Jerome Zanchi On Union With Christ And Justification

By J. V. Fesko

John Calvin (1509-64) 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] 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 pore over his writings. 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. [2] Among those who have presented Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ, a number of claims have arisen concerning the doctrine of justification. These claims are relevant and set the stage for the subject of this essay: Jerome Zanchi’s view of union with Christ with special attention to the doctrine of justification.

Recent Claims Regarding Calvin And Union With Christ

Richard Gaffin has argued that Calvin did not have an ordo salutis per se, as one would find in later Reformed dogmatics, but that union with Christ was his ordo. Gaffin claims that justification and sanctification are simultaneously given through union with Christ. Therefore, justification does not have any sort of priority as is typically assumed—that is, justification has logical priority over sanctification as being the chief benefit of redemption in Christ. [3] Gaffin has been followed in this approach by several of his former students: Craig Carpenter, Mark Garcia, and William Evans. Craig Carpenter argues: “Calvin’s ordo salutis does not require the logical or temporal priority of a forensic act to a renovative act.” [4] Mark Garcia carries the un-prioritized view of justification forward, arguing that the simultaneity of justification and sanctification received in union with Christ makes union, not justification, the more fundamental category for Calvin. Among the evidence that Garcia brings forward is the claim that Reformed theologians do not use cause and effect language to discuss the relationship between justification and sanctification—such language is the hallmark of classical Lutheran theology. Lutherans, argues Garcia, hold justification and sanctification in a cause and effect relationship, whereas Reformed theologians have both justification and sanctification flowing from union with Christ. [5]

William Evans argues the same point that union with Christ, and not justification, is the more fundamental category in Calvin’s thought. [6] The problem Evans sees is that Calvin’s formulation all but perished after his death. Reformed orthodox theologians employed the ordo salutis instead of union with Christ. Evans identifies Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562) and Jerome Zanchi (1516-90) as two chief culprits among those who vitiated Calvin’s formulation. Evans treats Vermigli and Zanchi very briefly but seems to be unaware that both articulated their own doctrines of union with Christ. [7] Evans closes his study by expressing the dogmatic relevance for his historical theological research. He expresses his agreement with Gaffin’s understanding of union with Christ. He also 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.” [8] Evans 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.” [9] Evans is clear: Reformed theology must return to Calvin’s un-prioritized view of justification and sanctification; the ordo salutis must be set aside.

In this brief survey of recent claims regarding Calvin and his doctrine of union with Christ, the following points have surfaced that are relevant for this essay: (1) Calvin’s fundamental soteriological doctrine is union with Christ, which takes priority over both justification and sanctification; (2) Calvin does not view justification as the source of sanctification, but rather union with Christ as the source of both; (3) the impression is given that union was not as important for the likes of Zanchi as it was for Calvin; and (4) Lutheran theologians use cause and effect language to describe the relationship between justification and sanctification, whereas Reformed theologians do not.

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 gives union with Christ a greater structural 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 Ephesians 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 Ephesians 5 to union with Christ, but Zanchi definitely places greater emphasis upon it than does Calvin, as evidenced by his locus on the subject. [10] 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. The thesis of this essay is that union with Christ was a key element of Zanchi’s soteriology but that he maintained the priority of justification by faith alone in his soteriology and employed causal language. Zanchi did not think union with Christ and according priority to justification were contradictory; rather, he saw them as complementary and necessary. This essay will show 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 for further reason to explore his views.

Biographical Sketch Of Zanchi

The influence of the Italian Reformers such as Peter Martyr Vermigli and Zanchi has not received as much attention as other Reformed luminaries from the same timeframe. [11] 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. [12] Zanchi labored as a lecturer in Old Testament at Strasbourg from 1553-1563, 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 (1534-83). [13] One of the reasons Zanchi was called to teach at Heidelberg was to restore the reputation established by Martin Bucer (1491-1551), Calvin, and Vermigli. In the wake of the controversies between the Lutherans and the Reformed and the crisis of the Augsburg Interim, he was hired. [14] Hence, Zanchi’s credentials as a Reformed theologian were impeccable. He was well-schooled in Reformed theology, not only having been trained by Vermigli, but also because he studied with Calvin in Geneva for some ten months. [15] 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. [16]

However, this is not to suggest that he was a Calvin clone. [17] 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. [18] In fact, some have argued that Zanchi, along with Theodore Beza (1519-1605) and Vermigli, had a greater influence upon the formation of Reformed doctrine than did Calvin. [19] Zanchi’s influence certainly reached into sixteenth-century English Reformed theology when William Perkins (1558-1602) prepared a translation of Zanchi’s work on perseverance and included it in his own work, A Case of Conscience (1595). [20]

This biographical thumbnail sketch should give the reader a context for appreciating the work of this key Reformed theologian.

Zanchi’s Key Works For Exploring Union With Christ

In the exploration of Zanchi’s doctrine of union with Christ, two key works will be employed: his De religione Christiana fides (Confession of Christian Religion) and his locus from his Ephesians commentary on the doctrine. The latter is especially helpful because that is where his 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. [21] Combined, both works render an accurate portrait of Zanchi’s doctrine of union with Christ. [22] Therefore, the rest of the essay will proceed with an exploration of (1) the general contours of Zanchi’s doctrine; (2) the specific elements of the doctrine in terms of the place of regeneration and effectual calling, justification and sanctification; and (3) how Zanchi relates union with Christ to eschatology.

General Contours Of Zanchi’s Doctrine Of Union With Christ

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 question of the placement of a theologian’s doctrine of predestination. [23] To explore the placement of Zanchi’s doctrine is not an effort to a Centraldogma in Zanchi’s theology, but rather to understand its relationship to the rest of his soteriology. In Zanchi’s Confession, he 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: [24]

Zanchi	Second Helvetic Confession
Scripture	Scripture (Interpretation of Scripture)
God (foreknowledge and predestination)	God (images of God)
God’s omnipotence Creation Providence Original sin Free will in fallen man Promise of salvation Law	Christ as mediator Providence Creation Fall and sin Free will Predestination
Christ the Redeemer Union with Christ Gospel Sacraments Faith, hope, and love Repentance Justification Free will in the regenerate Good works Invocation and oath	Christ as redeemer Law Gospel Repentance Justification Faith and good works
Church in general Church militant Church government and offices	Magistrates Church Offices Sacraments Baptism Lord’s Supper Worship Prayer and Singing Holy days and fasting Catechesis and pastoral care of the sick
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.

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. [25] Bullinger affirmed the importance of union with Christ; for example, in his Decades’ sermon on the holy catholic church, he writes: “Christ our Lord is joined unto us in spirit, 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 not the true and lively members of Christ.” [26] In his 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.” [27] Bullinger addresses union with Christ, but the doctrine does not take on the structural emphasis for him 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.” [28] So, while Bullinger would agree 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.

Zanchi has a threefold understanding of this important doctrine. The first is Christ’s incarnation; the second is the assumption of believers into grace and uniting them into one mystical body (2 Pet. 1:4); and the third is the assumption of believers into everlasting glory. [29] In one sense, Zanchi’s understanding encompasses all of redemptive history, from the incarnation to the consummation. Zanchi begins with the incarnation because “[w]e cannot be united unto Christ, unless he first is united to us.” [30] Hence, by becoming man, Christ unites with humankind. But to what end does Christ unite 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.” By the everlasting will of God the Father, the Son became incarnate that He might purge man of sin. In His incarnation, Christ perfectly fulfilled the law of God, being obedient unto death, and suffered as the sacrifice for our sins. [31]

Out of the incarnational union, argues Zanchi, the second kind of union emerges—namely, the mystical union that exists between Christ and His elect. 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. [32] Zanchi is careful to distinguish this, especially in the wake of the controversies surrounding the views of Andreas Osiander (1534-1604), who said that believers and Christ become one in nature. But 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 the mystical union between Christ and the elect is brought about in the same manner. [33]

Zanchi explains this further in his locus 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: “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.” [34] 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.” [35] In other words, his appeal to Cyril is illustrative, not precise or exact.

Zanchi explains that the union between Christ and the believer is by faith and therefore spiritual; Christ’s presence in the believer is spiritual, not physical. 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 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. [36]

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 he teaches the same point found in Cyril. Hilary explains that the father and the son are one by unity of nature and essence, [37] and argues that the union that believers share with Christ is not only spiritual but natural; 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 me and I in him’ (John 6:56-57). It is no longer permitted us to raise doubts about 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 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. [38]

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. [39] But that is a question best left for another venue. It is important that in Zanchi’s appeal to Hilary—or to Cyril, for that matter—he repeatedly emphasizes that the union is spiritual. It is natural that Zanchi would make such an appeal, as he saw the goal of the Eucharist as the same as preaching, namely, eternal life through mystical union with Christ, the God-man. [40]

Zanchi explains, “How is his flesh eaten? By faith.” [41] 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.” [42] 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). [43]

Zanchi clearly specifies that Christ’s nature does not mix with the believer’s. To borrow language from the christological controversies, which is appropriate given Zanchi’s appeal to Christology, the union between Christ and the church is not Monophysite, nor is it Nestorian. Rather, each retains its own distinct nature while united together by the bond of the Holy Spirit in one holy union. [44]

There is one last point worth noting, namely, the emphasis 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 brought about by the Spirit through faith. [45] At first glance, it may not be immediately evident as to why he stresses these points. However, examination of his 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.” [46] Zanchi has the Roman Catholic understanding of the sacraments in view, namely, that they function ex opere operato. [47] This is an important point because, contrary to those who argue that union with Christ was something unique to Reformed theology, Reformed, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic theologians all spoke of union with Christ. [48]

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, accompanies, and follows their good works.” [49] 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 Christ 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.” [50] In contrast to Roman Catholic views, Zanchi was emphasizing sola fide. In other words, both Trent and the Reformers believed that soteriology consisted 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 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.

Union With Christ Dissected

Predestination And Union

Zanchi does not begin either his treatise on union or his Confession with the doctrine of predestination; the central dogma theory has been thoroughly critiqued and demonstrated to be an inadequate explanation of the theology of Reformed theologians. [51] In this regard, scholars have shown the coordination between the doctrine of election and Christology. Richard Muller notes concerning Zanchi’s theology, “Christology and Christ-centered piety pervade his system of doctrine.” [52] This is certainly evident in Zanchi’s doctrine of union with Christ: “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.” [53] 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. [54]

Regeneration And Effectual Calling

As we look at Zanchi’s understanding of regeneration, it should be noted that he saw applied soteriology as 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), appealing 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, likewise a person must first possess faith and then embrace Christ as husband. [55] 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).” [56]

Hence, while Zanchi sees soteriology as falling under the rubric of union with Christ, he distinguishes between regeneration as the 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 union with Christ: “But this consent cannot be but that in the man that is already in some sort regenerate and quickened by the Holy Spirit.” [57] 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.” [58] 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: [59]

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. [60]

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 sees only the perfect righteousness of Christ because the sinner has been engrafted into Him. [61] In a word, sinners are justified, declared righteous, because they are united to Christ. But Zanchi does distinguish how 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.” [62] At first glance, Zanchi does not appear to privilege or prioritize imputed over inherent righteousness. But in what follows, Zanchi explains how imputed righteousness takes priority over inherent righteousness; justification has priority over sanctification.

Zanchi explains that the doctrine of justification by faith alone involves the remission of sins and imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. [63] In other words, justification is purely forensic in nature. It does not change a person’s being but only his state—it is not transformative or renovative as with sanctification. He explains further that the sinner’s status coram Deo always rests upon his justification rather than his 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.” [64] This brings two important concomitants.

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.” [65]

Second, in a number of places, in both his Confession as well as his locus, Zanchi states that sanctification is the effect of justification. [66] This is not to say that Zanchi believed that justification somehow generates sanctification and thereby loses its forensic quality; rather, he holds, in terms of Aristotelian metaphysical distinctions common to Reformation and post-Reformation theology of all stripes (Reformed, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic), both the priority of justification over sanctification as well as the inseparability of both. [67] 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. [68] 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.” [69]

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 he assigns to justification is logical, not temporal or chronological. The theological debates between the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformed 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 his defense of imputation, he appeals to Romans 5, particularly verse 19: “so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” Zanchi believed that the parallel between Adam and Christ established 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. [70]

All of those naturally united to Adam received his imputed guilt and all of those united to Christ received 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.” [71] Zanchi states that the mystical is grounded upon the forensic, for apart from the forensic there would be no mystical union. In this respect, he goes as far as to say that justification by faith alone yields eternal life, for just as Adam’s one sin brought eternal death, so Christ’s one act of righteousness brought eternal life. [72] In a word, given that marriage is a key to understanding union with Christ, Zanchi believes that because of what Paul writes in Ephesians 5:22-33, the creation account of Adam and his marriage to Eve must be read christologically. [73] Establishing the doctrine of union with Christ is not merely a question of ontology—deciding whether justification and sanctification have a more fundamental ontological source—but ultimately one of relating soteriology to redemptive history.

Eschatology

In contrast to Roman Catholic views of union with Christ, where the believer could fall out of union through mortal sin, Zanchi believed that union with Christ was a great source of hope for the Christian. [74] 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 is a great source of hope because believers are immutably elected into union with Christ. However, beyond this, in the midst of life’s struggles and trials, Zanchi also takes note 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.” [75] Hence, the believer rests assured that eternal life has been secured by Christ’s works, not his own.

Furthermore, those who are united to Christ share in His resurrection from the dead. [76] Because of their union with Christ, believers have a share in the blessings of their Head not only in this life, but also in that to come. [77] 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 His elect sit in the heavenly places with Him. Zanchi concludes: “Therefore if the husband is Lord of this inferior world, the wife must also be lady and mistress of the same.” [78] John Farthing nicely 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.” [79]

Conclusion

In this brief exploration 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. Rather, he 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, and the centrality of union with Christ—stand in stark contrast to the conclusions that Gaffin, Carpenter, Garcia, and Evans reach. These conclusions show that at least in one case, a Reformed theologian does not fit the Calvin mold that these aforementioned authors have shaped. This is not to concede that they have accurately portrayed Calvin’s views; however, at a 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 we 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. 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 while still according justification priority in his soteriology.

Notes

1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, LCC, vols. 20-21 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.23.7; idem, Institutionis Christianae Religionis 1559, in Opera Selecta, eds. Peter Barth and William Niesel, 5 vols. (Munich: Christian Kaiser, 1881), 4.401: “Decretum quidem horribile.”
2. 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., eds. Elise Anne McKee and Brian G. Armstrong (Louisville: 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,” Sixteenth Century Journal 18, 2 (1987): 191-99; Carl Mosser, “The Greatest Possible Blessing: Calvin and Deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 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,” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 50, 2 (2007): 311-28; Merwyn S. Johnson, “Justification and Sanctification in Calvin’s Theology,” Theologische Zeitschrift 11, 4 (2009): 90-104; Mark A. Garcia, “Imputation as Attribution: Union with Christ, Reification and Justification as Declarative Word,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 11, 4 (2009): 415-27; J. Todd Billings, “John Calvin’s Soteriology: On the Multifaceted ‘Sum’ of the Gospel,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 11, 4 (2009): 428-47.
3. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards,” Westminster Theological Journal 65, 2 (2003): 176-77.
4. Craig Carpenter, “A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification,” Westminster Theological Journal 64, 2 (2002): 381.
5. Mark A. Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology, e.g., 250, 264, 267 n. 24.
6. William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation (Eugene: Paternoster and Wipf & Stock, 2008), 38-40.
7. Ibid., 49-50.
8. Ibid., 262.
9. Ibid., 264-65.
10. John L. Farthing, “De coniugio spirituali: Jerome Zanchi on Ephesians 5.22-33,” Sixteenth Century Journal 24, 3 (1993): 646-48; John Calvin, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, CNTC, eds., David W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (1965; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 204-05; idem, Opera Exegetica, ed. Helmut Feld (Geneva: Droz, 1992), 16.265-66.
11. For a general survey, see John Tedeschi, “Italian Reformers and the Diffusion of Renaissance Culture,” Sixteenth Century Journal 5, 2 (1974): 79-94.
12. Philip McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy: An Anatomy of Apostasy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 229.
13. Christopher J. Burchill, “Girolamo Zanchi: Portrait of a Reformed Theologian and His Work,” Sixteenth Century Journal 15, 2 (1984): 1, 18.
14. Ibid., 6.
15. John Patrick Donnelly, “Italian Influences on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism,” Sixteenth Century Journal 7/1 (1976): 88; Joseph N. Tylenda, “Girolamo Zanchi and John Calvin: A Study in Discipleship as Seen Through Their Correspondence,” Calvin Theological Journal 10, 2 (1975): 104; Burchill, “Girolamo Zanchi,” 17 n. 11.
16. 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 Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: OUP, 2000), 216 n. 16. See Girolamo Zanchi, Compendium praecipuorum capitum Doctrinae Christianae, in Opera Theologica, 8 vols. (Geneva: 1605), 8.621-828.
17. Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 111.
18. Burchill, “Girolamo Zanchi,” 25.
19. Donnelly, “Italian Influences,” 82; also John S. Bray, Theodore Beza’s Doctrine of Predestination (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1985), 135-36.
20. Burchill, “Girolamo Zanchi,” 1, 17.
21. Muller, Christ and the Decree, 115; Girolamo Zanchi, De religione Christiana Fides–Confession of Christian Religion, 2 vols., eds. Luca Baschera and 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 vols., ed. A. H. Hartog, Bibliotheca Reformata, vol. 5 (Amsterdam: 1888). The English translations from both works have been updated in all quotations.
22. 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, eds., Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 292-312; Girolamo Zanchi, Commentaium in Hoseam prophetam, in Opera Theologica, 5.1-207).
23. Cf. e.g., Otto Gründler, “Thomism and Calvinism 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.
24. Baschera and Moser, eds., De religione, 1.26-28.
25. Second Helvetic Confession 15.4.
26. Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 3.24. “Proinde spiritu coniungitur nobis Christus Dominus, nos animo & fide ei connectimur, veluti corpus capiti: quo nexu & vinculo carentes, id est, non habentes spiritum Christi neque veram in Christum fidem, vera & viva Christi membra non sunt” (Heinrich Bullinger, 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]).
27. Ibid.; 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]).
28. 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 koinwni/a|.”
29. Ibid., 12.5 (1.234-35).
30. Ibid., 12.4 (1.232-33): “Nos non posse Christo, nisi ipsi prior sese nobis uniat.”
31. Ibid., 12.6 (1.234-35): “Sicut union prima facta est, ut expiarentur peccata, sic secundum fieri, ut expiationis huius fiamus participes.”
32. Ibid., 12.6 (1.234-37).
33. Ibid., 12.7 (1.236-37).
34. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 78; idem, Commentarius, 2.358: “Num quemadmodum, si quis igne liquefactam ceram aliae cerae similieter liquefactae ita miscuerit, ut unum quid ex utrisque factum videatur: sic communicatione corporis et sanguine Christi ipse in nobis est et nos in ipso?” Zanchi quotes Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, 2 vols., trans. P. E. Pusey and T. Randell (Oxford: James Parker & Co., 1874), 10.2 (2.370).
35. Ibid.: “Similie (ut dici solet) non currit quatuor pedes.”
36. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 81-82; idem, Commentarius, 2.359: “Quid igitur sibi voluit Cyrillus illo simili cerae? Nil aliud, quam sicut re ipsa cera incorporatur cerae, ita ut e duabus una fiat massa cerae: sic etiam now revera ipsi Christo adeoque carnem nostram carni incorporari, ita ut e duabus una fiat caro, juxta illud, Erunt duo in caren unam: id quod Paulus de conjugio inter Christum et Ecclesiam interpretatur. Non ergo ad modum unionis torquenda sunt verba Cyrilli, sed de rebus quae uniuntur, et quod vere et reipsa uniantur caro nostra et caro Christi, imo nos toti cum tot Christo, intelligenda sunt. Caoeterum modus spiritualis est.”
37. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 82; idem, Commentarius, 2.359-60.
38. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 83-84; idem, Commentarius, 2.360: “Ipse n. ait, Caro mea vere est cibus et sanguis meus vere est potus. Quicarnem meam edit et sanguinem meum bibit, in me manet et ego in illo. De veritate carnis et sanguinis non relictus est ambigendi locus: nunc enim et ipsius Domini professione et etiam fide nostra vere car est et vere sanguis est. Et haec accepta atque hausta id efficient, ut et nos in Christo et Christus in nobis sit. Anne hoc veritatis non est? Continget plane iis verum non esse, qui Christum Jesum verum esse Deum negant. Est ergo ipse in nobis per carnem et sumus in eo, dum secume hoc, quod nos sumus, in Deo est.” 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).
39. See Edward J. Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998), 11-14, 75-77.
40. John L. Farthing, “Patristics, Exegesis, and the Eucharist in the Theology of Girolamo Zanchi,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, eds., R. Scott Clark and Carl R. Trueman (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999), 94-95.
41. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 82; idem, Commentarius, 2.359: “Sed quomodo editur? fide.”
42. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 84; idem, Commentarius, 2.360: “Liquet igitur etiam ex Hilario veram nostram et naturalem carnem cum vera ac naturali carne Christi conjungi in hoc spirituali conjugio, de quo disserimus.”
43. Zanchi, De religione, 12.8 (1.236-39): “Quia per Christi Spiritum, nos licet in terris existentes, cum Christi corpore, sanguine, et anima in caelo regnantibus, cúmque natura ipsius divina in nobis manente, reapse & verè copulamur: usque adeò, ut mysticum hoc corpus ex Christo tanquam capite, et ex fidelibus tanquam membris cohaerens, nonnunquam Christus simpliciter appelletur. Tanta est Christi cum suis fidelibus, et horum cum Christo coniunctio: ut haud malè dici quodam modo posse videatur, sicut prima unio facta fuit ex duabus naturis in una persona: ita hanc fieri ex multis personis, in unam ceu naturam: iuxta illa dicta, ut divinae efficeremini consortes naturae: et Sumus membra corporis eius, ex ossibus eius et ex carne eius.”
44. Ibid., 12.13-14 (1.242-43); Farthing, “De coniugio,” 634.
45. Zanchi, De religione, 12.14-17 (1.242-49).
46. Ibid., 12.19 (1.250-51): “Improbamus igitur eorum errorem, qui per opus ut vocant, operatum absque fide, et absque vera cum Christo unitione, docent remissionem peccatorum, salutémque hominibus communicari.”
47. Ibid., 12.19 (1.250 n. 187).
48. Cf. Carpenter, “A Question of Union with Christ?” 363-86; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 3.220. Carpenter characterizes Trent as making 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 vols. (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 vols., 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.
49. Dogmatic Degrees of the Council of Trent (1545–63), sess. 6, chp. 16, in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 3 vols., eds. Jaroslav Pelikan and 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 vols. [1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990], 2.108).
50. Catechism of the Council of Trent (Rockford: Tan Books, 1982), 188. “Iam vero per baptismum etiam Christo capiti tanquam membra copulamur et connectimur. Quemadmodum igitur a capite vis manat, qua singulae corporis parles ad proprias fundiónos apte exsequendas. moventur: ita etiam ex Christi Domini plenitudine in omnes, qui iustificantur, divina virlus et gratia diflunditur, quac nos ad omnia Christianae pictatis officia habiles reddit” (Catechismus ex Decreto Consilii Tridentini [Lipsiae, 1856], q. 51 [p. 153]).
51. See, e.g., Muller, Christ and the Decree, 110-26.
52. Ibid., 121.
53. Zanchi, De religione, 12.2 (1.230-31): “Omnibus quidem gratiam redemptionis et salutem serio offerri, reipsa tamen, non nisi electis, qui unum cum Christo fiant, communicari.”
54. Ibid., 17.5 (1.338-41).
55. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 22; idem, Commentarius, 2.340.
56. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 67; idem, Commentarius, 2.354: “Ergo consensus iste necessaries est ad conjugium hoc cum Christo reipsa contrahendum. Per fidem enim fimus una caro cum illo: eoque dicitur Christus per fidem habitare in cordibus nostris (Eph. 2).”
57. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 67-68; Commentarius, 2.354: “Hic vero consensus non nisi in homine jam per Spiritum Sanctum utcunque regenerato et vivificato esse potest.”
58. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 68; Commentarius, 2.354-55: “Proinde quicunque vere fide donati sunt, in eis fatendum est inchoatam esse regenerationem: quae postea indies per incrementum Spiritus magis ac magis perficitur. Quid enim homo mortuus valet ad opera vitae? Credere autem in Christum et consentire in connubium hoc spirituale opus est vitae.”
59. Zanchi, De religione, 17-21 (1.318-71).
60. 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. [Phillipsburg: 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.
61. Zanchi, De religione, 19.1 (1.334-35).
62. Ibid., 19.2 (1.334-37): “Credimus porrò, qui iam propter Christum, cui per Spiritum sanctum insitus est, iustus censetur, veréque iustus est, consecutus iam in Christo remissionem peccatorum, & imputationem iustitiae eius: eundem statim etiam dono iustitiae inhaerentis affici, ut non solùm in Christo capite perfectissimè & plenissimè iustus sit, sed etiam in seipso veram habeat iustitiam, qua fiat Christo reipsa conformis.”
63. Ibid., 19.2 (1.336-37); Farthing, “De coniugio,” 642.
64. Zanchi, De religione, 19.3 (1.338-39): “Confitemur interim, hanc iustitiam inhaerentem ita esse nostro vitio imperfectam, ut illa Christi iustitia sola, qua nobis non imputantur peccata, non solùm initio conversionis, cum ex impiis fimus pii, verùm etiam post in finem usque vitae verè iusti fiamus coram Deo, et pro iustis haberi possimus.”
65. Ibid.,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.”
66. Ibid., 19.5 (1.340-41), 21.4 (1.362-63); idem, Spiritual Marriage, 134; idem, Commentarius, 2.378.
67. Farthing, “De coniugio,” 643. On the question of metaphysics in Reformed theology, see Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 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 Mastricht, 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.
68. Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.6.
69. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 134; idem, Commentarius, 2.378: “Istae porro duae communicandi 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.”
70. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 30; idem Commentarius, 3.342-43: “Fundamentum hoc ante a nobis jactum firmiter retinendum est: sicut duo ab Apostolo constituuntur Adami, primus et secundus, terrenus et coelestis, tanquam duo prima principia humani generis, unum secundum carnem alterum secundum Spiritum: ita etiam duplex, ex ipsa Mosis historia, ab eodem constitutum ess conjugium: primum ac secundum: carnale ac spirituale: unum ad hominess simpliciter in hoc mundo propagandos, alterum ad regnum coeleste filiis Dei replendum.”
71. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 136-37; idem Commentarius, 3.378: “Utraque enim obedientiae pars, quae a Christo realiter praestita est, nobis per imputationem communicatur, vereque nostra jure conjugii fit: quando Christus totus, quantus quantus est, nobiscum factus est una caro, et nos vicissim cum illo.”
72. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 138-39; idem Commentarius, 2.379; also idem, De religione, 12.1 (1.230-31).
73. Farthing, “De coniugio,” 625.
74. 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.
75. Zanchi, De religione, 19.4 (1.338-39): “Perfectam autem Christi iustitiam ita imputari persuasum habeat, ut propterea vitam aeternam non minus sibi deberi, quam debebatur Christo, omnino sentiat eoque vere ex gratia et non suis operibus eam deberis intelligat.”
76. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 114; idem, Commentarius, 3.371.
77. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 129; idem, Commentarius, 2.376.
78. Zanchi, Spiritual Marriage, 130; idem, Commentarius, 2.376.
79. Farthing, “Eschatology of Zanchi,” 341.