In this article, I aim to show how Reformed writers understood righteousness and justification, so that readers can grasp this doctrine and gain clarity around current debates about justification.
To begin with, let me define terms. Early reformed theologians speak about righteousness in at least two ways. First, they maintain that God justifies the ungodly by free pardon and by imputing Christ’s righteousness, as Paul says in Romans 4:5: “faith is counted as righteousness.” Second, they speak of the gift of another righteousness whereby we are said to be imperfectly righteous after our justifying imputation in accordance with James 2:24: “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
We can call these imputed and inherent righteousness. The former declares us righteous before God; the latter describes our partial and imperfect righteousness that follows our imputation. Some reformed theologians called this imperfect righteousness a justification by works, while others reserved justification exclusively for the application of Christ’s imputed righteousness. But all agree that works are necessary for saving faith, although they could vary on precisely how works are necessary.
The following then surveys fifteen early reformed theologians on the questions of justification, imputation, and good works. A broad consensus stands out despite diverse idioms. In short, they all hold that God justifies us by faith in Christ through the imputation of his merits; that good works follow our justification by God’s appointment as a means to life; and that these works never merit life, but serve as its proofs or conditions.
Imputed Righteousness
Reformed theologians maintain that God justifies the ungodly by faith, and that this faith is imputed to the ungodly as righteousness (e.g., Rom 4:3, 5). While some theologians may not use the term imputation, they mean the same thing or a concept very near to it. Before looking at how early reformed theologians spoke about inherent righteousness and good works, the below outlines how early reformed theologians spoke of justification and imputation.
In general, imputation refers to Christ’s righteousness reckoned as ours, which contrasts with both infused righteousness and inherent righteousness or sanctification.
John Calvin (1509–1564) explains “justification simply as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favour as righteous men. And we say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” (ICR 3.11.2). This imputation flows out of our union with Christ: “our righteousness is not in us but in Christ, that we possess it only because we are partakers in Christ” (ICR 3.11.23; also 3.17.8). More: “in some wonderful manner, he pours into us enough of his power to meet the judgment of God” (ICR 3.11.23). By meet, Calvin means satisfy as in make satisfaction (ICR 3.11.2).
Theodore Beza (1519–1605) speaks both of imputed righteousness and inherent righteousness, which he calls inchoate (Justification by Faith Alone 2023: 12–13). This second righteousness is “a sure sign (τεκμηρίῳ) of our faith and of the perfect justification imputed to us” (13). His view of justification generally falls in line with John Calvin’s.
Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562) defines God’s act of justification in two ways. First, the Spirit renews us through Christ. This first way involves the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (Predestination and Justification, 87, 88). The second follows from imputed righteousness and involves a quality or habit of mind (87). This second righteousness is really ours by good works that “are still imperfect and incomplete while we live, so that if judgment were to come through them we would not be able to stand before divine judgment” (88).
As with others, Vermigli holds that “justification exists by faith alone” (Predestination and Justification, 218). But he is quick to add: faith is not alone, by which he means it always brings about good works (218). He specifies that the virtues of hope, love, and good works “are not to be excluded from one who is justified, yet I do not attribute the power of justifying to them” (220). These “virtues are always joined with true faith” (220).
Martin Bucer (1491–1551) maintains that Christ’s righteousness both justifies us by faith, and that it springs forth into a justification of works (see Witius, The Economy of the Covenants, §3.26). In his Common Places, he will speak of righteousness as remitting sins and also of the Spirit imparting righteousness in us (Common Places, 162–4; cited from Wedgeworth).
Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) defines justification as signifying remission of sins, cleansing, sanctifying, and giving life everlasting (Decades §1.6, p 105). Like most reformed authors, he can use the term justification to include both imputation and sanctification, following a pattern found within Scripture (e.g., Titus 3:7; §1.6, p 106). This righteousness follows from Christ’s full satisfaction for our sins (§1.6, p 108–9); these benefits by grace come through faith in Christ, apart from any preceding works (§1.6, p 112–3). Obviously, since Bullinger includes sanctification into justification, he will also see works as necessary for saving faith. While not in this survey, Ulrich Zwingli shares a similar view.
Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556) in the Third Homily entitled “Salvation by Grace Alone” defines justification as sourced in God’s mercy and grace and as paying our ransom and fulfilling the law. The righteousness of our works therefore does not merit our justification (The First Book of Homilies, 2021: 55). Instead, “Christ himself is the only meritorious cause of our justification” (63). However, like other reformed authors, Cranmer also maintains that “the righteousness of our good works … are necessarily to be done afterwards” (56).
Girolamo Zanchi (1516–1590) believes that the Spirit engrafts believers into Christ for the remission of sins and imputation of his righteousness (Confession of the Christian Religion, §19.2). Immediately, God also provides “the gift of inherent righteousness’ (§19.2). The latter is testimony of the former.
Zacharias Ursinus (1534–1584) writes “Evangelical righteousness is the fulfilling of the law, performed, not by us, but by another in our stead, and imputed unto us of God by faith.” (Commentary on Heidelberg Catechism, 325). When this righteousness is applied to rational agents, we call it justification. Thus, justification means “acquitting, or the declaring us free from sin in the judgment of God, on the ground of the righteousness of another” (326–7). That another is “Christ” whose satisfaction involves his whole life of obedience to the law which God then imputes to us by faith.
Richard Hooker (1554–1600) speaks of justification by a righteousness that is not our own, that is, by Christ’s merit (A Learned Discourse on Justification, 8). He will further distinguish between the righteousness of justification and the righteousness of sanctification (9). These map unto passages like Romans 4:5 on one hand and 1 John 3:7 on the other. The former flows from incorporation into Christ, while the latter is inherent.
Amandus Polanus (1561–1610) in his “The Free Justification of Man the Sinner before God” distinguishes between imputation and inherent righteousness, the first being the meritorious cause of our justification; the second being inherent righteousness (i.e., righteousness that inheres in us and so not imputed). Christ’s obedience to the law is imputed to us (Justification by Faith Alone 2023: 138). Justification includes both imputation and forgiveness (172).
Antonius Thysius (1565–1640) in the Synopsis of a Purer Theology explains: “God the Father justifies us … by remitting sins and imputing righteousness” (§33.37). Christ’s imputation is the only meritorious cause of our justification (§33.23). (I will also mention Andreas Polyander, who wrote the 34th disputation below).
John Davenant (1572–1641) in his Treatise on Justification maintains that we are justified by Christ’s merits alone. While our works of inchoate righteousness or sanctification remain necessary, they are not necessary in any meritorious sense (298). He speaks of “imputed righteousness” as “the formal cause of justification, not because it justifies us by inhering in us, but because, in respect of it, God esteems us and deals with us, just as if we were perfectly righteous” (236). And God justifies us by faith through imputation (236).
Francis Turretin (1623–1687) defines justification as a forensic act that occurs for us, not in us as inherent righteousness (“The Harmony of Paul and James on the Article of Justification,” Justification by Faith Alone, 187).
Herman Witsius (1636–1708) speaks of Christ’s perfect righteousness imputed to mankind whereby they “may be reputed righteous” (The Economy of the Covenants, §3.28). He will also speak of an “inherent holiness and righteousness” (§3.24) through which we are also justified by works (§3.25).
Inherent Righteousness
Reformed theologians affirm that we can do righteous works after our justification by faith, so that we may be called righteous (Luke 1:6; 1 John 3:7). Though they use different terms, this righteousness may be called “inherent,” “legal,” or simply works that are “accounted righteous.” This inherent righteousness is necessary for saving faith—as a companion to living faith, as its fruit, as its proof, or even, in some writers, as a kind of justification by works that differs from justification by faith. They generally take James 2:21 and 24 to teach something along these lines.
John Calvin
Calvin points out how Scripture applies the word righteousness to the saints as Luke 1:6 did of Zechariah (ICR 3.17.7). The Genevan Reformer maintains that this righteousness refers primarily to the work itself being righteous because it comes from God’s law rather than anything else. Even so, Calvin believes that the good works believers do, while not meritorious, can be thought of as imperfect yet “covered by Christ’s perfection” and forgiveness (ICR 3.17.8). With these caveats, Calvin notes, “the good works done by believers are accounted righteous, or, what is the same thing, are reckoned as righteous” (ICR 3.17.8).
Calvin emphasizes that works righteousness “depends on the justification of faith,” which strengthens the righteousness of a believer’s works (ICR 3.17.9). Key here is that Calvin specifies the “works” themselves, since Christ’s imputation by faith alone makes one righteous before God. But given our pardon and union with Christ, “by faith alone not only we ourselves but our works as well are justified” (ICR 3.17.10). Thus, while our works may be imperfect, Christ’s perfection covers it. In other words, a good work of a believer “is approved by God as it were whole and perfect (ICR 3.17.10).
Closely related, Calvin interprets James chapter 2 as “demanding of believers a righteousness fruitful in good works.” In other words, “James does not allow those who lack good works to be reckoned righteousness” (ICR 3.17.12). So “a believer … declares his righteousness by good works” (ICR 3.17.12). In other words, for Calvin, good works are necessary for believers.
Theodore Beza
As noted above, Beza distinguishes imputed righteousness from inherent righteousness. He argues that Paul will speak of justification as being “absolved from their sins,” while James speaks of discerning one’s faith “through the justification of works” (Justification, 54). Put another way, James uses the phrase to justify to mean true faith’s “sure proof” according to Beza (54).
While faith justifies us, Beza also notes that justification and sanctification necessarily entail each other. “For since justification leads us to eternal life, to which, nevertheless, no one could arrive by indulging in sins, our merciful Father rightly joined these two inseparably” (Justification, 16). Indeed, “Good works,” writes Beza, are “…required in the justified” (22). They are imperfect and not the “cause of our justification” (26), yet they are required.
For Beza, inherent righteousness is the equivalent of sanctification (Justification, 64, 85, 103, 114). And it follows after imputation justifies us; this “renewal or inherent righteousness” is then not a meritorious righteousness (106). Interestingly, Beza along with a number of churchmen in Bern on April 23rd 1688 affirmed that justification comprehends both imputed righteousness and “sanctification inchoate in us” which they also call “righteousness inhering” in us, albeit an imperfect one (Justification 113, 114)
Peter Martyr Vermigli
Vermigli distinguishes imputed righteousness and “that inward righteousness which is rooted in us, which we obtain and confirm by leading a continually upright life” (Predestination and Justification, 205). As he explains, imputed righteousness and its remission of sins “must always … run to the foundation of good works, namely, to a lively faith in Christ” (205). As with others, Vermigli thereby sees a necessary relation between imputed righteousness and inherent righteousness: the former justifies us freely before God, while the latter describes a necessary fruit of imputed righteousness.
Vermigli grants “that Christ requires more of us than faith, for who doubts that he grants those who are justified to live uprightly and to practice virtue of all kinds; otherwise, they shall not come into eternal salvation? Yet these are fruits of faith and effects of justification, not causes” (224). In other words, faith is not sufficient for “eternal salvation” because “we do not come [to it] unless some fruit follows our faith” (224). Even so, Vermigli affirms in strongest terms that we are justified by faith alone (224). We are justified by faith alone, but that faith “always has hope and love and other good works as companions” (224). These companies, while necessary, “lack the power or cause or merit of justifying” (227).
Martin Bucer
After citing Romans 3:25–26, Bucer writes, “Here without a doubt he includes at the same time in the word ‘justify’ that righteousness which God produces by his Spirit in those who believe in Christ, and which he intends to be his attestation to the effect that he has now forgiven their sins and counts them among those he resolved to justify, that is, to count among the righteous not only by pardoning their sin but also by conforming them to the image of his Son.” (Common Places, 162–3; cited in Wedgeworth). In other words, God both declares sinners righteous and imparts righteousness to them so that they might be conformed to the image of Christ.
Bucer follows fairly standard ways of speaking about justification among the reformers, although later authors will more clearly distinguish Christ’s imputation and God’s gift of inherent righteousness.
Heinrich Bullinger
While Bullinger affirms justification by faith alone, he maintains that “we do not say, as many think we do, that faith is post [sic] alone, or utterly destitute of good works: for wheresoever faith is, there also it shows itself by good works because the righteous cannot but work righteousness” (Decades §1.6, p 118). But one must be righteous first (by imputation), Bullinger argues, before we attain to righteousness in works. The key distinction for Bullinger is that faith alone brings about justification; but then we do works of righteousness, being created for this purpose (Eph 2:10; §1.6, p 119).
Hence, he affirms passages in the Bible that say we are justified by works (probably James 2:21, 24), or that our works are righteous, and “that unto our own works is given a reward and life everlasting” (§1.6, p 119). But he specifies we must remember “the merit of Christ.” And further, that even these works that reward us with life everlasting “are of the grace of God” and turn back to Christ (§1.6, p 119). In other words, Bullinger carefully affirms that faith alone justifies; but good works play a role subsequent role and can even be said to reward us with eternal life (so Rom 2:7). He does not provide a technical distinction as others do, likely because of the genre (a sermon).
Thomas Cranmer
According to Cranmer, our works of righteousness do not merit our justification but necessarily follow our justification (Homilies, 56, 60–1). We do not intend to become good by doing them, since they are imperfect. But we nevertheless must do good works. The reason why is that a living and truth faith necessarily brings about good works; Here Cranmer cites both Paul and James as agreeing on the necessity of works for a living faith (64).
Girolamo Zanchi
Zanchi specifies that inherent righteousness “is so imperfect that we are made truly righteous before God only by Christ’s own righteousness, whereby our sins are not imputed to us, and only thereby can we be regarded as righteous” (Confession, §19.3). The faith that justifies us, Zanchi explains, “is certainly living faith and … it works through love” (§19.9). “God,” explains Zanchi, “does not justify us by the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness without also making us partakers of His divine nature, without regenerating, remaking, and sanctifying us, giving us inherent righteousness, and confirming us to the image His Son” (§19.9). This latter righteousness can grow in us.
But importantly, imputed righteousness alone justifies; “Nevertheless, it is on the basis of works that one is shown to be righteousness or not” (§19.11). Such works show both our imputed and inherent righteousness, which is how Zanchi interprets James 2:24 (§19.11). In short, works are necessary but they do not justify us before God. They follow from imputation.
Zacharias Ursinus
Ursinus affirms (1) imputed righteousness and (2) non-imputed righteousness but only imputed righteousness can be called justification since inherent righteousness cannot justify us before God. For Ursinus, Christians can therefore perform acts of imperfect righteousness. “This form of righteousness,” Ursinus explains, “belongs properly to those who are regenerated, and flows from a justifying faith” (Commentary 326).
He distinguishes evangelical righteousness (from Christ) and legal righteousness (in us), but Ursinus reserves the application of evangelical righteousness to the term justification. Hence, he can say, “Good works, although they are not required our justification, are nevertheless necessary to show our gratitude” (338). These good works are imperfect works of righteousness, but only evangelical righteousness can justify since Christ’s merits alone can justify us before God, not our imperfect works.
As he explains: “Good works … are not required that by them we may apprehend the merits of Christ, much less that we may be justified on account of them; but that we may thereby prove our faith, which without good works is dead, and can only be known by their presence” (337). Yet these good works “are required as the fruits of our faith, and as the evidences of our gratitude to God” (337). In sum, Ursinus affirms we can do imperfect good works, but they cannot justify us before God.
Richard Hooker
Hooker distinguishes the righteousness of justification and the righteousness of sanctification (Discourse, 9). The former provides the right of inheritance, while the latter brings about “the possession of eternal bliss. And so the end of both of these is everlasting life” (9). But the good works that we do are not meritorious (12).
Amandus Polanus
Polanus interprets James 2:24 to refer to showing one’s righteousness, not of imputed righteousness (Justification 159). So believers “testify that they are righteous by true works” (160). Importantly, Polanus draws on the idea that a living faith, and points out that a dead faith cannot justify: “James denies that it is sufficient for justification” (162).
So what does James teach? Polanus answers, “he teaches that the person who is justified must be justified by works—that is, to be fully approved, declared, and demonstrated righteousness” (162). And these works that justify us please God: “God receives and rewards our works and testifies that they are pleasing to Him, although they are not entirely perfect” (160).
Antonius Thysius and Andreas Polyander
For Thysius, Justification primarily means a forensic act, but he admits that it “sometimes appears also to include sanctification as its consequence because of the very strong close connection between the two (Rom 8:30; Titus 3:7, etc.)” (Synopsis §33.3).
Of good works, Thysius speaks of imperfect good works “undertaken by the norm of the Law” that “are pleasing to God in Christ.” These works done by faith “go by the name of ‘righteousness’” (§33.35). While they differ from the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, they nevertheless can be called “our righteousness” (§33.35). In sum, “For in believers there exists no righteousness of works (Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16). And yet there are works of righteousness in them (Titus 3:5)” (§33.35).
These good work are necessary because a living requires obedience or love (Gal 5:6), and faith cleanses our hearts (Acts 15:9). “And so while our justification comes by a faith that is not apart from works, yet it is apart from works that we are justified” (§33.29).
In the next disputation of the Leiden Synopsis, Andreas Polyander will affirm that good works are necessary because they are “ordained for God’s glory and our salvation” (§34.24). Such good works follow justification and are “a way and a required condition in the inheritors” of salvation (§34.24). Hence, good works are necessary because they are the ordained way to our inheritance in heaven—yet they follow our justification by faith, and they are never meritorious (§34.48)
John Davenant
Davenant affirms that good works are necessary for salvation, like all the other authors mentioned here, but do so with careful qualifications. For example, “No good works are necessary to the regenerate for salvation or justification; if by necessary we understand necessary in the sense of a meritorious cause.” (Justification, 298). In other words, Christ’s merits alone serve as the meritorious cause of our justification: “the obedience of Christ alone has this merit, to which God having regard, both justifies and glorifies the elect” (298).
Why then are good works necessary? Davenant answers in ways similar to both Andreas Polyander a few decades later that: “Some good works are necessary to justification, as concurrent or preliminary conditions; although they are not necessary as efficient or meritorious causes.” If not causes, then they retain and preserve the state of justification only as means, not as causes (300–1). Justification by faith by contrast gives one a right to eternal life (304).
It is clear in context that Davenant means that while grace justifies us by the merits of Christ, believers necessarily will live holy lives. So put simply, good works are “the way appointed to eternal life, not as the meritorious cause of eternal life” (302). Such works are imperfect and inchoate (302). He speaks of such good works as “fruits of inchoate righteousness which follow justification”(304).
Francis Turretin
Turretin distinguishes “the proper justification of cause” in Paul and the “justification of effect and sign” in James. Of the latter justification, Turretin points out “his works truly declared him to be faithful and justified” (Justification, 207). While Turretin does not add anything to prior thinkers, he clearly defines what he means by two justifications. The first would include imputation and pardon, while centres on justification of works. Since the word justification here is a homonym, it refers to the cause of our justification in the first sense; and to the proof of our justification in the second (for more, see IET, Vol. 2 16th topic, Q. 8).
Herman Witsius
Witsius affirms our remission of sins through Christ’s imputed righteousness and our subsequent inherent righteousness that justifies us by works. This latter justification amounts to being “declared to be truly regenerated, believing, and holy; behaving as becomes those who are regenerated, believing and holy” (Covenants, §3.25). Witsius traces this second justification in the life of Abraham (Gen 22:12) and other key places in Scripture (e.g., 1 John 3:7; Acts 10:34–35); Luke 1:6; James 2:21).
As earlier reformed taught, so does Witsius teach that God justifies sinners by faith. This imputed righteousness means that God declares us just before him. However, this justification necessarily has good works as its fruit, which Witsius calls inherent righteousness. This latter righteousness does not merit or cause our divine justification which alone acquits from sin, frees us from liability to death, and gives the right to eternal life (§3.23). Yet it demonstrates that we are righteous; it is a justification by works.
Justification, Imputation, and Good Works
I could survey many other reformed authors (e.g, Diodati, Pictet, Van Mastricht, etc.), but we would only find much the same kind of conclusions. Although methodologically I have only provided barebone summaries above on the question of justification, imputation, and good works, here I want to expand upon what I see as a general consensus on justification, albeit with some linguistic differences.
In general, reformed theologians argued that faith alone justifies us on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness, and that this righteousness precedes a gift of inchoate or inherent righteousness. While imperfect and non-meritorious, this latter righteousness necessarily follows imputation; and it is the evidence or testimony of both imputed and inherent righteousness. We can thus do imperfect and non-meritorious good works. If we do not, then we show that we had never received imputed or inherent righteousness. In this specific sense, good works are necessary for salvation since they testify to and necessarily follow from our imputed righteousness. They have no power, cause, or merit to justify us before God; but they testify to the reality that we have been justified by faith.
From this vantage point, the surveyed theologians read passages such as 1 John 3:7 “Whoever practices righteousness is righteous” or James 2:24: “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” They took such passages seriously and emphasized that works necessarily follow justifying faith. They sometimes refer to justification of works or of effect in contrast to our justification by faith. At other times, they reserve justification for the application of imputed righteousness but speak of testifying to our righteousness through our works. But no one claims that works are unnecessary in the Christian life.
Further, they maintain that Christ’s righteousness is the meritorious cause of our justification. By his obedience to the law, which means his whole Incarnate life (so Ursinus), Christ merits a reward for us and satisfies the demands of justice. By faith, God imputes this righteousness of Christ to us. It is not a quality of God, but the Incarnate merit of Christ given to in the Spirit us by partaking of Christ by faith.
They all maintain that good works are never a meritorious cause; we are justified by faith alone. Good works, however, necessarily follow imputed righteousness as a gift of grace. Sometimes the surveyed theologians will include in justification both imputed and inherent righteousness (sanctification), but when they do so, they make sure to distinguish what both accomplish in the sinner.
No one believes inherent righteousness is anything but a gift of God that follows imputation of Christ’s righteousness. This inherent righteousness allows us to do imperfect works that nevertheless please God because we are in Christ. They do not please God because they are good and meritorious, but because we do them from faith. For “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” (Heb 11:6). In short, our good works do not merit justification, but they imperfectly can be called good or righteous. Calvin and others will even speak of our good works as being reckoned righteous in a way similar to how our faith reckons us righteous.
They also affirm that true faith requires good works as a necessary correlate and proof of the former. “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (James 2:14). Like faith produces works as a testimony of its reality, so also does justification necessarily result in good works: “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). This justification by works refers not to imputed righteousness, but to inherent righteousness which testifies to both our imputed and inherent righteousness.
Some of them maintain we can speak of justification by works (or some equivalent) because the word justification in James 2 is a homonym; it speaks of demonstrating or testifying to one’s righteousness; whereas in Paul, justification more often refers to Christ’s imputed righteousness (but see Titus 3:6–7).
The Bible frequently speaks of righteous people such as in Luke 1:6. But “it is one thing to be justified before God; it is another to be righteous before God” (Polanus, Justification, 167). Justification by faith alone means that God pardons us and imputes Christ’s righteousness to us, which is the only meritorious cause of our salvation or justification. Good works are only necessary as a companion and testimony to our justification by faith; and they also serve as a way unto eternal life, but not as the right to life which alone belongs to justification by faith.
Resources
Steven Wedgeworth on Double Justification.
Mark Jones on future Justification in Goodwin.
Mark Jones on Works and the Continuation of Justification.
Wyatt Graham on whether the Reformed taught justification by works.
Wyatt Graham on imputed and inherent righteousness in early Reformed thought.
Wyatt Graham on Petrus van Mastricht’s view of good works as a way to life and continuation of justification.
Wyatt Graham on Thomas Goodwin’s double justification.
Wyatt Graham on John Calvin’s view of “faith without works justifies.“
