter A. Lillback. Phillipsburg: P & R, 2008: 248–69. . Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology Phillipsburg: P & R, 1987. . “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology.” WTJ 38/3 (1976): 281–99. . “Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections.” In Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology. Edited by A. T. B. McGowan. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006: 271–88. Gabler, Johann P. “An Oration on the Proper Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each.” In The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology, 1930–90. Edited by Ben C. Ollenburger / Elmer A. Martens / Gerhard F. Hasel. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992: 489–502 Garcia, Mark A. “Imputation as Attribution: Union with Christ, Reification and Justification as Declarative Word,” IJST 11/4 (2009): 415–27. . “Imputation and the Christology of Union with Christ: Calvin, Osiander, and the Contemporary Quest for a Reformed Model.” WTJ 68/2 (2008): 219–51. . Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology. Studies in Christian History and Thought. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008. Gerrish, Brian A. “The Flesh of the Son of Man: John W. Nevin on the Church and the Eucharist.” In Tradition in the Modern World: Reformed Theology in the Nineteenth Century. Edited by Brian A. Gerrish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978: 49–70. Gilly, Carlos. “Juán de Valdés: Übersetzer und Bearbeiter von Luthers Schriften in seinem Diálogo de Doctrina,” ARG 74 (1983): 257–305. Glomsrud, Ryan. “Karl Barth as historical theologian: the recovery of Reformed theology in Barth’s early Dogmatics.” In Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques. Edited by David Gibson / Daniel Strange. Nottingham: Apollos: 2008: 84–112. Godby, John B. “Fausto Sozzini and Justification.” In Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History. Edited by F. F. Church / Timothy George. Leiden: Brill, 1979: 250–64. Godfrey, W. Robert. “The Dutch Reformed Response.” In Discord, Dialogue, and Concord:

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

400

Bibliography

Studies in the Lutheran Reformation’s Formula Concord. Edited by Lewis W. Spitz / Wenzel Lohff. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977: 166–77. Gomes, Alan W. “De Jesu Christo Servatore: Faustus Socinus on the Satisfaction of Christ.” WTJ 55 (1993): 209–31. . “Faustus Socinus’s A Tract Concerning God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.” Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics 1/1 (2008): 37–58. . “Faustus Socinus’ De Jesu Christo Servatore, Part III: Historical Introductions, Translation and Critical Notes.” Ph.D. diss, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1990. . “Some Observations on the Theological Method of Faustus Socinus (1539– 1604).” WTJ 70 (2008): 49–71. Gordon, Bruce. Calvin. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. . “Introduction: Architect of Reformation.” In Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–75. Edited by Bruce Gordon / Emidio Campi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004: 17–34. Goudriaan, Aza. “Justificaiton by Faith and the Early Arminian Controversy.” In Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honor of Willem J. van Asselt. Edited by Maarten Wisse / Marcel Sarot / Willemien Otten. Leiden: Brill, 2010: 155–78. . Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625–1750: Gisbert Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Green, Lowell C. How Melanchthon Helped Luther Discover the Gospel. Fallbrook: Verdict Publications, 1980. Gründler, Otto. “Thomism and Calvinsim in the Theology of Girolamo Zanchi (1516– 1590).” Th.D. Dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, 1961. Guillaume, Eugène and Théodore de Budé. Vie de François Turrettini, théologien Genevois 1623–87. Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1871. Hägglund, Bengt. History of Theology. Fourth revised edition. 1968; St. Louis: Concordia, 2007. . “Melanchthon versus Luther: the Contemporary Struggle.” CTQ 44.2–3 (1980): 123–33. Hall, Basil. “Calvin against the Calvinists.” In John Calvin. Edited by Gervase Duffield. Appleford: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1966: 17–31 Hall, David D., editor. The Antinomian Controversy, 1636–38: A Documentary History. Durham: Duke University Press, 1990. Hampson, Daphne. Christian Contradictions: The Structures of Lutheran and Catholic Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Hampton, Steven. Anti-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Harrison, A. W. The Beginnings of Arminianism. London: University of London Press, 1926. Healy, Nicholas M. Thomas Aquinas: Theologian of the Christian Life. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003. Helm, Paul. Calvin Against the Calvinists. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982. . John Calvin’s Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Heppe, Heinrich. Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformirten Kirche Deutschlands, Schriften zur reformirten Theologie. Band I. Elberfeld: Friederichs, 1860. . Geschicte de Pietismus und der Mystik in der Reformirten Kirche. Leiden: Brill, 1879. . Reformed Dogmatics Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources. Edited by Ernst

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Primary Sources

401

Bizer. Translated by G. T. Thomson. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1950. Hicks, John Mark. “The Righteousness of Saving Faith: Arminian versus Remonstrant Grace,” EJ (1991): 27–39. Hill, Christopher. Puritanism and Revolution: The English Revolution of the Seventeenth Century. 1958; New York: Schocken Books, 1967. Hillar, Marian. “Laelius and Faustus Socinus, Founders of Socinianism: Their Lives and Theology, Part One.” A Journal from The Radical Reformation 10/2 (2002): 18–38. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 volumes. 1871; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Howson, Barry. Erroneous and Schismatical Opinions: The Question of Orthodoxy Regarding the Theology of Hanserd Knowllys (c. 1599–1691). Leiden: Brill, 2001. Hundeshagen, C. B. “Schneckenburger, Matthias.” In The New Schaff-Herzog Encylopedia of Religious Knowledge Volume 10. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953: 254–55. Israel, Jonathan I. The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477–1806. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. James, III, Frank A. De Justificatione: The Evolution of Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Doctrine of Justification. Ph.D. Dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000. . “Juán de Valdés before and After Peter Martyr Vermigli: The Reception of Gemina Praedestinatio in Valdés’ Later Thought,” ARG 83 (1992): 180–208. . “Peter Martyr Vermigli: At the Crossroads of Late Medieval Scholasticism, Christian Humanism and Resurgent Augustinianism.” In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Edited by R. Scott Clark / Carl R. Trueman. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999: 62–78. Jenson, Robert W. “Response to Seifrid, Trueman, and Metzger on Finnish Luther Research,” WTJ 65/2 (2003): 245–50. Jones, Mark, and Gert van den Brink, “Thomas Goodwin and Johannes Maccovius on Justification from Eternity.” In Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, forthcoming. Jones, Mark. Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of the Puritan Reformed Orthodox theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600–80). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Jones, Robert Tudur, Alan P. F. Sell, and David William Bebbington, editors. Protestant Nonconformist Texts: 1550–1700. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2007. Jue, Jeffrey K. “The Active Obedience of Christ and the Theology of the Westminster Standards: A Historical Investigation.” In Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification. Fearn: Mentor, 2007: 99–130. Keene, Nicholas. “Roberts, Francis (1609–75).” In Dictionary of National Biography. Volume 48. New York: MacMillan and Co., 1896: 377–78. Kendall, R. T. Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981. Keizer, Gerrit. François Turrettini: Sa Vie et Ses Oeuvres et le Consensus. Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1900. Kilmartin, Edward J. The Eucharist in the West. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998. Kim, Julius J. “The Rise of Moralism in Seventeenth-Century Anglican Preaching: A Case Study.” In Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

402

Bibliography

of Westminster Seminary California. Edited by R. Scott Clark. Phillipsburg: P & R, 2007: 365–98. Kittleson, James. “Johannes Marbach.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation. 4 volumes. Edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996: 3.1–2. Klauber, Martin I. Between Reformed Scholasticism and Pan-Protestantism: Jean-Alphonse Turretin (1671–1737) and Enlightened Orthodoxy at the Academy of Geneva. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 1994. . “Francis Turretin on Biblical Accommodation: Loyal Calvinist or Reformed Scholastic?” WTJ 55 (1993): 73–86. . “The Helvetic Formula Consensus (1675): An Introduction and Translation.” TrinJ 11 (1990): 103–23. Kolb, Robert. Bound Choice, election, and Wittenberg Theological Method: From Martin Luther to the Formula Concord. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Kolfhaus, Wilhelm. Christusgemeinschaft bei Johannes Calvin. Neukirchen: Buchhandlung d. Erziehungsvereins, 1938. Letham, Robert. The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology In Historical Context. Phillipsburg: P & R, 2010. Liu, Tai. A Puritan London: A Study of Religion and Society in the City Parishes. Lanham: University of Delaware Press, 1986. Lohse, Bernard. Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Malone, Michael T. “The Doctrine of Predestination in the Thought of William Perkins and Richard Hooker,” ATR 52 (1970): 103–17 Mannermaa, Tuomo. Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Manschreck, Clyde. Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer. 1958; Westport: Greenwood Press, 1975. Matthias, Markus. “Ordo salutis – Zur Geschicte eines dogmatischen Begriffs.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 115/3 (2004): 318–46. McCoy, Charles S. and J. Wayne Baker. Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition. With a Translation of De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et aeterno (1534). Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. McGiffert, Michael. “The Perkinsian Moment of Federal Theology,” CTJ 29 (1994): 117–48. Mcginn, Bernard. “Love, Knolwedge, and Mystical Union in Western Christianity: Twelfth to Sixteenth Centuries.” CH 56/1 (1987): 7–24. McGrath, Alister. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Third edition. Cambridge: CUP, 2005. McKim, Donald K. Ramism in William Perkins’ Theology. New York: Peter Lang, 1987. McLelland, Joseph C. The Visible Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli A. D. 1500–62. 1957; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n. d. McNair, Philip. Peter Martyr in Italy: An Anatomy of Apostasy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. Meijering, E. P. Melanchthon and Patristic Thought: The Doctrines of Christ and Grace, the Trinity and the Creation. Leiden: Brill, 1983.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Primary Sources

403

Metzger, Paul Louis. “Mystical Union with Christ: An Alternative to Blood Transfusions and Legal Fictions.” WTJ 65/2 (2003): 201–14. Mosser, Carl. “The Greatest Possible Blessing: Calvin and Deification,” SJT 55/1 (2002): 36–57. Mueller, J. T. Christian Dogmatics. St. Louis: Concordia, 1934. Muller, Richard A. After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition. Oxford: OUP, 2003. . “Arminius and the Scholastic Tradition,” CTJ 24/2 (1989): 263–77. . Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: Studies on the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation. Grand Rapids: Baker, forthcoming. . Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988. . “Covenant and Conscience in English Reformed Theology: Three Variations on a 17th Century Theme,” WTJ 42 (1980): 308–34. . “Demoting Calvin: The Issue of Calvin and the Reformed Tradition.” In John Calvin, Myth and Reality: Images and Impact of Geneva’s Reformer. Papers of the 2009 Calvin Studies Society Colloquium. Edited by Amy Nelson Burnett. Eugene: Cascade, 2011: 3–17. . Dictionary of Greek and Latin Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986. . “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional: John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology.” MAJT 17 (2006): 11–56. . God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991. . “God, Predestination, and the Integrity of the Created Order: A Note on Patterns in Arminius’ Theology.” In Later Calvinism: International Perspectives. Edited by W. Fred Graham. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994: 431–46. . “Grace, Election, and Contingent Choice: Arminius’ Gambit and the Reformed Response.” In The Grace of God and the Bondage of the Will. 2 volumes. Edited by Thomas R. Schreiner / Bruce A. Ware. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995: 2.251–78. . “John Calvin and later Calvinism: the identity of the Reformed tradition,” in The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology. Edited by David Bagchi / David C. Steinmetz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004: 130–49. . “Ordo Docendi: Melanchthon and the Organization of Calvin’s Institutes, 1536–1543.” In Melanchthon in Europe: His Work and Influence Beyond Witenberg. Edited by Karin Maag. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999: 123–40. . “Perkins’ A Golden Chaine: Predestinarian System or Schematized Ordo Salutis.” SCJ 9/1 (1978): 68–81. . Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Volume 1. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987. . Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. 4 volumes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. . “Reflections on Persistent Whiggism and Its Antidotes in the Study of Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-century Intellectual History.” In Seeing Thing Their Way: Intellectual History and the Return of Religion. Edited by Alister Chapman

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

404

Bibliography

/ John Coffey / Brad S. Gregory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009: 134–53. . “Scholasticism Protestant and Catholic: Francis Turretin on the Object and Principles of Theology,” CH 55 (1986): 193–205. . “‘Scimus Enim Quod Lex Spiritualis Est’: Melanchthon and Calvin on the Interpretation of Romans 7.14–23.” In Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) and the Commentary. Edited by Timothy J. Wengert / M. Patrick Graham. Edinburgh: Sheffield Academic press, 1997: 216–37. . “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in SeventeenthCentury Reformed Orthodoxy: A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus À Brakel.” CTJ 29 (1994): 75–101. . “The Priority of the Intellect in the Soteriology of Jacob Arminius,” WTJ 55/1 (1993): 55–72. . The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. . “The Use and Abuse of a Document: Beza’s Tabula Praedestinationis, The Bolsec Controversy, and the Origins of Reformed Orthodoxy.” In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Edited by Carl R. Trueman / R. Scott Clark. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999: 33–61. . “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept,” MAJT 18 (2007): 11–65. Murray, Iain H. The Reformation of the Church: A Collection of Reformed and Puritan Documents on Church Issues. London: Banner of Truth, 1965. Murray, John. “Definitive Sanctification.” In Collected Writings. Volume 2. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977: 277–93. . Redemption: Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Neele, Adriaan C. Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706). Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Nettles, Tom J. “Benjamin Keach (1640–1704).” In The British Particular Baptists 1638– 1910. Volume 1. Edited by Michael A. G. Haykin. Springfield: Particular Baptist Press, 1998: 95–132. Niesel, Wilhelm. The Theology of Calvin. 1956; Cambridge: James Clark, 2002. Nieto, José. Juán de Valdés and the Origins of the Spanish and Italian Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 1970. _ . “The Franciscan Alumbrados and the Prophetic-Apocalyptic Tradition.” SCJ 8/3 (1977): 3–16. Nischan, Bodo. “Reformation or Deformation? Lutheran and Reformed Views of Martin Luther in Brandenburg’s ‘Second Reformation.’” In Pietas et Societas: New Trends in Reformation Social History. Essays in Memory of Harold J. Grimm. Edited by Kyle C. Sessions / Philip N. Bebb. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1985: 203–15. Oberman, Heiko. “‘Iustitia Christi’ and ‘Iustitia Dei’: Luther and the Scholastic Doctrine of Justification.” HTR 59/1 (1966): 1–26. . The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought. 1986; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. . The Harvest of Medieval Theology. 1963; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983. Oepke, Albrecht. “ἐν Χριστ ᾿Ιησο , ἐν κυρίῳ and Related Formulae.” In Theological

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Primary Sources

405

Dictionary of the New Testament. Volume 10. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964: 541–42. Ogonowski, Sbigniew. “Faustus Socinus 1539–1604.” In Shapers of Religious Traditions in Germany, Switzerland, and Poland, 1560–1600. Edited by Jill Raitt. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981: 195–210. Opitz, Peter. “Bullinger’s Decades: Instruction in Faith and Conduct.” In Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–75. Edited by Bruce Gordon / Emidio Campi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004: 101–16. Packer, J. I. The Redemption and Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter. 1954; Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2003. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. 3 volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Partee, Charles. “Calvin’s Central Dogma Again.” SCJ 18/2 (1987): 191–99. . The Theology of John Calvin. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Pieper, F. A. O. Christian Dogmatics. 4 Volumes. St. Louis: Concordia, 1951–53. Porter, Jean. “Right Reason and the Love of God: The Parameters of Aquinas’ Moral Theology.” In The Theology of Thomas Aquinas. Edited by Rik van Nieuwenhove / Joseph Wawrykow. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005: 167–91. Preus, Robert D. “The Influence of the Formula Concord on Later Lutheran Orthodoxy.” In Discord, Dialogue, and Concord: Studies in the Lutheran Reformation’s Formula of Concord. Edited by Lewis W. Spitz / Wensel Lohff. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977: 86–101. Rahner, Karl. “Scholasticism.” In Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology. Volume 6. London: Burns & Oates, 1970: 19–38. Raitt, Jill. “Harmony of Confessions.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation. Edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand. 4 volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996: 2.211–12. . “The French Reformed Theological Response.” In Discord, Dialogue, and Concord: Studies in the Lutheran Reformation’s Formula Concord. Edited by Lewis W. Spitz / Wenzel Lohff. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977: 178–90. Ramsey, D. Patrick. “Meet Me in the Middle: Herman Witsius and the English Dissenters,” MAJT 19 (2008): 143–64. Rankin, W. Duncan. “Calvin’s Correspondence on Our Threefold Union with Christ.” In The Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O. Palmer Robertson. Edited by Robert L. Penny. Phillipsburg: P & R, 2008: 232–50. . “Carnal Union with Christ in the Theology of T. F. Torrance.” Ph.D Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1997. Reid, W. Stanford. “Justification by Faith According to John Calvin.” WTJ 42 (1980): 290–307. Rex, Richard. Henry VIII and the English Reformation. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993. Rehnman, Sebastian. Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. . “Francis Turretin on Reason.” CTJ 37 (2002): 255–69. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Ritchl, Albrecht. A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation. Translated by John S. Black. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1872. Thomas, Roger, C. G. Bolam, Jeremy Goring, and H. L. Short. The English Presbyteri-

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

406

Bibliography

ans: From Elizabethan Puritanism to Modern Unitarianism. Boston: Beacon Press, 1968. Rohls, Jan. “Calvinism, Arminianism and Socinianism in the Netherlands Until the Synod of Dort.” In Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe. Edited by Martin Muslow / Jan Rohls. Leiden: Brill, 2005: 3–48. Roseman, Phillip W. Peter Lombard. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Schaefer, Paul R. “Protestant ‘Scholasticism’ at Elizabethan Cambridge: William Perkins and a Reformed Theology of the Heart.” In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Edited by Carl R. Trueman / R. Scott Clark. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999: 147–64. Schaff, Philip. “Calvin’s Life and Labors.” Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review 4 (1875): 254–72. . The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes. 3 volumes. 1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990. Schneckenburger, Matthias. Vergleichende Darstellung des Luterhischen und Reformirten Lehrbegriffs. Volume 1. Stuttgart: 1855. Schott, T. “Marlorat, Augustin.” In New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Volume 7. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1908–14; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953: 186. Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. 1953; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Schweizer, Alexander. “Die Syntese des Determinismus und der Freiheit in der reformierten Dogmatick. Zur Vertheideigung gegen Ebrard.” Theologishe Jahrbücher 8 (1849): 153–209. Schmid, Heinrich. The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Third Revised Edition. Minneapolis: Augsburg: 1961. Schofield, John. Philip Melanchthon and the English Reformation. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Scullard, H. H. Scipio Africanus: Soldier and Politician. London: Thames & Hudson, 1970. Seeberg, Reinhold. “Heilsordnung.” In Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche. Edited by Johann Jakob Herzog. Volume 7. 1853–68; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’ Buchhandlung, 1899: 593–99. . “Ordo Salutis.” In The New Schaff-Herzog Encylopedia of Religious Knowledge. Volume 8. Edited by Samuel Macauley Jackson. 1908–14; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953: 252–53. Seifrid, Mark A. “Luther, Melancthon, and Paul on the Question of Imputation: Recommendations on a Current Debate.” In Justification: What’s At Stake in the Current Debates. Edited by Mark A. Husbands / Daniel J. Treier. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004: 137–76. . “Paul, Luther, and Justification in Gal 2:15–21.” WTJ 65/2 (2003): 215–30. Shepherd, Norman. “The Resurrections of Revelation 20.” WTJ 37 (1974–75): 34–43. . “Zanchius on Saving Faith.” WTJ 36 (1973): 31–47. Shaw, Mark R. “William Perkins and the New Pelagians: Another Look at the Cambridge Predestination Controversy of the 1590’s,” WTJ 58 (1996): 267–301. Simmons, Peter. “Metaphysics.” In A Companion to Metaphysics. Edited by Jaegwon Kim / Ernest Sosa. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995: 310–12. Skinner, Quentin. “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.” History and Theory 8/1 (1969): 40.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Primary Sources

407

Song, Young Jae Timothy. Theology and Piety in the Reformed Federal Thought of William Perkins and John Preston. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1998. Southern, R. W. Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Spencer, R. “Francis Turretin’s Concept of the Covenant of Nature.” In Later Calvinism: International Perspectives. Edited by W. Fred Graham. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994: 71–92. Spurr, John. “From Puritanism to Dissent, 1660–1700.” In The Culture of English Puritanism, 1560–1700. Edited by Christopher Durston / Jacqueline Eales. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996: 234–65. . “Later Stuart Puritanism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism. Edited by John Coffey / Paul C. H. Lim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: 89–108. Stanglin, Keith D. Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation: The Context, Root, and Shape of the Leiden Debate 1603–09. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Steinmetz, David C. Calvin in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. . Misericorida Dei: The Theology of Johannes von Staupitz in its Late Medieval Setting. Leiden: Brill, 1968. . Reformers in the Wings. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971. . “The Scholastic Calvin.” In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Edited by R. Scott Clark / Carl R. Trueman. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999: 16–30. . “The Superiority of Precritical Exegesis.” In A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Donald McKim. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986: 65–77. Stephen, Leslie, editor. Dictionary of National Biography. 63 volumes. New York: Macmillan, 1885–1900. Stephens, W. P. The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Strehle, Stephen. The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel: Encounter between the Middle Ages and the Reformation. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Szczucki, Lech. “Socinianism.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation. 4 volumes. Edited by Hans J. Hilderbrand. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996: 4.84–85. Tamburello, Dennis E. Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Tedeschi, John. “Italian Reformers and the Diffusion of Renaissance Culture.” SCJ 5/2 (1974): 79–94. Tipton, Lane G. “Union with Christ and Justification.” In Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us In Justification, Edited by K. Scott Oliphint. Fearn: Mentor, 2007: 23–50. Toon, Peter. God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen. Exeter: Paternoster, 1971. . The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity 1689–1765. 1967; Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011. Torrell, O. P., Jean-Pierre. Saint Thomas Aquinas. 2 volumes. Translated by Robert Royal. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Toulmin, Joshua. Memoirs of the Life, Character, Sentiments, and Writings of Faustus Socinus. London: J. Brown, 1777. Trueman, Carl R. “A Small Step Towards Rationalism: The Impact of the Metaphysics of Tommaso Campanella on the Theology of Richard Baxter.” In Protestant

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

408

Bibliography

Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Edited by Carl R. Trueman / R. Scott Clark. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999: 181–95. . “Calvin and Calvinism.” In The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin. Edited by Donald K. McKim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004: 225–44. . “Is the Finnish Line a New Beginning? A Critical Assessment of the Reading of Luther Offered by the Helsinki Circle.” WTJ 65/2 (2003): 231–44. . John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. . “Jown Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice: An Exercise in Christocentric Scholasticism,” CTJ 33 (1998): 87–103. . Luther’s Legacy: Salvation and English Reformers 1525–56. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. . The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998. . “The Harvest of Reformation Mythology? Patrick Gillespie and the Covenant of Redemption.” In Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt. Edited by Maarten Wisse / Marcel Sarot / Willemien Otten. Leiden: Brill, 2010: 196–214. Tylenda, Joseph N. “Girolamo Zanchi and John Calvin: A Study in Discipleship as Seen Through their Correspondence.” CTJ 10 (1975): 101–41. Vainio, Olli-Pekka. Justification and Participation in Christ: The Development of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification from Luther to the Formula Concord (1580). Leiden: Brill, 2008. van Asselt, Willem J. “Amicitia Dei as Ultimate Reality: An Outline of the Covenant Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669).” Ultimate Reality and Meaning 21 (1998): 35–47. . “Christ’s Atonement: A Multi-Dimensional Approach.” CTJ 38 (2003): 52–67. . “Expromissio or Fideiussio? A Seventeenth-Century Theological Debate Between Voetians and Coccejans about the Nature of Christ’s Suretyship in Salvation History.” MAJT 14 (2003): 37–57. . Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Translated by Albert Gootjes. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011. . The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669). Leiden: Brill, 2001. . “The Theologian’s Took Kit: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) and the Development of Reformed Theological Distinctions.” WTJ 68 (2006): 23–40. van den Berg, Johannes. Religious Currents and Cross-Currents: Essays on Early Modern Protestantism and the Protestant Enlightenment. Edited by Jan de Bruijn / Pieter Holtrop / Ernestine van der Wall. Leiden: Brill, 1999. van den Brink, Gert. “Calvin, Witsius (1636–1708), and the English Antinomians.” Church History and Religious Culture 1–2 (2011): 229–40. . Herman Witsius en het antinomianisme: Met tekst en vertaling van de Animadversiones Irenicae. Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2008. van der Wall, G. E. “Cartesianism and Cocceianism: a natural reliance?” In De l’humanisme auz lumières, Bayle et le protestantisme. Edited by Michelle Magdelaine / et al. Paris: University of Voltaire Foundation, 1996: 445–55. van Eijnatten, Joris. “From Modesty to Mediocrity: Regulating Public Dispute, 1670–1840: The Case of Dutch Divines,” Common Knowledge 8/2 (1992): 310–32.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228



Primary Sources

409

van Ruler, J. A. The Crisis of Causality: Voetius and Descartes on God, Nature, and Change. Leiden: Brill, 1995. VanDixhoorn, Chad B. “Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly 1643–52.” Cambridge: Ph.D Dissertation, 2004. Venema, Cornelis. Accepted and Renewed in Christ: The “Twofold Grace of God” and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. . Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of ‘the Other Reformed Tradition’? Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. . “Union with Christ, the ‘Twofold Grace of God,’ and the ‘Order of Salvation’ in Calvin’s Theology.” In Calvin for Today. Edited by Joel R. Beeke. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2009: 91–114. Verbeek, Theo. Descartes and the Dutch: Early Reactions to Cartesian Philosophy 1637–1650. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. von Harnack, Adolf. History of Dogma. 7 volumes. Translated by William M’Gilchrist. London: Williams and Norgate, 1899. Vos, Geerhardus. “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology.” In Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Phillipsburg: P & R, 1980: 234–70. . “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline.” In Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Phillipsburg: P & R, 1980: 3–24. . The Pauline Eschatology. 1930; Phillipsburg: P & R, 1994. Wallace, Jr., Dewey D. Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English Protestant Theology, 1525–1695. 1982; Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2004. . “Puritan polemical divinity and doctrinal controversy.” In The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism. Edited by John Coffey / Paul C. H. Lim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: 206–22. . Shapers of English Calvinism, 1660–1714: Variety, Persistence, and Transformation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. . “Socinianism, Justification by Faith, and the Sources of John Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity.” JHI 45/1 (1984): 49–66. Wallace, Peter J. “The Doctrine of the Covenant in the Elenctic Theology of Francis Turretin.” MAJT 13 (2002): 143–79. Warfield, B. B. The Works of B. B. Warfield. 10 volumes. Edited by Ethelbert D. Warfield / et al. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. . Wawrykow, Joseph. “John Calvin and Condign Merit.” ARG 83 (1992): 73–90. Weber, Hans Emil. Reformation, Orthodoxie und Rationalismus. 2 volumes. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966. Weber, Otto. Foundations for Dogmatics. 2 volumes. Translated by Darrel Guder. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Wendel, François. Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought. 1953; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. Wenger, Thomas L. “The New Perspective on Calvin: Responding to Recent Calvin Interpretations.” JETS 50/2 (2007): 311–28. . “Theological Spectacles and a Paradigm of Centrality: a Reply to Marcus Johnson.” JETS 51/3 (2008): 559–72.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

410

Bibliography

Wengert, Timothy J. Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. . “Review of Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther.” Theology Today 56/3 (1999): 432–34. Wiffen, B. B. Life and Writings of Juán de Valdés. London: Bernard Quaritch, 1865. Wilbur, Earl Morse. A History of Unitarianism: Socinianism and its Antecedents. 1945; Boston: Beacon Press, 1977. Williams, A. N. “Mystical Theolody Redux: The Pattern of Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae.” Modern Theology 13/1 (1997): 53–74. Willis, David. “The Influence of Laelius Socinus on Calvin’s Doctrines of the Merits of Christ and the Assurance of Faith.” In Italian Reformation Studies in Honor of Laelius Socinus. Edited by John A. Tedeschi. Firenze: University of Siena, 1965: 233–41. Willis-Watkins, D. “The Unio Mystica and the Assurance of Faith According to Calvin.” In Calvin Erbe und Auftrag: FS für Wilhelm Heinrich Neuser zum 65 Geburstag. Edited by Willem van’t Spijker. Kampen: Kok, 1991: 77–84. Wykes, David L. “After the Happy Union: Presbyterians and Independents in the Provinces.” In Unity and Diversity in the Church. Edited by R. N. Swanson, Studies in Church History. Volume 32. Oxford: Ecclesiastical History Society, 1996: 283–96. Zachman, Randall. “Communio cum Christo.” In The Calvin Handbook. Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008: 365–71.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

Index À Brakel, Wilhelmus, 345, 369, 385 Allison, C. Fitzsimons, 309, 314, 395 Alsted, Johannes Heinrich, 22, 45, 328, 385 Althaus, Paul, 132, 395 Ames, William, 45, 337, 345, 356, 357, 363, 378 Anderson, Marvin, 172, 202, 203, 205, 395 Anselm, placeSt., 385 Anselm, St., 58, 238, 239, 397, 407 Aquinas, Thomas, 30, 35, 46, 47, 82, 92, 104, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, 121, 129, 130, 144, 164, 168, 180, 217, 231, 243, 271, 300, 328, 333, 381, 397, 400, 405, 407, 410, Ariew, Roger, 49, 395 Aristotle, 37, 41, 47, 169, 385, 393 Armstrong, Brian G., 16, 99, 126, 188, 318, 395 Arrowsmith, John, 87, 385 Augustine, placeSt., 41, 48, 52, 78, 79, 80, 83, 97, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 114, 121, 267, 281, 385 Augustine, St., 30, 45, 78, 84, 104, 105, 106, 110, 114, 248, 249, 380, 381 Backus, Irena, 81, 395 Bagchi, D. V. N., 46, 77, 395, 403 Baker, J. Wayne, 175, 259, 402 Bangs, Carl, 269, 273, 282, 284, 395 Barclay, William, 84, 386 Barth, Karl, 9, 14, 25, 27, 42, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 102, 128, 245, 377, 387, 395, 399 Bastingius, Jeremias, 100, 386 Baur, F. C., 94, 395 Bavinck, Herman, 45, 65, 126, 278, 391, 395 Baxter, Richard, 30, 32, 286, 289, 293, 296, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314,

315, 316, 317, 336, 337, 340, 342, 343, 344, 347, 350, 354, 362, 363, 374, 375, 377, 378, 381, 382, 395, 396, 397, 398, 400, 405, 407 Beach, J. Mark, 318, 336, 345, 395 Becmani, Christiani, 247, 386 Beeke, Joel R., 178, 187, 253, 254, 344, 354, 395, 401, 409 Bellarmine, Robert, 90, 328, 333, 362, 367, 386 Benedict, Philip, 154, 176, 177, 318, 395 Berkhof, Louis, 23, 63, 65, 238, 395 Berkouwer, G. C., 53, 54, 56, 59, 60, 62, 66, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 99, 100, 126, 262, 395 Beza, Theodore, 81, 84, 85, 86, 100, 139, 153, 176, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 205, 209, 232, 241, 250, 253, 254, 325, 369, 380, 386, 393, 396, 404 Bierma, Lyle D., 99, 100, 156, 278, 306, 390, 396 Billings, J. Todd, 24, 25, 34, 188, 189, 204, 206, 352, 396 Blacketer, Raymond, 254, 396 Boersma, Hans, 289, 296, 300, 302, 309, 314, 315, 336, 337, 374, 396 Borvan, Daniel, 230, 231, 396 Bozeman, Theodore Dwight, 286, 340, 396 Braaten, Carl E., 13, 396 Brandt, Caspar, 261, 396 Bray, Joh S., 209, 396 Bruggemann, Dale A., 100, 396 Bucanus, Guillaume, 44, 45, 137, 386 Bucer, Martin, 126, 159, 172, 199, 208, 278, 279, 386, 407 Bulkeley, Peter, 338, 386 Bullinger, Heinrich, 11, 31, 32, 39, 56, 66, 75, 80, 81, 82, 101, 155, 156, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 205, 211,

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

412

Index

212, 213, 229, 233, 246, 256, 259, 266, 322, 380, 381, 386, 395, 396, 397, 398, 400, 402, 405, 409 Burchill, Christoper J., 41, 43, 208, 209, 396 Burrows, Mark S., 174, 177, 182, 396 Butterfield, Herbert., 27, 396 Calvin, John, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 51, 55, 57, 58, 59, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 94, 96, 100, 102, 103, 107, 110, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 145, 146, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 162, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 182, 183, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 217, 222, 226, 229, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 260, 267, 269, 274, 275, 277, 280, 282, 284, 288, 306, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 325, 341, 345, 349, 352, 378, 380, 381, 383, 384, 387, 393, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 Cameron, Charles M., 99, 249, 279, 284, 313, 396, 403 Canlis, Julie, 16, 17, 51, 82, 110, 396 Carpenter, Craig B., 19, 20, 21, 67, 217, 225, 396 Cassidy, James J., 318, 396 Chamier, Daniel, 356, 367, 387 Chauncy, Isaac, 343, 344, 347, 348, 349, 350, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 372, 376, 378, 387 Chemnitz, Martin, 142, 363 Childs, Brevard S., 100, 396, 397 Clairvaux, Bernard, 30, 104, 106, 107, 388 Clarke, F. Stuart, 277, 397 Clark, R. Scott, 14, 40, 41, 46, 77, 85, 100, 117, 132, 134, 136, 139, 141, 216, 254, 301, 307, 318, 375, 386, 393, 395, 397, 398, 401, 402, 404, 406, 407, 408

Clifford, Alan C., 318, 397 Como, David R., 286, 341, 397 Contarini, Gasparo, 332, 388 Cooper, Tim, 340, 363, 371, 397 Copelston, Frederick, 35, 47, 48, 49, 51, 397 Crisp, Samuel, 343, 344, 362, 365, 370, 371 Crisp, Tobias, 286, 302, 315, 336, 342, 343, 344, 346, 354, 355, 370, 375, 388 Crocius, Ludovicus, 247, 388 Cyril of Alexandria, 214, 215, 216, 380 Cyril of CityAlexandria, 388 Daniels, Curt, 336, 397 Daugirdas, Kestutis, 247, 397 Davenant, John, 309, 363, 388 de Budè, Thèodore, 318, 400 Dekker, Eef, 273, 397 Deme, Daniel, 238, 397 Dennison, Jr., James T., 87, 156, 231, 318, 333, 352, 392, 397 Dent, C. M., 155, 397 Donnelly, John Patrick, 39, 40, 41, 189, 197, 199, 205, 209, 211, 325, 393, 397 Dowey, Edward, 16, 175, 176, 177, 188, 395, 397 Downame, John, 86, 87, 362, 363, 388 Dunn, James D. G., 98, 397 Duns Scotus, John, 243, 245, 300 Edwards, John, 343, 344, 359, 360, 370, 377 Edwards, Thomas, 87 Evans, William B., 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 34, 40, 41, 53, 58, 70, 71, 73, 74, 102, 173, 174, 186, 187, 225, 238, 252, 267, 287, 319, 320, 321, 327, 330, 335, 339, 385, 397 Farthing, John L., 41, 99, 207, 210, 216, 217, 221, 222, 224, 225, 398 Fatio, O., 44, 209, 398 Fergusson, Sinclair, 287, 395, 398 Fesko, J. V., 12, 17, 19, 70, 124, 398, 399 Firpo, Massimo, 160, 399 Fisher, Edward, 286, 300, 309, 310, 337, 388, 398 Fisher, George, 300 Flavel, John, 342, 344, 347, 348, 350, 358, 359, 360, 371, 376, 378, 388

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

413

Index



Fraenkel, Peter, 148, 399 Franks, Robert, 236, 245, 250, 399 Frei, Hans, 100, 399 Gabler, Johann P., 94, 95, 399 Gaffin, Jr., Richard B., 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 51, 53, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 93, 94, 95, 97, 99, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 131, 132, 136, 140, 218, 220, 225, 399, 409 Garcia, Mark A., 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, 38, 39, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 141, 142, 145, 148, 155, 156, 188, 190, 191, 192, 194, 197, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 222, 225, 399 Gerrish, Brian A., 190, 399 Gerson, Jean, 30, 104, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 121, 381, 388 Gillespie, Patrick, 288, 322, 346, 389, 391, 408 Gill, John, 336, 337, 340, 388, 397 Gilly, Carlos, 159, 399 Glomsrud, Ryan, 72, 128, 399 Godby, John B., 234, 235, 237, 399 Godfrey, W. Robert, 137, 399 Gomarus, Francisus, 87, 281, 345, 362, 389 Gomes, Alan W., 232, 239, 248, 250, 400 Goodwin, Thomas, 254, 337, 343, 344, 353, 362, 378, 389, 401 Gordon, Bruce, 25, 175, 176, 177, 397, 400, 405 Goudriaan, Aza, 49, 222, 282, 400 Green, Lowel C., 149, 150, 151, 400 Gründler, Otto, 211, 400 Grotius, Hugo, 247, 362, 389 Guillaume, EugËne, 318 Hall, Basil, 254 Hall, Peter, 153, 233 Hampson, Daphne, 96, 97, 400 Hampton, Steven, 336, 400 Harrison, A. W., 269, 400 Healy, Nicholas M., 217, 400 Heidegger, J. H., 73, 338, 352, 389 Helm, Paul, 36, 48, 222, 318, 400 Heppe, Heinrich, 14, 27, 32, 56, 66, 72, 73, 85, 128, 251, 252, 255, 266, 352, 400

Hägglund, Bengt, 139, 140, 153, 400 Hicks, John Mark, 277, 282, 284, 401 Hilary of CityPoitiers, 389 Hilary of placeCityPoitiers, 216 Hilary of Poitiers, 214, 215, 216 Hillar, Marian, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 237, 401 Hill, Christopher, 252, 286, 341, 396, 401 Hodge, A. A., 23, 67 Hodge, Charles, 22, 50, 65, 204 Howson, Barry, 340, 401 Hume, David, 49, 389 Hundeshagen, C. B., 125, 401 Hunnius, Nicolaus, 136, 137, 152, 389 Israel, Jonathan I., 344 James, III, Frank A., 39, 40, 128, 159, 184, 198, 199, 267, 280, 393 Jenson, Robert W., 13, 396, 401 Jones, Mark, 12, 337, 354, 363, 401 Jones, Robert Tudur, 342 Jue, Jeffrey K., 303, 401 Junius, Francis, 45, 249, 281, 389 Keach, Benjamin, 343, 344, 347, 348, 350, 362, 365, 371, 372, 378, 389, 404 Keckerman, Bartholomew, 272, 352, 389 Keene, Nicholas, 91, 401 Keizer, Gerrit, 318, 401 Kendall, R. T., 254, 401 Kilmartin, Edward J., 216, 401 Kim, Julius J., 11, 35, 375, 401, 406 Kittleson, James, 241, 402 Klauber, Martin I., 318, 322, 402 Kolb, Robert, 127, 139, 152, 153, 392, 402 Kolfhaus, Wilhelm, 189, 190, 402 Laelius Socinus, 227, 228, 229, 243, 392, 410 Leigh, Edward, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 233, 381, 389 Letham, Robert, 323, 402 Leydekker, Melchior, 87, 389 Liu, Tai, 91, 402 Locke, John, 231, 343, 344, 350, 367, 368, 369, 374, 375, 377, 378, 381, 382, 389, 409 Lohse, Bernard, 132, 402 Lombard, Peter, 72, 79, 94, 112, 113, 114, 129, 130, 144, 180, 217, 242, 243, 331, 389, 406

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

414

Index

Lorimer, William, 378, 390 Luther, Martin, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 21, 22, 23, 26, 31, 34, 35, 39, 46, 58, 59, 66, 72, 77, 96, 103, 104, 114, 115, 116, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 149, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 165, 166, 172, 175, 179, 180, 250, 261, 265, 291, 316, 317, 328, 352, 362, 378, 380, 381, 390, 395, 396, 397, 398, 400, 401, 402, 404, 406, 408, 410 Maccovius, Johannes, 97, 247, 249, 337, 354, 358, 376, 390, 401, 408 Malone, Michael T., 137, 152, 260, 389, 402 Mannermaa, Tuomo, 13, 402 Manschreck, Clyde, 82, 148, 153, 402 Manschreck, placeClyde, 390 Marckius, Johannes, 352, 390 Maresius, Samuel, 57, 73, 338, 390 Marlorat, Augustin, 80, 81, 82, 101, 390, 406 Marshall, Walter, 355, 372, 388, 390 Matthias, Markus, 20, 21, 77, 99, 125, 401, 402, 406 McCoy, Charles S., 175, 259, 402 McGiffert, Michael, 252, 402 McGinn, Bernard, 104 McGrath, Alister, 22, 78, 106, 111, 117, 132, 141, 143, 164, 199, 279, 328, 402 McKim, Donlad, 26, 101, 127, 253, 402, 407, 408 McLelland, Joseph C., 47, 189, 192, 194, 199, 393, 402 McNair, Philip, 160, 172, 197, 208, 402 Meijering, E. P., 148, 402 Melanchthon, Philip, 11, 21, 27, 31, 39, 50, 58, 77, 79, 80, 82, 94, 98, 126, 132, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 172, 175, 176, 229, 241, 380, 381, 390, 396, 398, 399, 400, 402, 403, 404, 406, 410 Metzger, Paul Louis, 13, 401, 403 Mosser, Carl, 16, 188, 403 Mueller, J. T., 18, 20, 27, 67, 124, 128, 403 Muller, Richard A., 9, 11, 14, 26, 28, 41,

42, 44, 45, 47, 72, 76, 77, 83, 85, 92, 94, 96, 99, 126, 139, 155, 174, 177, 178, 182, 198, 209, 210, 211, 218, 219, 251, 254, 260, 261, 262, 267, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 283, 284, 287, 288, 303, 318, 322, 345, 383, 398, 403 Murray, John, 19, 63, 67, 70 Musculus, Wolfgang, 81, 156, 240, 249, 390 Neele, Adriaan C., 156, 404 Nettles, Tom J., 348, 378, 404 Niemeyer, H. A., 233, 390 Niesel, Wilhelm, 14, 387, 404 Nieto, Josè, 158, 159, 162, 165, 166, 170, 404 Nischan, Bodo, 137, 404 Oberman, Heiko, 14, 96, 117, 120, 132, 284, 352, 393, 404 Oepke, Albrecht, 61, 62, 73, 404 Ogonowski, Sbigniew, 228, 232, 237, 405 Olevianus, Caspar, 99, 100, 156, 278, 306, 390, 396 Opitz, Peter, 176, 405 Owen, John, 11, 32, 243, 248, 249, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 302, 314, 315, 318, 337, 345, 354, 363, 375, 378, 381, 382, 391, 398, 405, 407, 408 Packer, J. I., 72, 301, 307, 308, 309, 316, 317, 398, 405 Pannenberg, Wolfgang, 53, 58, 59, 71, 73, 217, 405 Partee, Charles, 15, 16, 26, 28, 188, 204, 405 Pelikan, Jaroslav, 76, 82, 129, 154, 176, 178, 179, 218, 229, 231, 234, 235, 236, 238, 276, 289, 309, 322, 333, 391, 392 Pemble, William, 86, 87, 89, 336, 391 Perkins, William, 11, 14, 32, 42, 84, 85, 86, 137, 177, 198, 209, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 273, 274, 278, 280, 281, 282, 283, 288, 322, 356, 362, 378, 381, 391, 396, 398, 402, 403, 406, 407 Pieper, F. A. O., 18, 20, 27, 67, 124, 128, 405 placeChemnitz, Martin, 142, 362, 388

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

415

Index



placeCityAmes, William, 45, 73, 254, 356, 357, 376, 385 placeCityBillings, J. Todd, 11 Polanus, Amandus, 42, 83, 137, 391 Polhill, Edward, 374, 375, 391 Polyander, Johannes, 45, 278, 391 Porter, Jean, 111, 405 Preus, Robert D., 127, 142, 143, 388, 390, 405 Przypkowski, Samuel, 235, 391 Rahner, Karl, 94, 405 Raitt, Jill, 137, 228, 233, 405 Ramsey, D. Patrick, 341, 379, 405 Ramus, Peter, 253, 391 Rankin, placeW. Duncan, 190, 194, 206 Rankin, W. Duncan, 189, 190, 191, 194, 204, 405 Rankin, W. placeCityDuncan, 190, 191, 197, 203 Rees, Thomas, 232, 391 Rehnman, Sebastian, 287, 288, 318, 405 Reid, W. Stanford, 77, 134, 405 Rennecher, Herman, 84, 85, 86, 88, 91, 261, 391 Rex, Richard, 154, 314, 405 Ridderbos, Herman, 53, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73, 74, 94, 95, 98, 100, 405 Rijseen, Leonard, 87, 352, 391 Ritchl, Albrecht, 405 Rivet, Andre, 45, 249, 254, 278, 391 Roberts, Francis, 91, 348, 388, 391, 401 Rohls, Jan, 246, 247, 406 Rollock, Robert, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 391, 392 Roseman, Phillip W., 217, 406 Rutherford, Samuel, 249, 309, 322, 349, 356, 376, 381, 392 Samuel, 87, 385 Schaff, Philip, 16, 81, 82, 96, 152, 178, 179, 180, 184, 202, 218, 236, 238, 248, 392, 406 Scherzerus, Joannes Adamus, 247, 392 Schneckenburger, Matthias, 20, 27, 99, 125, 126, 128, 401, 406 Schofield, John, 154, 406 Schomann, George, 230, 231, 392 Schott, T., 81, 406

Schweitzer, Albert, 61, 62, 73, 83, 251, 266, 267, 406 Schweizer, Alexander, 14, 406 Scullard, H. H., 143, 406 Seeberg, Reinhold, 54, 56, 58, 66, 71, 72, 73, 74, 406 Seifrid, Mark A., 13, 141, 401, 406 Shaw, Mark R., 153, 260, 389, 406 Shepherd, Norman, 41, 64, 406 Sibbes, Richard, 87, 254, 392 Simmons, Peter, 338, 386, 406 Skinner, Quentin, 28, 406 Socinus, Faustus, 32, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235, 237, 239, 247, 248, 249, 250, 380, 391, 396, 400, 401, 405, 407 Song, Young Jae Timothy, 256 Southern, R. W., 49, 222, 239, 407, 409 Spencer, R., 318, 407 Spurr, John, 342, 377, 407 Stanglin, Keith, 247, 269, 279, 280, 281, 282, 284, 397, 407 Stegmann, Josua, 247, 392 Steinmetz, David C., 14, 46, 77, 101, 116, 117, 119, 134, 149, 155, 175, 177, 403, 407 Stephens, W. P., 199, 279, 407 Strehle, Stephen, 141, 149, 407 Szczucki, Lech, 231, 407 Tamburello, Dennis, 107, 108, 109, 190, 407 Tedeschi, John, 208, 229, 243, 392, 407, 410 Thomas, Roger, 343 Thysius, Antonius, 45, 278, 391 Tillotson, John, 374, 375, 392 Tipton, Lane G., 19, 20, 21, 27, 100, 124, 125, 126, 128, 131, 136, 220, 407 Toon, Peter, 286, 343, 407 Torrell, O. P., 112, 407 Toulmin, Joshua, 250, 407 Traill, Robert, 343, 344, 349, 358, 359, 360, 372, 376, 378, 392 Trelcatius, Lucas, 44, 137, 280, 281, 392 Trueman, Carl, 13, 26, 40, 41, 46, 85, 127, 139, 216, 243, 244, 248, 249, 254, 286, 289, 301, 302, 303, 314, 318, 337, 346, 354, 395, 397, 398, 401, 404, 406, 407

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228

416

Index

Turnbull, Richard, 86, 87, 392 Turretin, Francis, 33, 57, 73, 87, 156, 318, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 352, 381, 382, 392, 395, 396, 397, 402, 404, 405, 407, 409 Twisse, William, 249, 302, 315, 337, 378, 392 Tylenda, Joseph, 44, 209, 408 Tyndale, William, 100, 392 Ursinus, Zacharias, 155, 156, 172, 205, 208, 229, 254, 278, 306, 392 Vainio, Olli-Pekka, 127, 141, 408 Valdès, Juan de, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 393, 399, 401, 404, 410 van Asselt, Willem J., 238, 239, 247, 282, 321, 344, 345, 346, 358, 390, 400, 408 van den Berg, Johannes, 344, 408 van den Brink, Gert, 341, 354, 358, 401, 408 van der Wall, G. E., 49, 222 VanDixhoorn, Chad B., 303, 409 van Eijnatten, Joris, 344, 408 van Mastrict, Petrus, 156, 338, 393, 400, 404 van Ruler, J. A., 49, 222 Venema, Cornelis, 24, 177, 178, 187, 188, 206, 409 Verbeek, Theo, 49, 222, 409 Vermigli, Peter Martyr, 11, 23, 31, 39, 40, 41, 45, 47, 52, 80, 81, 82, 97, 101, 128, 156, 159, 160, 172, 184, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 254, 267, 280, 281, 325, 380, 381, 393, 397, 398, 401, 402 von Harnack, Adolf, 250, 409 von Staupitz, Johann, 30, 104, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 381, 393, 407

Vos, Geerhardus, 20, 23, 63, 68, 93, 98, 99, 124, 125, 126, 128, 131, 136, 220, 409 Walaeus, Antonius, 45, 391 Walker, George, 87, 394 Wallace, J. Peter, 318 Wallace, Jr., Dewey D., 340, 343 Warfield, B. B., 11, 74, 84, 99, 126, 409 Watson, Thomas, 304, 394 Weber, Hans Emil, 14 Weber, Otto, 53, 56, 66 Wendel, François, 14, 78, 134, 243, 409 Wenger, Thomas L., 24, 188, 409 Wengert, Timothy J., 127, 134, 152, 153, 155, 392, 404, 410 Whitaker, William, 86, 87, 92, 93, 394 Wiffen, B. B., 158, 410 Wilbur, Earl Morse, 231, 410 Williams, A. N., 82, 110 Williams, Daniel, 343, 344, 347, 360, 363, 377 Willis, David, 243, 410 Willis-Watkins, D., 16, 188, 410 Witsius, Herman, 33, 322, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 344, 345, 346, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 359, 360, 366, 367, 369, 370, 375, 376, 378, 381, 382, 394, 395, 404, 405, 408 Wollebius, Johannes, 45, 394 Wykes, David L., 343, 410 Zachman, Randall, 25, 188, 410 Zanchi, Girolamo, 11, 23, 32, 41, 42, 43, 44, 80, 81, 82, 98, 99, 100, 101, 156, 172, 177, 183, 196, 197, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 246, 254, 256, 280, 325, 362, 378, 381, 394, 396, 398, 400, 408

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525570227 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647570228