[Doctrina foederum, sive systema theologica didacticae et elencticae (Amstelodami , 1691)]

Johannes Braunius (1628–1708), a venerable divine of the Dutch Reformed tradition, was born at Kaiserslautern in the year of our Lord 1628, and was trained in sacred learning at the illustrious University of Leiden, where he sat under the eminent Johannes Coccejus. Nurtured in the federal and covenantal theology of the Reformation, Braunius gave himself to the laborious study of the Hebrew tongue and the Levitical institutions of the Old Testament, wherein he discerned types and shadows of gospel mysteries. He ministered as a faithful pastor and was later appointed to the chair of theology at the University of Groningen in 1681, a post he held unto his death nearly three decades thereafter. His life was adorned not only with erudition, but with devotion, uniting the careful exposition of Scripture with reverence for the covenant mercies of God. Among his chief works stands Vestitus Sacerdotum Hebraeorum, a deep and learned commentary upon the vestments and ordinances of the Aaronic priesthood, drawn from the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth chapters of Exodus and the sixteenth of Leviticus, showing forth the typological beauty of the ceremonial law as fulfilled in Christ. Likewise, his Doctrina Foedorum offered a comprehensive system of didactic and elenctic theology, built upon the foundation of federal theology, expounding the covenant of works and grace with scholastic clarity. In all his writings, Braunius exhibited that rare balance of penetrating intellect and humble piety, ever seeking the edification of the church and the glory of the Redeemer, whose garments of righteousness he found prefigured in those of the ancient priesthood. He fell asleep in the Lord in the year 1708, full of days and full of faith.

Johannes Braunius (1628–1708), a venerable divine of the Dutch Reformed tradition, was born at Kaiserslautern in the year of our Lord 1628, and was trained in sacred learning at the illustrious University of Leiden, where he sat under the eminent Johannes Coccejus. Nurtured in the federal and covenantal theology of the Reformation, Braunius gave himself to the laborious study of the Hebrew tongue and the Levitical institutions of the Old Testament, wherein he discerned types and shadows of gospel mysteries. He ministered as a faithful pastor and was later appointed to the chair of theology at the University of Groningen in 1681, a post he held unto his death nearly three decades thereafter. His life was adorned not only with erudition, but with devotion, uniting the careful exposition of Scripture with reverence for the covenant mercies of God. Among his chief works stands Vestitus Sacerdotum Hebraeorum, a deep and learned commentary upon the vestments and ordinances of the Aaronic priesthood, drawn from the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth chapters of Exodus and the sixteenth of Leviticus, showing forth the typological beauty of the ceremonial law as fulfilled in Christ. Likewise, his Doctrina Foedorum offered a comprehensive system of didactic and elenctic theology, built upon the foundation of federal theology, expounding the covenant of works and grace with scholastic clarity. In all his writings, Braunius exhibited that rare balance of penetrating intellect and humble piety, ever seeking the edification of the church and the glory of the Redeemer, whose garments of righteousness he found prefigured in those of the ancient priesthood. He fell asleep in the Lord in the year 1708, full of days and full of faith.

Table of Contents:

<aside>

Chapter IX: Of Justification

</aside>

Wherein is treated the doctrine of justification, its nature, cause, and manner, as it pertaineth to the Covenant of Grace.

I. Of the Difference Between Justification in the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace

As in the covenant of works, if man had constantly kept the stipulation, that is, the law of God, he should have obtained for himself federal righteousness, which is righteousness from works according to the covenant; even so in the covenant of grace, he that agreeth unto the stipulation thereof, that is, he that believeth with true faith, is also justified, which is to say, he obtaineth the true righteousness of the covenant of grace, which cometh by faith through Jesus Christ.

II. Of the Great Difference in Righteousness

Therefore, there appeareth straightway a great difference betwixt the righteousness of the covenant of works and the righteousness of the covenant of grace. For:

  1. In the covenant of works, man should have been justified as perfectly holy; but in the covenant of grace, the ungodly is justified (Romans 4:5).
  2. In the covenant of works, righteousness should have been proper unto man and dwelling within him; but in the covenant of grace, it is the righteousness of another, imputed unto him.
  3. In the covenant of works, man should have been justified by works; but in the covenant of grace, he is justified by faith (Romans 4:4-5; 3:27).
  4. In the covenant of works, there should have been only the obtaining of a right and claim to demand the reward, that is, eternal life; but in the covenant of grace, two things are required: firstly, the remission of sins; secondly, the right unto the reward, which is eternal life. For we must needs obtain both the forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified (Acts 26:18).
  5. In the covenant of works, no man was justified; but in the covenant of grace, all that are in the covenant are justified.

III. Of the Term “Justify”

The word “justify” is a barbarous term, from which we ought to abstain if we would speak with accuracy and orthodoxy. For hence hath arisen the confusion of justification with sanctification, and hence the error concerning the perfection of man’s nature. Wherefore, it should rather be said “to absolve” or “to declare righteous,” as the best Latin authors do speak. In the Hebrew tongue, it is called hitsdiq(Deuteronomy 25:1; Proverbs 17:15), which is set against hirshia, meaning to condemn or to pronounce unjust. In the Greek, it is dikaioō, which is opposed to katakrinō (Romans 8:33). Thus, these words hitsdiq and dikaioō are forensic, and signify nothing else but to absolve or to declare righteous, even as a defendant in a court is absolved and freed from punishment by the sentence of the judge.

IV. Of the Papists’ Confusion of Justification and Sanctification

The Papists do most wickedly confound justification with sanctification, as though to justify and to sanctify were one and the same, whereas they differ as heaven from earth. For:

  1. To sanctify is to make a man holy and godly, who aforetime was ungodly, by a true change and amendment of the mind; but to justify worketh no change in the mind of man itself, but only signifieth to declare a man righteous, to absolve him, or to free him from punishment.
  2. Hitsdiq and dikaioō are set against hirshia and katakrinō. But these latter words signify not to make a man worse by any change of mind, but only to declare him wicked and worthy of punishment, or to condemn him; even so, hitsdiqand dikaioō say not to make a man better or holier by any change, but only to declare him innocent, not worthy of punishment, or to absolve him (Deuteronomy 25:1; Proverbs 17:15; Romans 8:33).
  3. God is said to abhor him that justifieth the wicked (Proverbs 17:15); but He would not abhor him that maketh a wicked man holy and godly, but rather him that absolveth a wicked and guilty man as though he were innocent.
  4. Righteousness is distinguished from holiness; for Christ is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1 Corinthians 1:30), where something other is meant by righteousness than by sanctification, else Paul should be guilty of vain repetition.
  5. Even Bellarmine himself confesseth that justification is taken for the declaration of righteousness in a forensic sense (De Justificatione, Book 1, Chapter 1).

V. Of Arguments Against the Papist Confusion

Arguments against the Papists in regards to this:

  1. The place in 1 Corinthians 6:11, “But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified,” doth rather overthrow than uphold the opinion of the Papists; for justification is manifestly distinguished from sanctification. Otherwise, it should be vain repetition, as if he had said, “But ye are sanctified, but ye are sanctified,” which were absurd.
  2. It followeth not that because God justifieth the ungodly (Romans 4:5), therefore he is justified by inherent righteousness, which is sanctification; nay, rather the contrary followeth: for if the ungodly be justified, it is because he is absolved by the grace of God, albeit by nature he be not holy, but ungodly and worthy of punishment.
  3. It is false that the justification whereby we are justified can be increased; neither is it proved from Revelation 22:11, “He that is righteous, let him be righteous still.” For it is not said that this justification is increased; but it must be understood as the declaration of justification through a holy life, as if he said, “He that is justified, let him show by holiness of life that he is truly righteous.” For unless he justify himself before men by holiness of life, he cannot be said to be justified or absolved from sin before God. Moreover, in the same place, sanctification is distinguished from justification, for it is added, “He that is holy, let him be holy still”; else, as we have said, it were vain repetition. And some copies have, “He that is justified, let him do righteousness still.”
  4. This argument proceedeth not: The ministers of the church justify men (Daniel 12:3, “They that turn many to righteousness”); but they justify not by absolving, but by leading to holiness through preaching; therefore to justify is to sanctify. For ministers are said to justify by leading men to faith in Christ, through which they are justified.
  5. From the words of Paul, “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Romans 5:18-19), it followeth not: We are made sinners by inherent sin; therefore we are made righteous by inherent righteousness or holiness. For firstly, the likeness standeth in the thing itself and in the author of sin and justification, to wit, whosoever are unjust, they are made so by Adam; so whosoever are just, they are made so by Jesus Christ. Secondly, we are unjust and sinners also by the imputation of Adam’s sin, not only by inherent corruption; so we are just by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, not by sanctification.

VI. Of the Efficient Cause of Justification

The efficient cause of our justification, or, to speak more in the Latin manner, the supreme Judge by whom we are absolved, is God alone. For:

  1. He is the only Lawgiver, who can save and destroy (James 4:12).
  2. God alone forgiveth sins (Mark 2:7).
  3. It is God that justifieth (Romans 8:33).