Search Results

Chapter 3 explains, in depth, Martin Bucer’s doctrine of justification in his Romans Commentary of 1536. This chapter demonstrates how the Socratic dictum “To know the good is to do the good” is paradigmatic for Bucer’s soteriology, which illuminates the importance of his intellectualizing view of faith and its relation to works. Within this framework the previous attempt to describe his doctrine as double justification is shown as problematic. This chapter also explores Bucer’s epistemological, anthropological, and psychological perspectives.

Chapter 4 explores the moderate Catholic view of justification in Johannes Gropper’s Enchiridion of 1538. Gropper was instrumental in formulating the agreements on justification reached at Worms in 1540–1541 and Regensburg in 1541. Understanding his view is illuminative of Bucer’s influence in the article. This chapter shows how Gropper’s view of incorporation into Christ within the sacramental structures (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, and penance) of the church is important for understanding his soteriology.

A Venetian diplomat, who late in life was made a cardinal by Pope Paul III, Gasparo Contarini favored mild policies aimed at reconciling dissident Protestants with the Catholic Church. At the Colloquy of Regensburg in 1541, Contarini supported the doctrine of double justification (or double justice), which was later rejected by the Council of Trent. Contarini believed this doctrine to be an acceptable compromise formulation that attempted to preserve the best of traditional Catholic teaching concerning grace in combination with the most persuasive elements of the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone.

This chapter sets out to trace the origin of the idea of double righteousness (duplex iustitia) that underlies Article 5. It examines various versions of duplex iustitia teaching prior to the Regensburg Colloquy, especially that of Luther, Pighius, Gropper, and Bucer. It then traces the approach to the idea after the colloquy, looking especially at Contarini, Gropper, Luther, Bucer, Calvin, and the Tridentine Decree on Justification. It then contrasts double righteousness with double justification. The latter has three distinct meanings. There is the Catholic contrast between the initial justification of the ungodly and the subsequent justification of the godly; there is the idea of the justification of works as well as persons, held by both Protestants and Catholics; there is the idea of the double formal cause of justification, held by Contarini and Gropper. None of these is found in Article 5.

Reginald Pole was a cousin of Henry VIII of England, papal legate to the Council of Trent, and the last Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of Mary Tudor. He supported the General of the Augustinian Order, Girolamo Seripando, in his advocacy of the doctrine of double justification. Although he had identified with reform currents in the Catholic Church and argued for milder policies aimed at eventual reconciliation with Protestants, he was archbishop during Mary's severe persecution of English Protestants and immortalized by John Foxe in his famous martyrology.

In 1541, at the Regensburg Colloquy, three leading Protestant theologians (Melanchthon, Bucer, and Pistorius) and three leading Catholic theologians (Eck, Gropper, and Pflug) debated with the aim of producing a joint statement of belief. The colloquy eventually failed, but it began with a statement on justification by faith agreed by all the parties, “Article 5,” which had led to an initial burst of optimism. But from the beginning there were two contrasting reactions to Article 5. Some, notably Calvin, maintained that it contained the substance of true doctrine; others, notably Luther, called it an inconsistent patchwork. These two rival assessments have both persisted over the centuries. The aim of this book is to decide between them.