1. The writer wishes to thank Prof. Edward A. Dowey, Jr. of Princeton Theological Seminary for reading the manuscript and offering very valuable criticisms, and Prof. Heiko A. Oberman of Harvard Divinity School for suggesting the topic and supervising part of the research. The writer, of course, takes complete responsibility for the content and details of the article. No monograph on Calvin's Romans commentary is extant. Louis Goumaz has drawn on this work in his La Doetrifle du Salut d'apres les Conmentaires de Jean Calvin sur le Nouveau Testament, Lausanne, 1917Google Scholar, but he has not given detailed attention to Calvin's doctrine of justification. A number of separate treatments of Calvin's concept of justification have appeared, all of them based primarily on the Institutes: Lüttge, Willy, Die Rechtfertigungslehre Calvins und ihre Bedeutung für sein Frömmiglceit, Berlin 1909;Google Scholar Leli`vre, Charles, “La Doctrine de in Justification par Ia Foi dan la Théologie de Calvin,” Revue Chrétienne, 1909, vol. 56, pp. 699–710, 767–776Google Scholar; Lang, A., “Rechtfertigung und Heiligung nach Calvin,” in Zwei Calvin-Vorträge, Gütersloh, 1911Google Scholar; Niesel, Wilhelm, “Calvin wider Osianders Reehtfertigungslehre,” Zeit. für Kirehengeschichte, 1927, vol. 46, pp. 410–430Google Scholar; Hauck, Wilhelm-Albert, Calvin und die Rechtfertigung, Gütersloh, 1938.Google Scholar Many general summaries of the Reformer's doctrine of justification have been written: Albreeht Ritschl, A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, tr. J. S. Black, Edinburgh, 1872, pp. 163–198Google Scholar; Doumergue, E., Jean Calvin les Hommes et les Choses de son Temps, Lausanne, 1910, vol. 4, pp. 263–288Google Scholar; Wernle, Paul, Der Evangelische Glaube nach den Hauptschriften der Reformatoren, Tübingen, 1919, vol. 3, pp. 240–266Google Scholar; Niesel, Wilhelm, The Theology of Calvin, tr. Knight, H., Philadelphia, 1956 (first published 1938), pp. 130–139Google Scholar; Wendel, François, Calvin: Sources et Évolution de sa Pensée Religieuse. Paris, 1950, pp. 193–199Google Scholar; Stuermann, Walter E., Calvin's Concept of Faith, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1952, pp. 163–198Google Scholar; Buren, Paul van, Christ in our Place: the Substitutionary Character of Calvin 's Doctrine of Reconciliation, London!, 1957, pp. 107–124Google Scholar; Wallace, Ronald S., Calvin's Doctrine of the Christian Life, London, 1959, pp. 23–28.Google Scholar Also to be mentioned is KoIf, W. hans's important work, Christusgemeinschaft bei Johannes Calvin, Neukirchen, 1939, pp. 54–86Google Scholar et passin. The text of Calvin's 1540 Romans commentary (along with the 1556 edition which we will not study) may be found in loannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. G. Baum, E. Cunits, E. Reuss, vol. 49 (Corpus Reformatorum, vol 77)Google Scholar, Brunsvigae, 1892, cited hereafter simply by a page reference. Other works of Calvin will be cited according to the volumes Calvini Opera, e.g. CO 48, 27. The Romans commentary (based on the 1556 text) recently has been translated by MacKenzie, Ross, in Calvin's Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, ed. P. W., and Torrance, T. F., Edinburgh, 1961.Google Scholar All the translations in this article, however, are the author's.

2. CO 1, 737: … ita discutienda, ut meminerimus praecipuum esse sustinendae religionis cardinem, quo maiorem attentionem curamque afferamus, CO 1, 774: … iustificationem fidei, quae pietatis est totius summa. … For the 1559 Inst, vide Co 2, 533 (3.11.1); CO 2, 584 (3.157). Cf. Calvin's words to Cardinal Sadolet concerning justification by faith, CO 5, 396f.: At, sublata eius cognitione, et Christi gloria exstincta est, et abolita religio, et ecclesia destructa, et spes salutis penitus eversa. Dogma ergo istud, quod in religione summum erat, dicimus fuisse a vobis nefarie ex hominum memoria deletum.

3. Chapter 6 in 1539; chapter 10 in 1543 and 1550; book 3, chapter 11 in 1559.

4. In view of Calvin's high valuation of justification by faith, one might expect him to use the doctrine of justification as an explicit theological principle by which he would order his system, a principle comparable perhaps to the duplex cognitio Domini in the 1559 edition of the Institutes (on this principle vide Dowey, Edward A. Jr The Knowledge of God in Calvin's Theology, New York, 1952, cap. pp. 46ff.).Google Scholar But justification apparently does not have this explicit kind of systematic significance for Calvin.

5. So Lang, op. cit., p. 15, writes concerning the 1536 Institutes: “ … das Ganze ist aus dem frischen Rechtfertigungserlebnis Geschrieben And Hauck, op. cit., p. 18, says more generaliy: “Von der systematisehe Bedeutung der Rechtfertigungslehre im Rahmen der gesamten Theologie hat allgemein und des theologischen Systems Calvins im besonderen ist ihre religiose zu unterscheidem” Vide also Lüttge, op. cit., passtm.

6. Kostlln, J., “Calvins Institutio nach Form und Inhalt,” Theol. St. a. Kr., 1868, vol. 41, p. 47Google Scholar: “Im Ganzen aber ist die Umgestaltung, welche Calvin 1539 seinem Werke gegeben, von allen, welche es durchgemacht hat, die wichtigste. Er hat hier, so grosse Abschnitte er auch aus der ersten Ausgabe herübernahm, doch weit mehre als spater ganz Macsen des Stoffes neu durchgearbeitet. In den sphtern Ausgaben und auch in der grossen Umarbeitung des Jahres 1559 besteht die neue Arbeit doch mehre nur in einer mehre oder weniger durchgreifeaden Neuordnung der bereits vorliegend Textsglieder und in Einfügung kleimerer und grosser Zugaben zwischen dieselben hinein.”

7. Calvin went to Geneva in July, 1536, where he lectured on the Bible. He was banished on April 23, 1538, and took refuge in Strasbourg; the revision of the Institutes was begun in 1537, completed during an intervening stay in Easel in 1538 (McNeil, J. T., “Introduction,” Inst. of the Chr. Rel., tr. Battles, F. L., Philadelphia, 1960, p. xxxiv)Google Scholar, and published in August, 1539, in Strasbourg. In this edition Calvin introduced a long section on justification by faith; the 1536 edition dealt with justification only briefly in various places. In the new section Calvin made the remarks about justification quoted at the beginning of this article. (His letter to Sadolet, vide note #2, was also written in this period; it was dated September 1, 1539.) Moreover, in an epistle to the reader dated August 1, 1539, prefacing the revised Institutes, Calvin says that he believes that he has “embraced the sum of religioa in all its parts, and… arranged it in such an order, that if anyone rightly grasps it, it will not be diff icult for him to determine what he ought especially to seek in Scripture, and to what end he oughtto relate its contents.” (Inst. of the Chr. Rel., tr. F. L. Bnttles, p. 4Google Scholar; Latin in CO 29, 255). In the same place he refers the reader to his “commentaries on the epistle to the Romans” as an “example of the instnwtion” he hopes to give in his planned commentaries on Scripture, instruction which, he suggests, should presuppose familiarity with the Institutes. Calvin began to lecture in Strasbourg in January, 1539. Doumergne (op. cit., vol. 2, Lausanne 1902, p. 434) has established that his order of lectures was as follows: Jan., lessons in theology; Feb. 1, lectures on John; May 12, lectures on Corinthians. When and to what extent Calvin worked on Romans, however, remains something of a mystery. Goumaz (op. cit., pp. 34ff.) has pointed to the fact that Fabri (Liber. tetus) wrote to Calvin (CO 10, 368) September 5, 1539, asking for the commentary on Romans which he presumed was published. Goumaz also maintains plausibly that Colladon's remark that in 1539 Calvin “commença à escrire sur saint Paul” (CO 21, 61) refers to what Goumaz calls “la redaction definitive.” Goumaz notices, too, Calvin's remark to Simon Grynaeus (CO 10, 402) in his dedicatory epistle to the Romans commentary recalling that he, Calvin, and Gryaaeus had a discussion “three years ago” on the best way of interpreting Scripture. Goumas then carefully asserts that “On est ainsi en droit de prétendre que, de plus en plus convancu de la nhccssitd d'appuyer la dogmatique sur une exégèse solide, il [Calvini] a entrepris son travail sur les Romains en 1537.” (There is too little evidence, however, to allow us to say with Goumaz that Calvin lectured on Romans in Geneva.) It does not seem unllkely, thea, that Calvin was studying Romans in detail as he worked on his revision of the Institutes. His relatively new interest in an explicit doctrine of justification in the years 1538–1539, may well have resulted from such serious study of Romans, as well as from the press of the polemical situation (cf. his letter to Sadolet) and from possible borrowing from other Reformers (Calvin indicates in his dedicatory epistle, CO 10, 403ff., to his Romans commentary dated September 1, 1539,–the commentary was published in March, 1540 – that he studied carefully the commentaries of Melanchthon, Bucer, and Bullinger, published respectively in 1532, 1536, and 1533, along with the “many commentaries of the ancients.”). In the Romans commentary Calvin says on the first page that “the principle question of the whole epistle” is that “we are justified by faith.” (Atque ita iagreditur principalem totius epistolae quaestionem, fide nos iustificari, in qua tractanda versatur usque ad finem quiati capitis. p. 1. Cf. p. 21f.: lam habemus statum, sen cardinem principalem buius primae partis epistolae, sola Dei misericordia per fidem nos iustificari.) He also comments in his dedicatory letter that “when anyone understands this epistle, he has a way opened to him to the understanding of the whole of Scripture.” (CO 10, 403: Et sane nusqnam meius collocare snam operam poterant [the commentators on Romans]: quando is qnis eam intelligat, aditum sibi qnendam patefactum habet ad totius Seripturae intelligentiam.) This remark is very much like the assertion he makes about his 1539 Institutes in his epistle to the reader. We may view the Romans commentary, therefore, as a companion work to the 1539 Institutes. It was in all likelihood prepared side - by - side with the latter work and Calvin surely intended it to be read in the same fashion, even though he may not have produced the final draft of the commentary before the final draft of the revised Institutes.

8. Lüttge, op. cit., p. 108, is right when he says, “Es ist Calvins Eigenart nicht einheitlich von einem Mittelpunkt aus zu erfassea.” Justification will surely not be found to be Calvin's “principle” from which he deduces his “system.” But it is begging many questions to say, – “There is no central doctrine in the theology of Calvin; rather all his doctrines are central in the sense that their aim is to understand independently from several viewpoints what is central and essential.” (Alfred Gohler, quoted with approval by Niesel, , The Theology of Calvin, p. 19).Google Scholar Köstlin, op. cit., p. 437, in contrast, though drawing no conclusions about justification's centrality in Calvin's thought, is not willing to pass by the impressions gained from a careful reading of the Institutes: “Kaum irgendwo sonst redet Calvin mit so ernsten Pathos, wie hier davon, dass man zu Gottes Richterstuhl die Augean erheben müsse, dass das Gewissen erregt werde und der Satan anklage, dass man da ganz demüthig nnd arm allein bei Gottes Barmherzigkeit vermöge der für uns eintretenden Gerechtigkeit ein'st durch Zurechnung dieser Gerechtigkeit Rettung finden könne. Und nicht bios für's subjective Bedürfnis fällt nach Calvin auf diese Momente ein solches Gewicht. Auch an sich ist ihm … die prima gratia die, das wir … Christi innocentia Deo reconciliati pro iudice lam propitium habeamus in coelis patrem; regeneratio secunda est gratia.”

9. … signifieat, Deum, quantus est, minime posse mente nostra capi. … Delirant ergo quicunque scire appetunt quid sit Deus. … p. 23.

10. Deus per se invisibilis est: sed quia elucet eius maiestas in operibus et creaturis universis, debuerunt illine homines agnoscere: nam artificem suum perspicue declarat. p. 23. Cf. Dowey, op. cit., p. 7: “Calvin's doctrine of providence, or the continuing relation of Creator and creature, is permeated in an almost uncanny manner with the immediate presence of a mysterious will.”

11. Nam qui omnium est autor, eum oportet sine initio esse, et a se ipso. p. 23f. … omnia oportet servire arbitrio creatoris. p. 91.

12. Voluntas autem Dei iustitiae regula est. … p. 142. Habet quidem abditum suum consilium Dominus, quo universa pro nutu dispensat: sed quia theomprensibile nobis est ei sinamus. p. 143.

13. Caeterum observare eonvenit, esse multiplicem spiritus actionem. Est enim universalis, qua omnes crenturae sustinentur ac moventur: sunt et peculiares in hominibus, et illae quid-em variae. Bed hie sanctificationem intelligit, qua non nisi electos suos Dominus dignatur, dum eos sibi in filios segregat. p. 147.

14. Coneipi Deus non potest sine sua aeternitate, potentia, sapientia, bonitate, veritate, iustitia, misericordia. p. 24.

15. Unum enim Deum oportere iustum praedicari intelligit. Deinde iustitiae ac bonitatis amplitudo in hoc se profert quod in homines quoque eius communieationem effundit. p. 64.

16. Iustitia, in administratione: quia sontes punit, innocentes vendieat. p. 24.

17. … Deus ille, qui gloriam suam alteri non cessurum semel pronuntiavit. p. 263.

18. Cf. note #15.

19. Bonitas, quia nihil causae erat cur conderet omnia, neque alia ratione moveri potest ut conservet quam ob illam ipsam. p. 24.

20. … [propositum Dei] quod solo ems beneplacito (ut ita loquar) continctur. p. 178.

21. Nune vero aperte causam totam ad electionem Dei refert, eamque gratuitam, et quae minima ab hominibus pendeat: ut nihil superius quaeratur Dei bonitate in salute piorum. p. 177. … quos aeterno suo consilio sibi destinavit Deus in filios, hi sunt et perpetuo filii. p. 190. … [Domini electionem] qua sumus praeordinati ad vitam. … p. 160.

22. … in reproborum exitio nihil superius iusta eius serveritate. p. 177. Assumit enim ex superioribus, causam in aetarno ac inexplicabili Dei consilio absconditam esse: cuius iustitiam adorare magis quam scrutari conveniat. p. 187.

23. Cf. p. 187: … ostendit, quatenus se profert Dei predestinatio, in ea meram iustitiam apparere.

24. Calvin's concepts of man's righteousness and God's righteousness should be defined with generically similar terms if we are to understand what he means when he says that God communicates his righteousness to man. E.g. p. 20: Rursum nota quam rnrum at pretiosum thesaurum in evangelio nobis Dominus conferat, nempe iustitiae suae communicationem. Cf. note #15.

25. Vide first citation of note #12. Cf. p. 20: lustitiam Dei accipio, qund apud Dei tribunal approbetur: quem admodum contra hominum iustitiam vocare solet, quae homium opinione habetur et censetur iustitia.

26. ⃜structura mundi et haec pulcherrima elementorum compositio debuerit hominem instigare ad Deum glorificandum. … p. 22.

27. Cf. Calvin's way of speaking about a point Paul is making: Neque enim vult Deo asserere potestatem aliquam inordinatam: sed quae merito illi sit deferenda. p. 186f.

28. Praescripsit nobis rationem Deus, qua velit a nobis glorificari, nempe pietatem, quae in verbi obedientia sita est. p. 51⃜ hac conditione nati sunt omnes, ut iustitia et sanctimonia illum colant… p. 42.

29. This analysis of human righteousness in relation to the Divine righteousness is indirectly confirmed by remarks Calvin makes concerning Ro. 9:22 where Paul speaks of vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy: Vasa autem generali significatu pro instrumentis posuit. Quoniam in omnibus creaturis quidquid est actionis, est veluti divinae virtutis ministerium. Optima ergo ratione vocamur nos fideles insericordiae vasa, quibus Dominus instrumentis utitur admisericordiae suae ostentionem: reprobi autem vasa irae, quandoquidem serviunt illustrandis Dei iudiciis. p. 187f.

30. Ergo qui conceptam Dei notitiam habet, iam illi laudem debet aeternitatis, sapientiae, bonitatis, iustitiae. Eiusmodi virtutes quum non recognoverint homines in Deo, sed somniarint tanquam inane phantasma: merito dicuntur ilium sua gloria improbe spoliasse. Nec sine causa subdit, gratos non fuisse: quia nemo est qui non infinitis cius beneficiis sit obaeratus. Adeoque vel hoc solo nomine satis superque nos sibi obstringit, quum se nobis patefacere dignatur⃜ Haec illa est iniustitia, quo semen rectae notitiae mox sua pravitate suffocant, priusquam in segetem emergat. p. 24f.

31. Inter impietatem et iniustitiam ita nonnulli distinguunt, quod pntant priore vocabulo violatum Dei cultum notari: altero, aequitatem in homines. Sod ouia statim iniustitiam illam apostolus ad religionis neglectum refert, nos utrumque de eodem accipiemus. Deinde, omnis homimum impietas, per hypallagen, pro omnium hominum: sive. cuius convicti tenentur omnes. Duplici autem nomine res una, hoc est adversus Deum ingratitudo notatur: quia peccatur in ea bifariam. asebeia dicutur quasi Dei inhonoratio: adikia, quoniam homo. ad se transferendo quod Dei erat. honorem Dei inique praeripuit. p. 22f.

32. p. 2.

33. Cf. notes #30, 31.

34. Cf. p. 26 where sin is referred to as apostasia, defectio, and alienation from the Divine goodness.

35. Cf. p. 62: Non enim detestatur in nobis Deus opus suum, id est, quod conditi snmus homines: sed nostram immunditiam, qnae lucem imaginis suae exstinguit.

36. 1ram pro Dei iudicio aceipe, in quo significatu passim occurrit. p. 78. Ira, anthrōpopathōs, more scripturae, proultione Dei: quia Deus puniens prae se fert (nostra opinione) irascentis faciem. Nullum ergo motum in Deo significat: sed tantum ad sensum peccatoris, qui plectitur, relationem habet. p. 23.

37. Quia clandcstinum est malum impietas, ne adhuc tergiversentur, ostcndit crassiori demonstratione illos non posse elabi quin iusta damnationc teneantur: siquidem illam impietatem sequuti sunt fructus, unde licet colligere manifesta irae Domini indicia. p. 26.

38. Non vivimus autem coram Deo nisi iustitia. p. 21.

39. Voluntas autem Dei iustitiae regulaest: unde sequitur ininstum esse quidqnid ab ea dissidet. Quod si ininstum, simul et mortiferum. Adversario autem et infesto Deo frustra quis vitam expectet. Iram enim eius mors protinus necessario consequitur, quae est irae eius ultio. p. 142; italics added.

40. Siquidem omnes peccatores manet coram Dei tribunali confusio et ignominia, ut conscientia peccato suo confussa Dei conspectum ferre nequeat quemadmodum in Adam videmus. p. 60f.

41. ⃜ peccatum properie animi est. p. 31. Nam colligunt impii nunc adversum se Dei indignationem, cuins vis tunc in caput eorum effundatur: Dies autem supremi iudici, dies irae vocatur, dum sermo est ad impios: quum dies sit redemptionis fidelibus. Ita et aliae quaclibet visitationes Domini semper impiis deseribuntur horrendae et minaces. p. 33. … [Dominus iudicium] cuius tametsi indicia quaedam quotidie praebet, liquidam tamen ac plenam manifestionem in eam diem servat. p. 34.

42. Nam quum nihil potius sit nobis nostro honore, haec summa est caecitas, ubi non dubitamus in nos ipsos esse contumeliosi. Quare convenientissima est poena irrogato divinae maicstati probro. p. 27.

43. Ut ergo nos errare faciat peccatum, occasionem a lage sumit. Tum aversos a via vitae mortis necessitate irrctitos tenet. p. 126.

44. ⃜ lex coelestem quandam et angelicam institiam requirit, in qua naevus nullus appareat, ad cuius munditiem nihil desideretur. p. 128. Requiritur enim perfecta et numcris suis omnibus consummata obedientia. p. 72.

45. Bonis quidem ae integris viam vitae monstraret: sed quatenus vitiosis ac corruptis praecipit quid debeant, praestandi vires non subministrat, reos apud Dei tribunal peragit. p.78. Per se quidem, ad iustitiam ae vitam iustiuit, sed nihil hac partc proficit ob hominis vitiositatem. p. 57.

46. A contrario rntioeinatur, non afferri nobis iustitiam a lege, quia convincit nos peccati et damnationis: quando ex eadem scatebra non prodeunt vita et mors. p. 57.

47. Nullus est forte in tota scriptura insignior locus ad vim istius iustitiae ilustrandum. Ostendit enim Dei miscrieordiam causam esse effieientem: Christum cum suo sanguine esse materiam: formalem, seu instrumentalem, esse fidem é verbo conceptam: finalem porro, divinae et iustitiae et bonitatis gloriam. p. 61. The four causes are included by Calvin in the 1539 last, CO 1, 766, in the same fashion, though, with partially different wording. For the 1559 Inst vide CO 2, 575 (3.14.7). Cf. Luther, Adversus armatum virum Cokleum, 1523 (WA II, 302.22): Sola fides iustificat, per hoc tamen non oportere negari, quin verbum, sacramentum, Christus, praedicator, spiritus, et dens pater iustificet. Deus omnia facit, ut iustificemur, Christus meruit, ut iustificemur, Spiritus sanctus exequitur meritum Christi, similiter et sacramentum et praedicator. Sed formalis iustificatio relinquitur soli fidei, cum sine fide nec dens nec Christus nec aliud quicquam prosit ad iustitiam. Cf. also Cone. Trid. Sess. VI, cap. 7 (Denzinger, #799): Huius iustificationis causae sunt, finalis quidem: gloria Dei et Christi ac vita aeterna, efficiens vero: misericors Dens … meritoria autem:… Dominus noster lesus Christus… sun sanctissima passione… nobis iustificntionem meruit…; instrumentalis item: sacramentum baptismi…; demum unica formalis causa est iustitia Dei, non qua ipse instus est, sed qua nos iustos facit.

48. We should be on our guard, then, against the kind of question which has perplexed van Buren, Op. cit., pp. 32, 50, 143, namely, “Is the work of Christ to be understood as having gained the reality of salvation, or only as having gained its possibility?” Calvin does not begin, as some contemporary theologians do, by presupposing that Jesus Christ is the only cause of salvation. Therefore the question posed by van Buren is not a problem for him. Lelièvre, op. cit., p. 769, has fallen into a similar error, but from another corner: “L'oeuvre redemptice du Christ est avant tout pour notre theologien une oevre intérieure et subjective.”

49. Goumaz has used the four causes, as they are defined by Calvin, to organize his treaise on Calvin's doctrine of salvation; op. cit., pp. 129ff., 184ff., 225ff., 249ff.

50. Treatment of Calvin's doctrine of justification has sometimes suffered because it has focused exclusively on the subject of justification by faith.

51. An illustration of the balance of Calvin's doctrine is his brief summary statement of the thesis of Romans, chapters one to five: …unicam esse hominibus iustitiam, Dei misericordiam in Christo: dum, per evangelium oblata, fide apprehenditur. p. 1.

52. Itaque gratia meram Dei bonitatem significat qua sublevamur a miseria. Donum autem est fructus benignitatis divinae, qui ad nos pervenit. Atque ita vides gratiam pessime a Scholasticis definiri qualitatem hominem cordibus infusam. Gratia enim proprie in Deo est effectus gratiae in nobis. p. 98f.

53. Habemus hic quale sit objectum fidei. Nam si quidquid fide obtinemus gratia est, sublata operum consideratione solam Dei gratuitam benevolentiam intuetur. p. 80

54. … [principium theologiae]: nempe Deum in hominis natura, nihil posse considerare quo ad benefaciendum inducatur. p. 178.

55. … [Christus] est pignus immensae erga nos caritatis Dei. … p. 163. …Deus peccatum odio habet, nos quoque illi esse exosos quatenus peccatores sumus: quatenus autem arcano suo consilio nos in Christi corpus cooptat, odisse non desinit. Sed reditio in gratiam nobis ignota est, donec fide in eam pervenimus. p. 94.

56. Siquidem nemo est quo Dominum praeveniat: sed omnes sine exceptione gratuita eius elementia e profundissima mortis abysso empimur: ubinulla eius cognitio, nullum colendieius studium, nullus denique veritatis eius sensus. p. 209f.

57. Cf. p. 22: …iustitiam, quae in fide est fundata, totam Dei misericordiae inniti.

58. Quod si verum est, Deum suae misericordiae velle participes facere omnes populos terrae: salus, et quae ad salutem necessaria est iustitia, adomnes extenditur. p. 66. Si enim salutem quaerimus, hoc est vitam apud Deum, quaerenda primum est iustitia per quam illi reconciliati vitam in inus benevolentia obtineamus. Nam ut a Deo amemur, prins iustos esse necesse est: quum iniustitiam odio habeat. … suam nobis iustitiam Deus patefacit, quae sola nos abinteritu liberat. p. 20.

59. Ex comparatione contrariorum argumentatur, quo probet iustitiam nonnisi p e r evangelium communicari. p. 22.

60. Insignis locus, quo docemur totum evangelium in Christo contineri. … Nam quum ipse viva sit et expressa imago patris, non mirum est, eum solum nobis proponi ad quem se tota fides nostra applicet et in quo consistat. p. 9.

61. Cf. p. 140: Iustitiam vocat obedientiam Christi… in carne nostra exhibita.…

62. Both concerning Christ: … sine quonec ipsa [lex moralis] impletur. p. 67. … in eo invenitur exacta legis iustitia. … p. 67.

63. … iustitiae qualitatem e s s e in Christo: … illi proprium est. p. 101.

64. P. 254.

65. …Christus Adamum superat: huius peccatum illius vincit iustitia: huius maledictio illius obruitur gratia: ab hoc mors profecta illius vita absorbetur. p. 100. … Deum sine Christo semper irratum nobis esse: reconciliari nos per eum, dum iustitia eius accepti sumus. p. 62.

66. For examples of the use of purgari vide pp. 72, 99. The distinction between propitiation and expiation is already present ia the 1536 Institutes; cf. CO 1, 109.

67. Propheta autem clamat, non tecta modo peccata esse, hoc est, in conspectu Dei sublata: sed etiam addit, non imputari. p. 72.

68. Significat satisfnctionem pro peecatis nostris morte Christi fuisse peractam. Quum enim essemus Dei iudicio debitores, ille, ut nos in gratiam restitueret, nostro nomine persolvit, cui solvendo pares non eramus. p. 87. … utcunque ira ultioneque eius digni simus, nobis nihilominus esse propitiuin. p. 71. Reconciliatos fuisse nos Deo per Christi mortem intelligit, quia sacnificium fuit expiationis, quo placatus est Deus mundo. p. 94.

69. Eam [nostram immunditiem] …abstersit Christi ablutio. … p. 62. Sanguinem autem solum nominando non voluit alias redemptionis partes excludere, sed potius sub una parte totam summam comprehendere: sanguinem vero nominavit, in quo habemus nostrum lavacrum. p. 62.

70. … ex sacrificiis et oblationibus, satisfactionem et purgationem disces esse in solo Christo. p. 59. Cf. p. v39: De peccato, id est satisfactione, quam exhibuit Christus, qui pro nobis peccatum, id est, ketharma seu expiatio factus est.

71. Cf. his remark about the glorification of the saints: Glorificatio etsi nondum exhibita est nisi in capite nostro, quia tamen in eo iam quodammodo aeternae vitae haereditatem cernimus. … p. 161. Also cf. p. 165: … Christum nostrum esse, et patrem nobis in ipso propitium.

72. Ergo, quemadmodum mortuum dixit propter peccata, quia soluta in morte peccatorum poena nos a mortis calamitate liberavit: ita nunc dicitur suscitatus ad nostram iustificationem, quoniam sua resurrectione vitam solide nobis instauravit. Primum enim mauu Dei percussus est, ut in persona peccatoris peccati miseria defungeretur: deinde in vitae regnum exaltuatus est, ut iustitia ac vita vitam suis largiretur. p. 88. Cf. p. 201.

73. Itaque quod nostrum ernt, ad se recipit Christus: ut quod suum erat, in nos transfunderet. Suscepta enim nostra maledictione, sua nos benedictione donavit. Addit hic Paulus, in carne: quo certior sit nostra fiducia, dum videmus peccatum in ipsa natura nostra fuisse divectum et abolitum. Sic enim sequitur, naturam nostram vere fieri participem eius victoriae. p. 140. The theme Christus Victor is evident in the Romans commentary along side the theme Christus Victum; cf. also pp. 164, 201.

74. Insitione enim Christo coaluimus. Primum ut surculus communem habet vitae et mortis conditionem cum arbore, in quam insertus est: ita vitae Christi non minus quam et mortis participes nos esse decet. p. 106.

75. Non enim supremuin tantum bonorum omnium est Deus, sed summam quoque ac singulas partes in se continent: factus est autem noster per Chnistum. p. 94.

76. Nam ut est pignus immensae erga nos caritatis Dei, ita non nudus. ant innanis ad nos missus est: sed coelestibus omnibus thesauris refertus: ut ab ipso hauriamus omnia. p. 163.

77. The image “asylum” is suggested by Calvin himself: Siquidem pro confesso praesumit, fidei iustitiam subsidium esse et quasi asylum peccatori, qui operibus destituitur. p. 69.

78. Procul igitur sit a christiano pectore illa de arbitril libertate gentilis philosophia. Servum peceati se quisque, ut re vera est, agnoscat, quo Dei gratia liberetur. … p. 143. Siquidem ut omues nascimur filii irae, ita in ea maledictione detinemur, donec fiamus Christi participes. p. 92. Quae igitur erunt nostrae praeparatioaes ex virtute liberi arbitrii. si principium boni est ab ista manumissione, quam sola Dei gratia peragit¶ p. 116.

79. Itaque hanc particulam, Vocati lesu Christi, per declarationem accipio, ac si intercederet dictio nempe. Significat vero, esse Christi participes per vocationem. Nam et in Christo a patre eliguntur filii, et electi, in eius. tanquam pastoris, custodiam ac fidem committuntur. p. 12.

80. Nihil enim plus conferre fides nobis potest quam a verbo acceperit. p. 85.

81. … in vintutem illam Dei, qua montuos vivificat. … facile est sua potentia mortuos suscitare. p. 81. Immediately following these words Calvin uses the expression ex nihilo to refer to God's call.

82. Haec est vocationis conditio, ut qui mortui sunt, a Domino suscitentur: qui nihil sunt, aliquid eius virtute esse incipiant. Vocandi verbum more scripturae usitato pro suseitare capitur, idque ad virtutem Dei magis expnimendam, quo solo nutu quos vult erigit. p. 81.

83. Ac tametsi nihil citra spinitum proficiunt, per ipsa [sacramenta] tamen, ceu instrumenta, spiritus sui virtutem Deus dispensat. p. 74.

84. Hinc apparet quam sollicite discernat fidem a sacramento: ne quis hoc sine illa contentus sit, perinde ac si ad iustificandum sufficeret. p. 76.

85. Hic porro habemus insignem locum de communi sacramentorum usu: sunt enim sigilla, quibus et Dei promissiones cordibus nostris quodammodo imprimuntur et sancitur gratiae certitudo. p. 74.

86. Ab effectu baptismi, quo initamur primum in Christianam fidem, intentionem suam probat, scilicet nos peccato mortuos esse. Constat nos in Christi participationem baptizari, ut ipso induamur. Quum autem praecipium Christi consortium respeciat in eius mortem, inde palam fit, ex quo primum recipimur in Christi gratiam, mortis eius nos fieri participes. Pooro quid valeat haec cum morte Christi societas, continuo sequitur. Ex mortis communione ad vitae quoque consortium transitum facit. Quae optima deductio est, spectato Christi officio, quo non ad trucidandos suos venit, sed potius vivificandos. Quum enim vita et salus in eo apparere debeat, quorsum referret nos cum ipso emori, nisi ut resurgamus in meliorem vitam p. 105.

87. Cf. note #86.

88. On the basis of the Romans commentary, it would be going too far to say that Calvin's doctrine of justification has an explicit “ecclesiocentric” aspect as well as the others we have mentioned. Calvlin does not deal with the Church with any thoroughness in his work on Romans. Nonetheless the idea of the Church is undeniably importan't for his doctrine of justification, albeit implicitly, as is shown by his emphasis on the word and sacraments.

89. … Abraham ex eo iustificatur quod amplectitur fide bonitatem Dei. … p. 69.

90. Perire fidem docet apostolus, nisi in Dei bonitate secure acquiescit anima: non est ergo fides aut Dei aut veritatis eius nuda agnitie: ac ne simplex quidem persuasio quod Deus sit, quod verbum eius sit veritas: sed divinae miserieordiae certa notitia. … p. 78.

91. … [fides] nos ad Deum traducit, nostramque in eo vitam collocat. p. 21.

92. At vero, ut in participationem gratiae Christi veniamus, in eum inseri nos per fidem oportet. p. 100. Ut Christi iustitia fruaris, fidelem esse necessnrium est: quia fide acquiritur eius consortium. p. 100.… per fidem in eius beneficii possessionem venimus. p. 62.

93. Quicunque enim iusti sunt, non aliter iustificantur quam ex fide Christi: sunt enim alioqui omnes impii. p. 64.…sola fide homo iustificetur. p. 72.

94. Cf. Goumaz op. cit., p. 240: “La foi, selon les commentaires, est loin, certes, d'apparâtre comme un phénomène superficiel: elle embrass tout l'être: intelligence, sentiment et volunté, dan un don complet de lniméme et dan une communion toujours plus intime de l'enfant de Dieu avec son Père.” And Kolfhaus, op. cit., p. 39: “Der Gegenstand unseres Glaubens ist ja keine Sache, sondern Christus und fordert darum persönliche Entscheidung und Inanspruchnahme, es ist eine Beziehung zwischen Person und Person.”

95. …iustitiam quoque nostram in fide positam esse. Ac futurum verbum designat eius vitae, de qua loquitur soliditatem scilicet non fore momentaneam, sed perpetuo constaturam. …fides autem vitae perpetuitatem affert. p. 21. In this section we are touching on some of the material already covered by Kolfhaus, op. cit. Kolfhaus has noted that life and communion with Christ are very close in Calvin's mind; vide the lengthy passage he cites, pp. 24f. from a letter of Calvin. explaining what he, Calvin, means by communion with Christ (CO 15, 722). But the self-imposed limits of Kolfhaus's study have prevented him from setting “life” in the larger context of the Creatorcreature relationship and also from noticing the close relationship of life and righteousness.

96. Praetera hinc graturtae iustitiae perpetua in totam vitam duratio colligi potest. p. 72. … tota fides … certe nulla est, nisi ad usque mortem et post mortem quoque extendatur. p. 168.

97. … qui verae iustitiae factus est particeps, is summo et inaestimabili bono fruitur, nempe tranquillo conscientiae gaudio. Qui cum Deo pacem habet, quid amplius desiderat¶ … Deum sibi pacatum et propitium sentit: non enim nisi ex illa pace gaudium. p. 266. Cf. p. 162.

98. Ergo huc fidei beneficio pervenimus, ut nobis ad felicitatem nihil desit. p. 94.

99. We will consider the relation of justification and sanctification presently.

100. Verum ut iam docuit peccatum nonnisi mortem parere: ita nune subiungit qnod donum istud Dei, nostra scilicet iustifieatio et sanctificatio, aeternae vitae beatitudinem nobis afferat. Vel, si mavis, quemadmodum mortis causa peccatum est, ita iustitia, qua per Christum donamur, vitam aeternam nobis restituit. p. 118.

101. Quicunque enim iusti sunt, non aliter iustificantur quam ex fide Christi: sunt enim ailoqui omnes impii. Iustificantur ergo quia iusti censentur, etiam si non sunt, dum illis imputatur in iustitiam Christi obedientiam p. 64. Iustitiam vocat obedientiam Christi, quae in carne nostra exhibita nobis imputatatur, ut eius beneficio pro iustis censeamur. Sed earn obtinemus tum demum quum in Christi consortium recepti sumus, vinculo Spiritus illi sociati. p. 140. … iustitiae Dei obtinendae principium est abdicare se propria iustitia. p. 196. On the two aspects of imputation, cf. 1539 Inst, CO 2, 737: Iustificari coram Deo dicitnr, qui iudicio Dei et censetur iustus, et acceptus est ob suam iustitiam.

102. Paucis verbis ostendit quails sit haec iustificatio, nempe quod in Christo resident, per fidem vero apprehendatur. Proinde, quinn de ipsa quaeritur, hoc ordine est procedendum. Primum, iustificationis nostrae causam non ad hominem iudicium referri, sed ad Dei tribunal, ubi nulla iustitia censctur nisi perfecta absolutaque legis obedientia. … quod si nemo hominum reperitur qui ad tam exactam sanctitatem conscenderit: sequitur, omnis iustitia in se ipsis destitui. Tum occurrat Christus oportet: qui, ut solus iustus est, ita suam iustitiam in nos transferendo iustos nos reddit. Nunc vides ut iustitia fidei iustitia Christi sit. … Quare fides iustificare dicitur: quia instrunientum est recipiendi Christi, in quo nobis communicatur iustitia. p. 59f.

103. … non esse participes gratiae Christi nisi qui eius spiritu renovati sunt. p. 148. Communion with Christ, it should be noted, makes possible both justification and sanctification; it should not be equated only with the latter. Cf. p. 140: Sed eam [iustitiam … quae … nobis imputatur] obtinenmus tum demum quum in Christi consortium recepti sumus, vinculo spiritus illi sociati. Ubi autem spiritus, illic regeneratio. Wallace, op. cit., pp. 23–28, has given close attention to Calvin's understanding of the relation between justification and sanctification. He cites a passage from the Reformer's Galations commentary (CO 50, 199) where we rend, “Porro vivit Christus in nobis dupliciter,” referring to justification and sanctification. Cf. also Calvin's remark about justification and sanctification in the 1539 Institutes, CO 1, 737, where “participation in Christ” governs both ideas: Christum nobis Dei benignitate datum, fide a nobis apprehendi ae possideri cuius ex participatione duplicem potissimum gratiam recipiamus…

104. Ego autem invictum argumentum oppono contra, iniustitiae damnatum iri opera omni, nisi sola fide homo iustificetur. p. 72. Regeneratio enim inchoatur tantum in hac vita: residuum carnis quod manet, corruptos suos affectus semper sequitur, atque ita pugnam contra spiritum movet. p. 130.

105. Ubi vero ad Christum ventum est, primum in eo invenitur exacta legis iustitia, quae per imputationem etiam nostra fit. p. 67.

106. Cf. note #74.

107. … Christi iustitia sunt induti. … p. 72.

108. Cf. p. 36: … qnum in nobis recognoscit filii sui imaginem, favore suo prosequitur.

109. Lelièvre, op. cit., p. 769, is therefore wrong when he says: “L'imputation est donc la consequence de notre union avec Christ, ou, cequi est la même chose, de nos rapports intimes avec 1'Espirit de Dieu. …” Kolfhans's judgment is to be preferred, op. cit., p. 60: “Rechtfertigung und Einpflanzung stehen nicht in einen Kausalverhältnis zueinander, sondern bezeiehnen eine und dieselbe Tat Gottes bei der von einem Vorher oder Nachher keine Rede ist.” Cf. Doumergne, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 275.

110. Vide note #10.

111. Gloriam Dei accipit pro eo, quae coram Deo locum habet, ut apud Iohannen (12, 43): Dilexemunt magis gloriam hominum quam gloriam Dei. p. 61.

112. … ex orbe universo populum sibi collegit Christus, atque in numinis sui cultum evangeliique obedieutiam redegit. p. 263.

113. Ergo si volumus tanto Christi benficio frui, posthac non licet nisi de promovenda Dei gloria cogitare, cuius causa nos Christus assumpsit. p. 122.

114. Non aliter nune reguat in mundo Deus quam per evangelium: nec aliter rite honoratur eius maiestas quam ubi ex verbo agnita suspicitur. p. 263.

115. … in illo prophetae loco Dominus in genere praedicit fore ut illustretur gloria sua apud omnes gentes, ac maiestas sua ubique emineat, quae tunc inter paucissimos, velut in obscuro aliquo mundi angulo, delitescebat. p. 263.

116. Hinc apparet inchoari quidem in praesenti vita vaticinium istud: sed a sua perfectione abesse, donec dies ille ultimae resurrectionis illuxerit, quo prostemnentur omnes Christi hostes, ut fiant scabellum pedum eius. Porro id quoque fieri non poterit, nisi in iudicium sederit Dominus. p. 263.

117. Voluit enim simpliciter affirmare Dominus, cunctos homines non modo agnituros suum numen, sed confessionem obedientiae edituros, et ore et externo corporis gestu, quem pergenuflexionem designavit. p. 264.

118. Deus enim est qui illic loquitur, et Deus ille, qui gloriam suam alteri non cessurum semel pronuntiavit. Iam si in Christo adimpletur quod uni sibi illie vindicat, ipse procul dubio se in Christo manifestat. … illi a patre datum est omne iudicium in coelo et in terra. p. 263.